.

Not sure why people keep suggesting 4 or 5 changes, that just won't happen. We played well, yes I was angry after the game and ready to throw the remote through the TV, but we lost the game because we didn't deliver it well into the forward 50, not because we had terrible players.

For mine the only changes are structural, I like the idea of a true 2nd tall defender so either Frost or Petty and I'm not sure you can have Lewis and Vince in the same back-line especially at the 'G, so either Frost or Petty for Vince.

I'd also like to see Weid come in to replace T.Smith, I think he's a much better relief ruck and seems to know a bit better when to go and when to stay back in attack, plus I think he's got a massive future and would be full of confidence. But if we kept Smith and only went with 1 change that'd be fine by me as well.   

13 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

More athletic? Nope. He's slower, less agile and not as fit. Better handballer sure, I like Sam's hands on both sides of the body. Better contested mark - well he averages 1 a game compared to Smith's 0.8. Smarter, that's hard to qualify - smarter handballer but that's about it.

I've just given you stats to show Smith is good at negating a ruck. Either Smith or Weideman will play minutes in the ruck and their ability to win, lose or negate the hit outs and then follow up is an important part of that role.

How many talls do we need? We have Hogan, Tommy Mc as well as Melksham and Petracca who should all be good strong in the air one on one. None of those guys are good pressure players. Tracc is when he's on but he often isn't. Surely you agree forward pressure is a vital part of the modern game? Surely! So if it's not coming from Hogan, Tommy, Weeds, Melksham or Petracca who is doing it?? Hannan and ANB chasing their tails off trying to lay tackles and getting little help.

Weideman probably will replace Smith, his VFL form over the last fortnight has been very impressive, but in a couple of weeks he'll get dropped because the 3 talls aren't getting in the game and the forward pressure is lacking.

I'm struggling to take you seriously these days.  Mentioning dropping Hogan and Petracca hasn't helped.

Mate, T. Smith won't be retained by Goodwin because he thinks his "pressure" is good.

Edited June 25, 20187 yr by ProDee

6 hours ago, Radar Detector said:

Saty, you can’t make a definitive statement like “Tyson played his role” and then hide behind a cop out like the above.

Either you know the role Tyson was given (which probably means you were in the coaches box) and can therefore offer a more objective judgement than most of us who thought Tyson was poor. Or you actually don’t have any basis to back up your original comment.

I thought Tyson was below standard and we went in too heavy with inside mids. He’d be one of my first outs.

See I have an opinion that I thought Tyson played his role, as backed up by Goody's comments, but my opinion is wrong because you thought Tyson was poor which must be correct, so why was he poor or are you going to cop out?

8 minutes ago, Red and Blue realist said:

Not sure why people keep suggesting 4 or 5 changes, that just won't happen. We played well, yes I was angry after the game and ready to throw the remote through the TV, but we lost the game because we didn't deliver it well into the forward 50, not because we had terrible players.

For mine the only changes are structural, I like the idea of a true 2nd tall defender so either Frost or Petty and I'm not sure you can have Lewis and Vince in the same back-line especially at the 'G, so either Frost or Petty for Vince.

I'd also like to see Weid come in to replace T.Smith, I think he's a much better relief ruck and seems to know a bit better when to go and when to stay back in attack, plus I think he's got a massive future and would be full of confidence. But if we kept Smith and only went with 1 change that'd be fine by me as well.   

As Supermercado says though, the lack of pace apropos Vince and Lewis is GLARINGLY obvious but they continue to get picked. So either they think Frost and/or Petty aren't up to scratch yet, or else Vince has something salty on Goodwin. Maybe Dirty S3x Pie Vids.

Which is a verbose way of saying doubtful Vince and Lewis are dropped.

Edited June 25, 20187 yr by timbo

1 minute ago, Satyriconhome said:

See I have an opinion that I thought Tyson played his role, as backed up by Goody's comments, but my opinion is wrong because you thought Tyson was poor which must be correct, so why was he poor or are you going to cop out?

Right, so if he comes out this week, will you finally admit you have nfi? 

1 minute ago, Satyriconhome said:

See I have an opinion that I thought Tyson played his role, as backed up by Goody's comments, but my opinion is wrong because you thought Tyson was poor which must be correct, so why was he poor or are you going to cop out?

He got caught with the ball with his first possession which is a major weakness in his game. More generally if Tyson comes in it can only be for another one paced mid. The team as its been selected just does not match up to other top 8 teams in terms of run and carry. 

3 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Right, so if he comes out this week, will you finally admit you have nfi? 

What if he stays in, you do the same, as if

None of the experts on here have any idea, we have opinions

Bit hard to take that realisation for some

3 minutes ago, demoniac said:

He got caught with the ball with his first possession which is a major weakness in his game. More generally if Tyson comes in it can only be for another one paced mid. The team as its been selected just does not match up to other top 8 teams in terms of run and carry. 

He got caught coz nobody told him he was hot, check out his gesture,  so 1 instance, justified????

32 minutes ago, DeezNuts said:

In: Kent, Frost, Petty

Out: a forward, Vince and Lewis 

Kent straight after missing 6 weeks?  

Thanks for posting Mrs.Kent

Just now, Satyriconhome said:

What if he stays in, you do the same, as if

None of the experts on here have any idea, we have opinions

Bit hard to take that realisation for some

Well I'm not the one who stated that he didn't play his role. 

Just that he was insignificant in the game. 

You stated he played his role, if he is omitted, you will be wrong. 

2 hours ago, Roost It said:

Isolate Hogan one out in the square with Garlett around if you must bomb it long 

The bombs just have to be past history - it is such a low percentage play to bomb it long. Most of our forwards can kick and score from outside the bottleneck; Hogan, perhaps, is the one who cannot kick from further out. We must look for short entries with players displaying football nouse by finding space to receive. Hogan can then play his game for a conservative return. TMac can take the screamers or the running receives. Garlett perhaps is needed - he must hit form; happy with the contributions and pace of Hannan to score or to sneak a score in space. More can be made of Spargo - he is a goer and has the required pace but he should not be seen just as a poor tackler as he is capable in the right company down forward to apply very effective forward defensive pressure. Melksham cannot be overlooked in his movements to space, his general marking and scouting for that snap. The trio of intial feeds from the in-form Stretch, to Harmes to Melksham, for example, is worthy of thought. The backline needs Frosty at CHB, as well. Even Pedo might be considered as a spoiler in pack marking duels in that position. Petty might be a solution as well.

Here is my team for StKilda, pure fantasy it may be but it interests me after the two current losses:

FB: Jetta    OMac    JSmith

HB: Jones   Frost    Hibberd

? Fritsch    Oliver    Stretch

HF: Melksham    TMac   Harmes

FF: Spargo    Hogan    Garlett

R:  Gawn, Weideman, Viney

Int: Pedersen, ANB, Petty, Hannan

31 minutes ago, Red and Blue realist said:

Not sure why people keep suggesting 4 or 5 changes, that just won't happen. We played well, yes I was angry after the game and ready to throw the remote through the TV, but we lost the game because we didn't deliver it well into the forward 50, not because we had terrible players.

For mine the only changes are structural, I like the idea of a true 2nd tall defender so either Frost or Petty and I'm not sure you can have Lewis and Vince in the same back-line especially at the 'G, so either Frost or Petty for Vince.

I'd also like to see Weid come in to replace T.Smith, I think he's a much better relief ruck and seems to know a bit better when to go and when to stay back in attack, plus I think he's got a massive future and would be full of confidence. But if we kept Smith and only went with 1 change that'd be fine by me as well.   

I said it'd most likely be 2, however I think we need 4 to have better structure, if that happens over a couple of weeks then all good 

I would love to see some smarter entry into the forward line and against an inferior side like the Saints our front running ways will help us get some goals that we just won't get against teams with a semblance of a structural defence.

Tyson wasn't great but does he get another week? Does Weed come in now or in a few weeks time. He is our second best ruck from what I have seen so that makes the inevitable easier to deal with even if he is providing much as a third tall.

As an aside, the fact that he can be a third tall is a great introduction for him to this team. I wish we could find a place for Garlett - he is such a natural forward to feed off our talls. I would hope he is a part of the 22 come late August...

3 hours ago, SFebey said:

Interesting comments from Brereton over the weekend that he reckons Hogan has lost confidence in crashing packs, my take was that Goodwin has confused him and he doesn't know whether to be a midfielder or a KPF. Apparently 7 times on Friday night Hogan didn't jump for the ball but turned around front and square and tried to rove.

I don't believe playing midfield time has any bearing on it. When he goes in to the midfield he plays midfield.

But I do think the emergence of Tom McDonald as a pack marker and Gawn in the side drifting forward has impacted Hogan. Our forwards crash in to each other all the time and they have to get better and working for each other.

Hogan also has to get much better in his defensive pressure and part of that is knowing when to keep your feet and be first on to the contest.

More than anything though I think Hogan just needs to toughen up and be uncompromising in his attack on the ball. He gets sooky and bruise free when it goes against him. I don't care if he's baking team mates or the umpire, but I want to see him fired up. 

1 hour ago, Satyriconhome said:

He got caught coz nobody told him he was hot, check out his gesture,  so 1 instance, justified????

Also, as soon as he got it he lifted his eyes, looking for an outlet and I think no-one was leading for him or in the open. Port pressure game was on at times in the game. The players need to communicate better and keep engaged when not directly in the play.

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

I'm struggling to take you seriously these days.  Mentioning dropping Hogan and Petracca hasn't helped.

Mate, T. Smith won't be retained by Goodwin because he thinks his "pressure" is good.

Dropping Hogan was a hypothetical in how to get better balance in the forward line. Not a serious consideration even if he's been in the bottom 5 players two weeks in a row.

Dropping Petracca has to be a serious consideration. The Saints took forever to drop Billings and after an easy kill in the VFL he played far better the next week. How many weeks of Petracca having very little influence on games have to go by until something changes?

1 hour ago, Petraccattack said:

You log in to this forum for two reasons -

-  to argue

-  to whine about other posters

Going to have to ask you to delete your account and never come back. Nothing personal,  you just ruin the forum for a lot of people and know nothing about footy.  

Now on ya bike, chap.

Hang in there Satyr,

Diversity and inclusion is important. Keep your voice strong. We don't have to agree with you. Hate to have this forum with the group think problem (everyone having the same opinion or feeling bullied to think the same).

4 minutes ago, kevin martin said:

Hang in there Satyr,

Diversity and inclusion is important. 

?

For what it's worth, I thought Petracca had a better game on the weekend.  Kicked one and set up one with a ripper handpass in the first term and did some good things outside of that.

I can't argue that he is still fumbly at times and isn't impacting the contest as much as we would all like, but I thought Friday night was a step in the right direction.  No chance he gets dropped.

12 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

For what it's worth, I thought Petracca had a better game on the weekend.  Kicked one and set up one with a ripper handpass in the first term and did some good things outside of that.

I can't argue that he is still fumbly at times and isn't impacting the contest as much as we would all like, but I thought Friday night was a step in the right direction.  No chance he gets dropped.

Who then Wiseblood?

1 minute ago, old dee said:

Who then Wiseblood?

Not sure I follow you, OD. Can you elaborate further? 

I don't think Tyson was terrible. But not great. So i can understand calls to drop him

But as rule i don't see the logic is player being picked because of good form in the twos only getting the one game before being dropped. Sure if they have played super bad or broken key team rules but if they are ok it sends a strange message i reckon.

Its happened twice this year with pedo and stretch. pedo was replaced by smith who was dropped for form and casey had a bye so Pedo was dead unlucky. He was not the worst against the pies. 

Stretch was average against the hawks but still one week and back to the twos would not have done much for his confidence

5 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Not sure I follow you, OD. Can you elaborate further? 

Who gets dropped to Casey?

17 minutes ago, binman said:

I don't think Tyson was terrible. But not great. So i can understand calls to drop him

But as rule i don't see the logic is player being picked because of good form in the twos only getting the one game before being dropped. Sure if they have played super bad or broken key team rules but if they are ok it sends a strange message i reckon.

Its happened twice this year with pedo and stretch. pedo was replaced by smith who was dropped for form and casey had a bye so Pedo was dead unlucky. He was not the worst against the pies. 

Stretch was average against the hawks but still one week and back to the twos would not have done much for his confidence

Agreed, as a general rule one game at a time does not help the player or the team.

It must kill a players confidence to get a game only to be dropped the following week. 

It is always difficult to determine why some players are favoured with multiple games in the ones when their form is ordinary. There are issues of team balance and playing a role but sometimes you scratch your head and ask why. But it has been going on forever.

In terms of the current day, Stretch in particular has been stiff.

Please don't select him and drop him the following week.