41 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

I'm one who fervently believes that coaches and fd's are nought but human and as such that condition suggests they might not be right all the time.

Depending on advice and pet inclinations they are likely on occasions to persist where unfettered, unbiased , unaccountable views would differ.

( And yes i know precisely the words chosen ) 

Sometimes those in the box, and similar places, have vested interests...indeed egos.

Goody is doing OK. Perfect ? far from it. He'd probably agree. Hes new to Senior coaching...the real thing where bucks stop etc. He WILL make mistakes.

Room for betterment can often be described from hindsight. We now have some.

Its from looking back that you better understand looking forward.

The same could be said of posters on footy forums, but they seem unable to not make the same mistake over and over

God I miss the Omac will spend the rest of the year at Casey posts

Edited May 5, 20178 yr by Satyriconhome

7 hours ago, Hell Bent said:

Yep, and as Petracattack said, its ANBs turn for a spell. He has been named as an emergency so its not as though he has been dropped for form, it is simply someone had to go for Hogan. The spell won`t hurt him.

Stretch is also an emergency, you`d expect he would have to play at Casey as I believe he didnt play at all last week would that be right?

Stretch looked buggered in that Richmond game. Wouldn't be against him having another week off and coming in fresh against Adelaide next week.

We really need to come out hard in this one and send them into self preservation mode. Give them a sniff and they still have enough talent to do number on us. Fook I hate them with a passion since they made me cry in 87

Edited May 5, 20178 yr by Pennant St Dee

Kent should be in instead of JKH, twice the player

6 hours ago, Vogon Poetry said:

They must rate Wagner very highly.  He was injured in the first JLT game and if I'm not mistaken played one Casey game were he hurt himself again.  Came back last week and is in this week.  That's about two games over 3 months! 

Having said that Melksham is in awful form.

I don't get Bugg and JKH ahead of Kent and Stretch but there you go.  Bugg has grunt which is good but I'm damned if I know what JKH has, it's certainly not getting the ball or kicking goals!  Saty might be good enough to tell us what his "role" is so we can watch for it on the weekend.

Showed terrific composure for a young bloke last year. Really liked his poise and he's a nice kick. Another bloke who straightens us up back there. Reads the play well in the air as well.

Agree with you on Stretch over Bugg, but anyway, they obviously want to reward form in the VFL and give him a bit of a run at AFL level.

15 hours ago, pineapple dee said:

Expect a fired up Hawthorn this week. They got a rocket from the new CEO last weekend. Apparently she dropped into the players meeting after the Saints game and said  " We need to pull our socks up ". That type of comment always got us going when I was in the under 11's.

That has worked in the past, where the CEO have told the players what to do hasn't it...

12 hours ago, Vogon Poetry said:

They must rate Wagner very highly.  He was injured in the first JLT game and if I'm not mistaken played one Casey game were he hurt himself again.  Came back last week and is in this week.  That's about two games over 3 months! 

Having said that Melksham is in awful form.

I don't get Bugg and JKH ahead of Kent and Stretch but there you go.  Bugg has grunt which is good but I'm damned if I know what JKH has, it's certainly not getting the ball or kicking goals!  Saty might be good enough to tell us what his "role" is so we can watch for it on the weekend.

I'd suggest trying to get Wags some game time in the 1s before Crows game as That is an area we need to improve on.

15 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

This is interesting for future reference in team selection conversation:

From the AFL site

"Coach Chris Scott said midfielder Sam Menegola, defender Tom Stewart and ruckman Zac Smith were all chances to come into the team after being left out of the 22 on Thursday night. 

“Sam’s still a good chance to play for us … unfortunately the rules dictate that we don’t have any flexibility with the way we pick the side on a Thursday night,” 

“If we've already named them managed they can’t play. 

“So don’t read too much into the fact that players are named omitted." 

So this may explain why players like Stretch have been listed as omitted in reason weeks.

This may be public knowledge, but I'd never heard that before and thought it was an interesting thing to note when seeing players getting 'omitted' and then not playing in the VFL.

Don't understand this comment. If they are 50/50 to play you select them and then leave them out saying they "didn't come up" and replace them as from your emergencies. Simple I would have thought. Think it might be yet another Scott brother whinge.

 

7 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

The same could be said of posters on footy forums, but they seem unable to not make the same mistake over and over

God I miss the Omac will spend the rest of the year at Casey posts

Seriously could you please stick to the topic saty, if you have such a low opinion of posters I'm not sure why you feel the need to post on demonland. 

Its a discussion forum and you're not discussing the topic. 

I personally think jkh is being given a run at it because the coaches think he has talent that hasn't been displayed on field yet and with Kent not at his best it presents and opportunity. 

You shouldn't take what you're told/see at face value when at training, these guys are paid to be nice to you and am 100% certain they aren't telling you everything.

 

12 hours ago, Abe said:

Do You think a fully fit and in form dean Kent is rated above jkh? 

I strongly suspect if Kent were in form jkh would be the one who made way for him. 

I suspect it might be an attitude problem with Kent. Certainly he has been ordinary in the 2's sometimes this year, with some saying he hasn't looked too interested. With now good competition for places, if correct this attitude should not be tolerated. Gone are the days when we gift games thank god!

17 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

Don't understand this comment. If they are 50/50 to play you select them and then leave them out saying they "didn't come up" and replace them as from your emergencies. Simple I would have thought. Think it might be yet another Scott brother whinge.

I found Scott's rendition confusing actually. 

It is amazing what part luck plays in our game. Injuries, umpiring and suspensions often determine or greatly influence games. 

We know our bad luck this year. Look at the Saints, who are vying with us for a spot in the eight, at full strength, play Hawks without Rioli and Birchall then play a weakened Giants who lose 2 more in the game and get 22-10 frees and some gifted goals. 

Luck can be as big a factor as good play. 

Hopefully as well as playing well for the rest of the year, we get our share of good luck. 

Edited May 5, 20178 yr by Redleg

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

It is amazing what part luck plays in our game. Injuries, umpiring and suspensions often determine or greatly influence games. 

We know our bad luck this year. Look at the Saints, who are vying with us for a spot in the eight, play Hawks without Rioli and Birchall then play a weakened Giants who lose 2 more in the game and get 22-10 frees and some gifted goals. 

Luck can be as big a factor as good play. 

Hopefully as well as playing well for the rest of the year, we get our share of good luck. 

Nor have the Saints much of an injury list..... lucky

9 hours ago, steve_f said:

Vince farther forward.  Hibberd, Lewis kicking out of backline instead.  Demons to win by plenty.

Wagner down back will release either Salem or Vince. Both can kick goals and have forward impact 

9 hours ago, ProDee said:

Which is why I could never understand posters asking your opinion on anything to do with selections and training form, etc.

You're not equipped.  Not your fault, of course.  Your value is in who's training and who's not.  End of story.

I'm the one who gets it more right than both of you.And much earlier.

Statements like.

1.Watts is the best set shot in the comp- therefore a forward- play Pedo.

2. Hunt will be a gun- when everyone wanted him dropped.

3.Move Vince to the centre or half forward- which was obvious.

4.Oliver could win a Brownlow.

5. Jetta has good hands and wins one on ones.

6.Gawn will be a champion and club favourite.

7.Frost will be a gun.Pick him.

I'ts not easy being first all the time.

I think the Kennedy-Harris mystery stems from a desire to give him a decent run at it.  

Retaining the ball through pressure, tackling, corralling, etc. in your forward 50 is king in today's footy.  Kent was dropped because of a lack of forward pressure and Neal-Bullen was getting games because of his pressure and adherence to team defence.  

Posters rightly point out Kennedy-Harris' modest returns in his two games back, although he did lay 7 tackles in his first game, but we know internally they rate him and I just reckon they want to give him an opportunity to perform and sometimes two games isn't enough.  

They would have debated his position at MC and I don't reckon he'd want another quiet effort tomorrow, but I think they like the structure of two mobile marking talls (Hogan/Watts), two mobile marking mid-talls (Petracca/Hannan), and two small pressure forwards.  Kent is more dynamic and has more X-factor, but Kennedy-Harris' defensive traits (as perceived by Goody et al) is keeping him out.  If Kent improves this aspect of his game and Kennedy-Harris continues his limited output they'll make a change.

It's the best synopsis I can give. 

15 minutes ago, ProDee said:

I think the Kennedy-Harris mystery stems from a desire to give him a decent run at it.  

Retaining the ball through pressure, tackling, corralling, etc. in your forward 50 is king in today's footy.  Kent was dropped because of a lack of forward pressure and Neal-Bullen was getting games because of his pressure and adherence to team defence.  

Posters rightly point out Kennedy-Harris' modest returns in his two games back, although he did lay 7 tackles in his first game, but we know internally they rate him and I just reckon they want to give him an opportunity to perform and sometimes two games isn't enough.  

They would have debated his position at MC and I don't reckon he'd want another quiet effort tomorrow, but I think they like the structure of two mobile marking talls (Hogan/Watts), two mobile marking mid-talls (Petracca/Hannan), and two small pressure forwards.  Kent is more dynamic and has more X-factor, but Kennedy-Harris' defensive traits (as perceived by Goody et al) is keeping him out.  If Kent improves this aspect of his game and Kennedy-Harris continues his limited output they'll make a change.

It's the best synopsis I can give. 

Yep agree. Those were pretty much my thoughts. I add that clearly that prior to him breaking his arm they were apparently super impressed with training intensity and focus and i assure he did everything right rehab wise post injury. As you say i reckon they wont to back him in and give some continuity. I reckon he will play well this weekend, but i suspect if not he'll go back and be asked to improve in certain areas and ANB will come back in.

Goody demands those sort of traits and left no doubt that Watts was not selected because he wasn't showing them. ANB was and as you say Kent has been dropped, i suspect because he is not showing them. A good example was that when dropped he seemingly played without much intensity in the VFL. A mistake i doubt ANB will make

9 hours ago, beelzebub said:

I'm one who fervently believes that coaches and fd's are nought but human and as such that condition suggests they might not be right all the time.

 

Next you are going to suggest that recruiters sometimes get it wrong.

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

Next you are going to suggest that recruiters sometimes get it wrong.

Is that possible ? Golly 

41 minutes ago, ProDee said:

I think the Kennedy-Harris mystery stems from a desire to give him a decent run at it.  

Retaining the ball through pressure, tackling, corralling, etc. in your forward 50 is king in today's footy.  Kent was dropped because of a lack of forward pressure and Neal-Bullen was getting games because of his pressure and adherence to team defence.  

Posters rightly point out Kennedy-Harris' modest returns in his two games back, although he did lay 7 tackles in his first game, but we know internally they rate him and I just reckon they want to give him an opportunity to perform and sometimes two games isn't enough.  

They would have debated his position at MC and I don't reckon he'd want another quiet effort tomorrow, but I think they like the structure of two mobile marking talls (Hogan/Watts), two mobile marking mid-talls (Petracca/Hannan), and two small pressure forwards.  Kent is more dynamic and has more X-factor, but Kennedy-Harris' defensive traits (as perceived by Goody et al) is keeping him out.  If Kent improves this aspect of his game and Kennedy-Harris continues his limited output they'll make a change.

It's the best synopsis I can give. 

As usual Pro you've nailed it.  I think Wagner's and Hannan's selection is for the same reason, they see them as the future and want them in regardless of whether it gives us the best winning chance.

Weideman was picked for the same reason.  The interesting question for me is "is this development or best available"?  I think with Pedo in the team earlier and maybe some other picks we win games we lost.  Does this strategy fit the "development" or "best winning chance" scenario?  If it's purely for development after so many barren years I find it a little frustrating.  I'm sick of losing. I suppose I'll see the upside when we win a flag!

I thought, given the vocalising from the very top, that its finals or fail now.

If so you ought not be forfeiting games by including nqrs.

Let them become less so ( or not ) elsewhere.

2 hours ago, Abe said:

 

Seriously could you please stick to the topic saty, if you have such a low opinion of posters I'm not sure why you feel the need to post on demonland. 

Its a discussion forum and you're not discussing the topic. 

I personally think jkh is being given a run at it because the coaches think he has talent that hasn't been displayed on field yet and with Kent not at his best it presents and opportunity. 

You shouldn't take what you're told/see at face value when at training, these guys are paid to be nice to you and am 100% certain they aren't telling you everything.

 

You are not on topic berating me, but whatever

Edited May 6, 20178 yr by Satyriconhome

for years clubs... especially whorethorn have seen us as a soft entry to return pleyrs from injury earlier than otherwise. looks like the rables have turned. Can get Wags in a week early due to the lack of contested ball from the Hawks. i like it.... a lot. 

Hope we smash the absolute [censored] out of them in the contest and give them the complete physical and scoreboard nightmare they deserve

there i've said it and feel better for it to!

2 hours ago, Dees2014 said:

Don't understand this comment. If they are 50/50 to play you select them and then leave them out saying they "didn't come up" and replace them as from your emergencies. Simple I would have thought. Think it might be yet another Scott brother whinge.

Let the record state that I'd never defend a Scott brother. They are the worst!

I was more intrigued that there is clearly an AFL rule that says you can't leave out a player if they seem tired if you may be forced to use them due to an unforeseen injury. 

Im guessing it's an AFLPA OHS contract situation. Player gets injured due to fatigue, club already acknowledged fatigue by resting and then playing player. Club and/or AFL negligent in its duty of care.

30 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

You are not on topic berating me, but whatever

If you read my post you would see that I expressed my view... 

he is being given a run at it because Kent isn't playing at his best and they want to see if his form builds, at this stage I don't think he is ticking enough boxes to be a long term option but I may be proved wrong. 

Since I know you'll say " well the coaches know better" is there any chance you could explain in detail why you think he should remain in the side based on his current output, can a player who granted is putting on pressure retain his spot in the long term if he continues to fail to deliver offensively.