Gus is a gun. Game time a afl level is what he needs to find his 2015 form. Roos and co obviously see it that way too

4 minutes ago, stuie said:

After the Bombers game (We picked underdone players, we'll learn from it), after the Saints game (We picked the wrong players for the ground, we'll learn from it), after the Bulldogs game (In hindsight another tall would have been good), After the Port game (I've got to take responsibility for not making more changes for this week. We spoke about it at match committee).

There's 4 examples.

 

I'd be more impressed with the importance of selection errors if people could point to selection errors in games that we won.    As others have said, there is a lot more to a loss or victory than selection errors.

21 minutes ago, stuie said:

After the Bombers game (We picked underdone players, we'll learn from it), after the Saints game (We picked the wrong players for the ground, we'll learn from it), after the Bulldogs game (In hindsight another tall would have been good), After the Port game (I've got to take responsibility for not making more changes for this week. We spoke about it at match committee).

There's 4 examples.

 

Yeah but none of those were the reasons we lost. Selection is overrated as a determining factor in games.

11 hours ago, Ricky P said:

Yeah but none of those were the reasons we lost. Selection is overrated as a determining factor in games.

We were flat against Essendon, Roos said as much. We're a better team than them. We lost.

We beat GWS at Etihad in the one game we've won there in 24 tries with a fresh, small and quick team, we didn't do any of that against the Saints. We're a better team than them. We lost.

Bulldogs are clearly a better team than us. Might not have made a difference.

We're probably even with Port. Once again we didn't go with fresh legs. We lost.

Sure, it's not the only factor that determines winning or losing, but it's hardly "overrated" given it's the players who play the game, and the players you select influence how the team plays.

3 minutes ago, stuie said:

Really?

We were flat against Essendon, Roos said as much. We're a better team than them. We lost.

We beat GWS at Etihad in the one game we've won there in 24 tries with a fresh, small and quick team, we didn't do any of that against the Saints. We're a better team than them. We lost.

Bulldogs are clearly a better team than us. Might not have made a difference.

We're probably even with Port. Once again we didn't go with fresh legs. We lost.

Sure, it's not the only factor that determines winning or losing, but it's hardly "overrated" given it's the players who play the game, and the players you select influence how the team plays.

 

Mindset/attitude cost us against Essendon. Execution of the gameplan cost us against St Kilda. Doggies just better than us as u say. Didn't see the Port game - was overseas.

Put is this way - the hand-wringing over selection that goes on here is in no way commensurate with the influence selection actually has over the outcome.

Just now, Ricky P said:

Mindset/attitude cost us against Essendon. Execution of the gameplan cost us against St Kilda. Doggies just better than us as u say. Didn't see the Port game - was overseas.

Put is this way - the hand-wringing over selection that goes on here is in no way commensurate with the influence selection actually has over the outcome.

Mindset of the players playing.

Execution by the players playing.

Well Christian is excited. 

christian petracca ‏@cpetracca7  5h5 hours ago

First time together in the red and blue @angusbrayshaw_ . Can't wait brother

 

By the way where is Garland? Still injured or can't get back in

2 minutes ago, dees189227 said:

Well Christian is excited. 

christian petracca ‏@cpetracca7  5h5 hours ago

First time together in the red and blue @angusbrayshaw_ . Can't wait brother

 

By the way where is Garland? Still injured or can't get back in

Looking at the formatting of this post, it looks like Trac is asking about Garlands whereabouts...

In answer to your (or Christian's) question, he's progressing in the twos) 

Just now, stuie said:

Mindset of the players playing.

Execution by the players playing.

That's of the 22 players that were playing.  One or two different players isn't going to change much, nor will it have any real impact on the result.  The loss to Essendon could have been avoided by not playing Brayshaw?  How do we know the replacement player would have played any better or worse?  It's all hearsay. 

 

4 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

That's of the 22 players that were playing.  One or two different players isn't going to change much, nor will it have any real impact on the result.  The loss to Essendon could have been avoided by not playing Brayshaw?  How do we know the replacement player would have played any better or worse?  It's all hearsay. 

 

Let's just throw a dart at the team list to pick a 22 going forward then hey? I mean, it's all up to chance right?

 

Just now, stuie said:

Let's just throw a dart at the team list to pick a 22 going forward then hey? I mean, it's all up to chance right?

 

I'm not saying that mate.  If we look at the Bombers game, as an example, practically the whole team was off.  That wasn't down to selection.  That was down to the mindset of the players.  You can't 'select' for that.  

Just now, Wiseblood said:

I'm not saying that mate.  If we look at the Bombers game, as an example, practically the whole team was off.  That wasn't down to selection.  That was down to the mindset of the players.  You can't 'select' for that.  

It doesn't take much to change the dynamic of a team. It's not about one particular player dragging the rest of the team over the line, it's about the flow on effect of that. You can't predict the future, but you can predict the opposition, the ground and the conditions, so you pick a team that is setup with a dynamic to best handle those factors. The one time we've won at Etihad was the one time we played a short, fresh, quick team, Roos has talked about picking a team for the conditions and he went against that in the St Kilda game and we were absolutely rolled by a team that is not as good as us. You play the safe bets with selection.

3 hours ago, picket fence said:

In fact I reckon this is a disastrous move! A slowish Mid to replace a fast outside runner in Stretch, who, I beleive has been earning his spot! After al that though Still STILL have concerns re Gus Concussions! Sheeit I hope I dont have an "I told you so Moment" I do not like stuffing around with multiple concussions! Would have much preffered Clarry Chho Choo if another mid was needed! I reckon the selectors again have stuffed up! We will see! Surely an ankle injury to O mac will make him slower than what he already is! 

Brayshaw is not slow or slowish whatsoever. 

3 hours ago, DemonOX said:

Definition of insanity = doing the same thing over and over and over again.  

Ffs hopefully they get this right!

Actually the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over agin and expecting a different result

Fremantle might have lost, but they didn't look tired to me after a six-day break and only making two changes.

So what's the requisite number of 'tired' players we need to 'swap out' after a Darwin game? 2? 3? 4? 8? 10? What numbers will make a difference?

Why do you think players can't recover from game that was not particularly hard after 8 days?

Why not the whole 22 just to make sure the whole team is 'fresh'?

18 hours ago, bing181 said:

Oliver still can't get through full games, he's only doing around 60% game time.

For his first season, Oliver has done phenomenally well and is a hugely exciting prospect. But he's still only a kid, and you'd have to expect that at some point the load will start to catch up on him.

I also feel that at least for the moment, Gus (at his best) is a better player than Clarrie (at his best). Only to be expected, he's a year further down the track. In the longer term, who knows, though hopefully both to turn out to be gems.

I think they will provided Gus doesn't cop any further serious knocks Bing.

I still think Clarry has an edge over Gus at this point though based on what i've seen both in the seniors and at Casey recently. Gus just doesn't look right (carry over from concussion issues?) whereas Clarry gets into the right places and spaces and his ball use and decision making is mostly of a very high standard. Probably still handballing a little more than some in the FD might like but just a guess.

Clarry also has 10 games under his belt, Gus only 3 with Gus's last match at senior level against the Toiges in Rnd 5.

Game time Clarry also has the edge over Gus having averaged 67.5% TOG vs Gus @ 64.3% They have both been carefully managed recently so i don't see any issue in that and in fact i think Clarry still has the edge having not had the concussion issue that Gus has had to endure so less of a risk if you like.

Looking at the ranking guide i use (which is just a very rough guide/indicator of comparative output) and based on all games played so far i have Gus ranked 31st of 33 players (with 2 or more games played) and Clarry @ 13. Certainly not suggesting Clarry is that much better, nor do i use that ranking system as my sole basis or see Gus that low over the long haul. But it just reminds me how far i feel Gus is off hitting a decent standard (for him at his stage of development) and IMO i would put him in mothballs,  give him a full pre season to try and make up the ground he has probably lost with his concussion issues so he can come into 2017 fresh and raring to go.

Why risk him further for this year when there's really no point?

It also doesn't need to be Clarry either and certainly not suggesting he should be played continuously for the rest of the year. But there are one or two others that are either ahead of or on similar form to Gus at Casey such as ANB and Newton. Again why risk Gus after such a prolonged outage over concussion?

12 hours ago, stuie said:

After the Bombers game (We picked underdone players, we'll learn from it), after the Saints game (We picked the wrong players for the ground, we'll learn from it), after the Bulldogs game (In hindsight another tall would have been good), After the Port game (I've got to take responsibility for not making more changes for this week. We spoke about it at match committee).

There's 4 examples.

I forgot the bombers game. It was Saints, Dogs and Power I was referencing.

6 minutes ago, big_red_fire_engine said:

I forgot the bombers game. It was Saints, Dogs and Power I was referencing.

Baffles me how people say selection doesn't matter when Roos himself has talked about how much of an influence it has had this year.

 

13 minutes ago, stuie said:

Baffles me how people say selection doesn't matter when Roos himself has talked about how much of an influence it has had this year.

 

Stu I recall Roos saying words to the effect that selection had got it wrong (ie chosen an unfit player or the wrong type of player).

However, I do not recall him saying this had influenced the result.

2 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Stu I recall Roos saying words to the effect that selection had got it wrong (ie chosen an unfit player or the wrong type of player).

However, I do not recall him saying this had influenced the result.

You don't see how Roos reflecting on changes he wishes he made after a loss infers he thinks it might have made a difference?

Not like you to ignore logic just to disagree with me...

About time Jeffy turns up to one of these games.

2 goals in 3 games against the Aints, as a Dee.

 

 

 

38 minutes ago, stuie said:

Baffles me how people say selection doesn't matter when Roos himself has talked about how much of an influence it has had this year.

 

I think he's just giving the players cover. 

Do you really think he believes what he's saying?

Or is it just easier to say 'I'd rather play an 80% fit Stretch than a 100% fit Pedersen' (just using the Dogs/extra tall game as an example and making up names - can't remember specifics. But my point is the same.

Ie, Port game - better to stick with the players I've got, even if not fit, than bring in Grimes/Newton/ANB whoever. Again, can't remember specific details, just making the point.

But he can't admit that!!!

4 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

I think he's just giving the players cover. 

Do you really think he believes what he's saying?

Or is it just easier to say 'I'd rather play an 80% fit Stretch than a 100% fit Pedersen' (just using the Dogs/extra tall game as an example and making up names - can't remember specifics. But my point is the same.

Ie, Port game - better to stick with the players I've got, even if not fit, than bring in Grimes/Newton/ANB whoever. Again, can't remember specific details, just making the point.

But he can't admit that!!!

I think Roos is a pretty straight shooter. He wouldn't go naming individual players, but he would say flat out if the effort wasn't good enough etc.

 

12 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

That's of the 22 players that were playing.  One or two different players isn't going to change much, nor will it have any real impact on the result.  The loss to Essendon could have been avoided by not playing Brayshaw?  How do we know the replacement player would have played any better or worse?  It's all hearsay. 

 

I agree we don't know what influence the replacement players may have had on the day wise but pretty sure replacing the two witches hats on the day (Gus and Kent) with someone who competed for four quarters may have gotten us pretty close to winning that one. Easy to say in hindsight though.

Just looked at the Saints backline - who do they play on Hogan? Dempster? Roberton? If we get it down there enough the big fella should have a day out. He should monster those guys.