Biggest issue is if we can kick a winning score or not.

In 2018 we scored a lot through a game style that required a lot of hard work and running, but not much emphasis on skill.

If Tom McDonald can get back to his 2018 form and his toe isn't an issue again (not confident) then we will improve a lot because otherwise I can't see Weideman suddenly doubling his output.

 

On 12/14/2019 at 12:59 PM, old dee said:

I agree with you Dante but I am not quite as bullish as you. I think we are a 7-8th placed talent at present. We cannot expect miracles from our draftees in 2020 and I still worry about our ability to kick winning scores against the better sides. Imo it all still hangs too much on TMac. However I think we will make the eight in 2020 probably in that spot.

I agree, without Tmac we looked impotent.

realistically though a fit Weideman, Petty and now Jackson creates great competition for talls up forward just in case Tmac has a poor year..

I do wonder if Tmac lost form how he and May would go as key backs with Lever as a floating tall. that could be awesome. 

On 12/15/2019 at 11:21 AM, Dr. Gonzo said:

Top 4

I'm not expecting much from our draftees and anything we get from Bennell, VDB, J Smith would be a bonus.

I think J Smith is absolutely up and running but agree on the other two. 

On 12/17/2019 at 8:27 AM, pitmaster said:

No seems about it LN. Fritter forward was an explicit statement at the members' info night. Saved me putting the question.

I thought we all knew that?

How is it that 99% of posters here knew that Fritsch was solely a forward about 15  matches before our brains trust worked it out?

It's mainly about the functionality and potency of the forwardline for me. I have confidence in the other lines to get their [censored] together when you look at the personnel we have in there, but a heavy reliance on T Mac still raises concerns for me, keeping in mind that it looks like we are moving our best goalkicker from last season into the midfield.

I expect Fritta to have a career best year, and Kozzie/Jacko could be surprise packets, but the level that the likes of Petty and Weid can achieve, along with Melky's ability to stay on the field will play a key role in the success of the season.

I think Brown is a really smart acquisition. He may not be a gorilla type but he provides some much needed depth in experience and brings some mobility and smarts in the forward half. Why Essendon let him go is a mystery but I'm glad we have him.

Clarry also needs to improve his delivery to the forwards. From memory he is statistically speaking one of the worst in the league. He's too good a player to be coughing the ball up as regularly as he does at present. He creates time for himself so he needs to use it to the full extent when disposing by foot because he is a very good kick when he takes time to settle.

Overall I am confident we will move back into the 8. We absolutely have the talent to do so, so if we can't, there are other questions that need to be asked.

1 hour ago, bingers said:

Totally correct. The Club determined that playing with an injury would not cause further harm. (P.S. Information from a club staff member.)

His form and confidence as the year went on contradicts that.

8 minutes ago, P-man said:

It's mainly about the functionality and potency of the forwardline for me. I have confidence in the other lines to get their [censored] together when you look at the personnel we have in there, but a heavy reliance on T Mac still raises concerns for me, keeping in mind that it looks like we are moving our best goalkicker from last season into the midfield.

Pretty much nailed it I reckon. I think we have enough talent spread over the rest of the ground to match everyone but Richmond.

On paper, there's a lot to like. I can't see us playing finals if TMac can't get back to something resembling his best. Structurally, he's as important as Maxy IMO. When he's on, we're a completely different team and the rest of the forwardline falls into place. I rate the Weid and Petty, but I can't see either of them having a comparable impact just yet. Jackson will probably be a few years off.

I can't remember feeling as absolutely clueless about our prospects for an upcoming season. I feel we are just as likely to finish top 4 as bottom 4. But it sure beats knowing for certain we'll be sh*thouse!

15 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

How is it that 99% of posters here knew that Fritsch was solely a forward about 15  matches before our brains trust worked it out?

To be fair to the coaches, our disposal in the backline was Neeld-era diabolical - sticking Fritsch back was a move made in desperation but at least made some theoretical sense. Agree that they persisted with it a few weeks too long though.

11 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

His form and confidence as the year went on contradicts that.

I didn't say that he could play at his optimal level. The back injury prevented that. 

I simply said that playing with the injury wouldn't cause further damage.

11 minutes ago, bingers said:

I didn't say that he could play at his optimal level. The back injury prevented that. 

I simply said that playing with the injury wouldn't cause further damage.

And even if not at his best (which was evident) he is going to learn a lot more about playing AFL football by actually playing it. As opposed to being put on ice.

Fitness wise playing is probably a better option for him then sitting out. And potentially  better for his mental health.

And if he was injured (which I have little doubt about) and playing was not going to exacerbate that injury gus at 70 - 80% fitness is a much better option than any alternative we could have mustered up.

8 hours ago, bingers said:

I didn't say that he could play at his optimal level. The back injury prevented that. 

I simply said that playing with the injury wouldn't cause further damage.

Sure, but that's my point about management. Gus looked absolutely defeated and shot as the season went on, so it seems incredibly poor player management to keep running him down purely on the basis that his injury won't get worse when his form and our finals chance both say it was not worth doing that.

8 hours ago, binman said:

And even if not at his best (which was evident) he is going to learn a lot more about playing AFL football by actually playing it. As opposed to being put on ice.

Fitness wise playing is probably a better option for him then sitting out. And potentially  better for his mental health.

And if he was injured (which I have little doubt about) and playing was not going to exacerbate that injury gus at 70 - 80% fitness is a much better option than any alternative we could have mustered up.

He got worse as the year went on binman. Not sure you can guarantee his 'learnings' in that context, and his body language late in the season was a pretty solid indicator of where he was at mentally IMO.

And tbh, I'm staggered you thought and incredibly out of form and likely injured Brayshaw was a good option to be selected in a team out of the race early in the season.

19 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

His form and confidence as the year went on contradicts that.

It sure did Nev, he looked forlorn and disinterested in the latter part of the season.

19 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Sure, but that's my point about management. Gus looked absolutely defeated and shot as the season went on, so it seems incredibly poor player management to keep running him down purely on the basis that his injury won't get worse when his form and our finals chance both say it was not worth doing that.

He got worse as the year went on binman. Not sure you can guarantee his 'learnings' in that context, and his body language late in the season was a pretty solid indicator of where he was at mentally IMO.

And tbh, I'm staggered you thought and incredibly out of form and likely injured Brayshaw was a good option to be selected in a team out of the race early in the season.

LN, my point is you and I do not have any real information about what was happening for his. Other than the fact he was out of form and played out of position.And to my eye he looked hampered and unfit. But why I don't know.

The club, on the other hand had ALL the information, including what gus wanted. And they decided, with gus no doubt, having all tbe facts at their disposal, the best option was in fact to keep playing.

Let's say he was only 70-80% fit and playing with an injury (and again I'm very confident he was). Without knowing all the information that provides the full context for the decision to play him I maintain it is completely unreasonable to suggest the club, if the above scenario occurred (ie gus was  carrying an injury) of 'incredibly poor management'. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. But personally I trust goody, the fd and misso to make the right call and certainly do nothing to negatively impact a player. 

An analogous situation is the decision to bring Smith back on the ground in the preseason game against the lions when he was clearly injured. The optics looked really bad and they stuffed up nor having more players on the bench. But plenty of posters were adamant doing so exacerbated his injury, without knowing the real situation. Turns out he had OP.

8 minutes ago, binman said:

But plenty of posters were adamant doing so exacerbated his injury, without knowing the real situation. Turns out he had OP.

Surely OP isn't helped by playing on.

Isn't that the point that many are making and haven't they been proved correct in their assumptions.

33 minutes ago, rjay said:

Surely OP isn't helped by playing on.

Isn't that the point that many are making and haven't they been proved correct in their assumptions.

On the first point my understanding is op is a chronic injury and that smith playing out that game would not have exacerbated it. But happy to be corrected by someone with medical expertise.

If I am correct then no the assumptions of some posters have not been proved correct.

But probably a poor analogy as it distracts from my point about the management of Brayshaw.

56 minutes ago, binman said:

LN, my point is you and I do not have any real information about what was happening for his. Other than the fact he was out of form and played out of position.And to my eye he looked hampered and unfit. But why I don't know.

The club, on the other hand had ALL the information, including what gus wanted. And they decided, with gus no doubt, having all tbe facts at their disposal, the best option was in fact to keep playing.

Let's say he was only 70-80% fit and playing with an injury (and again I'm very confident he was). Without knowing all the information that provides the full context for the decision to play him I maintain it is completely unreasonable to suggest the club, if the above scenario occurred (ie gus was  carrying an injury) of 'incredibly poor management'. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. But personally I trust goody, the fd and misso to make the right call and certainly do nothing to negatively impact a player. 

An analogous situation is the decision to bring Smith back on the ground in the preseason game against the lions when he was clearly injured. The optics looked really bad and they stuffed up nor having more players on the bench. But plenty of posters were adamant doing so exacerbated his injury, without knowing the real situation. Turns out he had OP.

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying mate, might be my fault for not explaining it well enough.

We agree Gus was badly out of form and it got worse as the year went on right? To me, that's enough to manage him differently, try to either get his form and confidence back at VFL level OR get his body right, whichever it was that was causing that drop off. I'm not saying I know which it was, or even if it was both, I'm just saying that either way; running him into the ground and playing him all 22 games didn't work. When I'm saying 'management' I'm speaking holistically, not just about injury management. Hope that makes better sense than how I've put it previously? (We may still disagree of course, which is fine)

45 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying mate, might be my fault for not explaining it well enough.

We agree Gus was badly out of form and it got worse as the year went on right? To me, that's enough to manage him differently, try to either get his form and confidence back at VFL level OR get his body right, whichever it was that was causing that drop off. I'm not saying I know which it was, or even if it was both, I'm just saying that either way; running him into the ground and playing him all 22 games didn't work. When I'm saying 'management' I'm speaking holistically, not just about injury management. Hope that makes better sense than how I've put it previously? (We may still disagree of course, which is fine)

I understand perfectly what you are trying to say.

I cant see how you can be definitive that playing him all season didn't work when your metrics are likely different to that of both gus himself and the club. And you don't know what the clubs metrics were.

I don't either. So I can't say, for example, it was good player management. And haven't.

But as I have said there are a number of logical possible benefits of playing gus, even if down on form and/or injured. For example the mental benefits of playing through adversity OR providing an example to his team mates (who would know what is going on) OR simply getting as many AFL games under his belt as each game provides unique learning opportunities OR learning a new position so he becomes more versatile OR playing at Casey would not help his development OR they thought playing would be the best thing for his aerobic fitness and were worried not playing would impact on his fitness base and likelihood of being in optimal shape day one of preseason etc etc. 

But again i don't know the club's rationale for their decision to play him. I just know they did. And i presume tbey had a considered  rationale. Just as they did when they  gave omac some time out to get stronger and dropped weed. And personally I trust the club to make the right call. 

I'll also bet london to a brick that gus wanted to play. Most players are desperate to play seniors and hate sitting out. You use the fact our season was so horrid and we were out of contention for finals as reason why they might have been better not play him. Well the opposite is possible. They might well have thought we are not making finals and gus is desperate to play seniors, his injury is not going to get worse so hell why not play him. Where's the harm?

Edited December 18, 20195 yr by binman

56 minutes ago, binman said:

On the first point my understanding is op is a chronic injury and that smith playing out that game would not have exacerbated it. But happy to be corrected by someone with medical expertise.

'@Webber'?

3 minutes ago, rjay said:

'@Webber'?

I thought the same thing. But was worried about his consulting fees. 

4 minutes ago, binman said:

I understand perfectly what you are trying to say.

I cant see how you can be definitive that playing him all season didn't work when your metrics are likely different to that of both gus himself and the club. And you don't know what the clubs metrics were.

Was pretty clear he was badly out of form and going downhill as the season went on. We're not arguing about that surely?

Last year he was dropped for poor standards, came back and had a great season. This year they did the opposite and it had the opposite effect.

I don't know mate, seems reasonably simple to me, and not something only club insiders can see.

8 minutes ago, rjay said:

'@Webber'?

I was watching that Practice match (stream), and as far as I remember, Smith was unhindered until he wasn’t. Presumably they initially thought it was a soft tissue injury (?adductor), albeit that doesn’t make leaving him on any smarter. That it turned out to be Osteitis Pubis meant leaving him on wouldn’t have changed the longer term, but it remains bizarre that a hobbling man was left on in a Practice match. Joel Smith was one of a handful of form players coming into last season, too. Big upside next year, I reckon. 

4 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Was pretty clear he was badly out of form and going downhill as the season went on. We're not arguing about that surely?

Last year he was dropped for poor standards, came back and had a great season. This year they did the opposite and it had the opposite effect.

I don't know mate, seems reasonably simple to me, and not something only club insiders can see.

We're at completely cross purposes her LN. Agree he was not in form. And having a bad back would go a long way to explain that.

But surely you agree the FD would have had a considered, logical rationale for deciding to play him. Just as they would have when they dropped him the previous year.

I hear that you would have not played  him but at the risk of flogging a dead horse i simply can't understand how you can suggest the club might erred without knowing all the facts.

Bit like the impeachment vote I don't think we will reach a consensus on this one, so happy to move on.

6 minutes ago, binman said:

We're at completely cross purposes her LN. Agree he was not in form. And having a bad back would go a long way to explain that.

But surely you agree the FD would have had a considered, logical rationale for deciding to play him. Just as they would have when they dropped him the previous year.

I hear that you would have not played  him but at the risk of flogging a dead horse i simply can't understand how you can suggest the club might erred without knowing all the facts.

Bit like the impeachment vote I don't think we will reach a consensus on this one, so happy to move on.

All fair mate. We've probably both said our pieces now. Hopefully Gus can regain his form and confidence next year, he's a very important player for us. Cheers!

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

All fair mate. We've probably both said our pieces now. Hopefully Gus can regain his form and confidence next year, he's a very important player for us. Cheers!

Totally agree on that. One hopes he will be back in tbe middle doing what ge does best. One thing we really missed last  year was his ability to extract the ball from a contest and get metres gained. 

On 12/19/2019 at 10:43 AM, binman said:

Totally agree on that. One hopes he will be back in tbe middle doing what ge does best. One thing we really missed last  year was his ability to extract the ball from a contest and get metres gained. 

I don't know if Brayshaw played injured but it did look like it.  Perhaps it was just his rotten preseason.

But he hasn't missed a session of this preseason which indicates to me there was no longterm harmful effect from the decision to play him.  And who would you have picked?  Jordan, Chandler, Bedford?  The reality was in the last half of the season an underperforming Brayshaw was better than the alternative.  And the fact that he hasn't missed a beat in preseason indicates the Club knew exactly what they were doing given his medical situation, whatever that was.