22 minutes ago, Patches O’houlihan said:

I feel like we simply have to play one of Brown/Weideman just to give ourselves another target. 

I'd be tempted to play Salem further up the ground, and bring Jetta in. 

Out: Lochart, Hannan 

In: Brown, Jetta 

Are you seriously saying you would drop Hannan?  I can’t fathom what you would expect from a mid sized forward that hadn’t played any footy for about 18 months. I thought everything taken into consideration Hannan was very good. 

We had two very poor players today, AVB who looked so underdone and Rivers who just looked out of his depth today, and remarkably you come up with a Hannan & Lockhart. Staggering!

4 minutes ago, rjay said:

AVB is unfortunately one of those players that gets better in the fans eyes the less games he plays.

Vanders has a red hot go but he was underdone and his skill set is really VFL level on the cusp of AFL.

Without the injuries he would have been handy but they have taken there toll on his fitness level and development.

He's never going to be an answer, just depth.

ANB Round 2
2 goals, 9 disposals (8 effective), 1 tackle, 4 inside 50s, 5 score involvements.

vandenBerg Round 4
0 goals, 7 disposals (5 effective), 3 tackles, 1 inside 50, 0 score involvements.

ANB was dropped after that game. I'm interested to see how he justifies picking vandenBerg again next week (which he likely will) and not picking ANB. Particularly, if (as he has stated) we stick with a 1 key forward setup.

Goodwin clearly plays favourites. It's not just his tactical failures that are hurting us.

4 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

That may well be the case. His mistakes will have to be outrageously bad for me to consider returning to Jetta after just one game though.

They are.

6 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

ANB Round 2
2 goals, 9 disposals (8 effective), 1 tackle, 4 inside 50s, 5 score involvements.

vandenBerg Round 4
0 goals, 7 disposals (5 effective), 3 tackles, 1 inside 50, 0 score involvements.

ANB was dropped after that game. I'm interested to see how he justifies picking vandenBerg again next week (which he likely will) and not picking ANB. Particularly, if (as he has stated) we stick with a 1 key forward setup.

Goodwin clearly plays favourites. It's not just his tactical failures that are hurting us.

I don't think he can pick a team 'Nev'...

I also think he a has big problem with communication.

He continually tells us the team is not connecting and we are not playing our brand.

The evidence tells me that we bomb the ball forward, anyone can see that.

He tells us it's not the game plan...'sat' tells us we're all stupid, it's not the game plan.

Well Goody you have a problem because the players don't understand the game plan after 4 years.

We coughed the ball up today and Geelong played keepings off.

Whilst on communication, the explanation of Bennell being omitted would make Sammy Kekovich proud.

No wonder the players haven't got a clue...

 

I'm in two minds with Lockhart - yes I was screaming at the TV when he took forever to get rid of it and was pinged twice for HTB. On the flip side, I thought Joel Smith was heaps better this week with another run when many were calling for his head after last week. That said, if I was Goody I'd drop Lockhart for having a laugh about it with the opposition. That was just not on.

Vanders will be better for the run. I didn't think HIbbo and Rivers would do well in the same backline, as I see them as the same type of player; but I was pleasantly surprised. I reckon we need a second tall KPF at Sydney, and recall Preuss did well in that role last time up there (but is obviously not available). Hopefully Tom Mac clunking that mark and goaling in the last qtr will give him some belief. He tried his guts out all day.

 In: Bennell, Weid

Out:  Lockhart, Somebody.

Given the lack of real games for our reserves side and the fact that we have a bit of a changing of the guard taking place, we need to keep turning the roster over.

Vanders needs to go back for a week, partly because Jonesy is an SCG specialist.

Melky likewise needs a week off, his spot should go to Bennell if fit and ANB if not.

We have to play a second tall at the SCG, it is suicide not to, so either Weid or Jackson or Brown must play. Harmes's workrate is better suited to defence and a Heeney match up, so we can leave out a defender - Salem (if glandula impacted his game) or Rivers if not. 

8 minutes ago, In Harmes Way said:

I'm in two minds with Lockhart - yes I was screaming at the TV when he took forever to get rid of it and was pinged twice for HTB. On the flip side, I thought Joel Smith was heaps better this week with another run when many were calling for his head after last week. That said, if I was Goody I'd drop Lockhart for having a laugh about it with the opposition. That was just not on.

Vanders will be better for the run. I didn't think HIbbo and Rivers would do well in the same backline, as I see them as the same type of player; but I was pleasantly surprised. I reckon we need a second tall KPF at Sydney, and recall Preuss did well in that role last time up there (but is obviously not available). Hopefully Tom Mac clunking that mark and goaling in the last qtr will give him some belief. He tried his guts out all day.

 In: Bennell, Weid

Out:  Lockhart, Somebody.

agree. not a huge fan of T-Mac, but he tried his guts out today and contested as much as he could. despite *insert the dreaded inside 50/'connection' reference here*

hibberd also tried really hard and the kid rivers was just unlucky a few times. still think he plays next week and happy to have them both in the backline as long as hibberd plays to the standard that he did today. rivers just needs to thicken up a bit. got pushed off the ball for an easy cats mark (guthrie?) in the goalsquare.

36 minutes ago, rjay said:

AVB is unfortunately one of those players that gets better in the fans eyes the less games he plays.

Vanders has a red hot go but he was underdone and his skill set is really VFL level on the cusp of AFL.

Without the injuries he would have been handy but they have taken there toll on his fitness level and development.

He's never going to be an answer, just depth.

Vanders makes the team far more physical and aggressive, much like the effect Mumford has on GWS, even if his output isn't great he can lift the rest of the side. We saw that in 2018, he crunched the Giants in the last round and was a big part of putting a heap of pressure on the Cats.

He's not a forward though, gets caught out of position. Ideally he'd play on ball but there's no room there but I still think if his tank builds up with more games he can be very serviceable on the wing as he was in 2018.

Whether he has to go back to practice games before getting more senior chances is hard to know at the best of times and near impossible without seeing games at the ground. Plus dependent on other selections.

18 minutes ago, Deespicable said:

Given the lack of real games for our reserves side and the fact that we have a bit of a changing of the guard taking place, we need to keep turning the roster over.

Vanders needs to go back for a week, partly because Jonesy is an SCG specialist.

Melky likewise needs a week off, his spot should go to Bennell if fit and ANB if not.

We have to play a second tall at the SCG, it is suicide not to, so either Weid or Jackson or Brown must play. Harmes's workrate is better suited to defence and a Heeney match up, so we can leave out a defender - Salem (if glandula impacted his game) or Rivers if not. 

Smith gets Heeney for me. Aerially the only one who can cover him down back.

Personally I just don't see the appeal of Tomlinson. Sure he's played a lot of footy on the wing but he's such a big lumbering galoof. Takes forever to wind up to kick and had 6 inside 50's for what result? Plus gets caught out by any kind of midfield speed and change of direction due to being such an oversized winger.

If we got lazy Jake Melksham out of the forward line especially early in a game before it opens up and up on a wing for could he not do that role? Would he not be able to run, kick and hold space on a wing?

That would then allow for a second tall to come in to the forward line without losing pressure (because the Melk don't chase) and in turn get Fritsch, Hannan and Hunt more of a mix up and deep.

Out: Tomlinson. In:Weid

Vanders or Bennell take your pick. Eventually want both but whilst they are both underdone it should be one or the other.

Keep the backline, would love Nev in but still think it's either Nev or Hibbo and for now I'm happy to give Hibbo another go.

11 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Smith gets Heeney for me. Aerially the only one who can cover him down back.

It's not Heeney who worries me. He's a freak and can dominate games if he has a good day, so I guess I am a little worried, but it's Papley who can consistently make something out of nothing who really concerns me. And I don't think Nev has the speed in the legs any more. 

In fact there's probably an argument to get Oscar in for their tall forward, May on to Heeney and have Smith mind Papley.

I'd keep the same group and test Lockhart and Rivers again, one thing to note today was apart from Gryan getting touches up the ground the Cats small forwards had little influence.

I don't believe that changes to the deckchairs will help. We lack pivotal players to get through pivotal times in match. We don't  have a player like Dangerfield who can play and also is able to con free kicks at times and usually makes the most of them. The Selwoods who is a general on the ground and block and scrap. Smart players like Rowan who pushes a pack forward to shepherd through a goal. We haven't the smarts to run past Salem on the 50 arc. No link man like a Duncan. No key forward no matter what name we use.

For the sake of change...out McDonald, Melksham and play the youngsters Jackson, Weideman.

2 minutes ago, Cyclops said:

I don't believe that changes to the deckchairs will help.

I agree.

Right now, one thing we need is continuity.  We made five changes last week, so I'd like to see no more than two this week.

At the minimum I think one of Weideman of Brown needs to come in to the side, for either Melksham or Hunt.  

Other than that I think we're okay across the board.  Making more major changes will achieve nothing right now.

10 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

I agree.

Right now, one thing we need is continuity.  We made five changes last week, so I'd like to see no more than two this week.

At the minimum I think one of Weideman of Brown needs to come in to the side, for either Melksham or Hunt.  

Other than that I think we're okay across the board.  Making more major changes will achieve nothing right now.

A Hawks friend said they are tending to minimise any changes and sticking with players who have played together a lot in previous seasons. It may be a bit unfair to those trying to get a game but it is due to the limitations of training this year. Makes some sense to me and we are going with 5 or 6 unforced changes each week playing newbies who may have ability but don’t instinctively know how their fellow line players play. So let’s limit the changes next week. I would say bring in Weid for forward structure and Bennell. 

To not drop Lockhart after his giggle session after he critically cost the side at crucial stages would send the wrong message completely. If a player thinks that cocking up that badly is a joke, he does NOT deserve a spot in the side. He should have learnt from the first error and Not repeated it and not still found it funny. A coach like Clarkson would have torn him an absolute new one. Goody probably gave him a cuddle and whispered a few sweet nothings in his ear. 

Edited June 28, 20204 yr by Leoncelli_36

11 minutes ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

To not drop Lockhart after his giggle session after he critically cost the side at crucial stages would send the wrong message completely.

Sends the wrong message to who?

How old is Lockhart ?

How many games has he played? 

Who is playing better to push him out?

In this start stop season I thought he was really good and took the mark of the day. He has a future and will get better with more games. He did tire but it was not why we lost and he still offered more than others have offered lately.

He might be past his best... but unless the more talented players bring intensity, I’d rather watch a loss with Jones than a sigh of capitulation

OUT. Melksham

IN. Jones

What a disappointing loss. If Tomlinson kicks the goal we win. Gotta stop playing bad quarters. 1st quarter V West Coast 4th quarter V Carlton 3rd quarter V Geelong it happens too often under Goodwin.

I wouldn't change the backline and midfield they are going fine but the forward line is a shambles.

Fritsch has been disappointing 2 goals in 3 games he's on notice.

Melksham needs a spell in the seconds.

Hunt isn't up to it too inconsistent.

Why did they rush Hannan in for? I would rather a 50% fit Bennell.

Vandenberg underdone.

McDonald still out of form I give him one more chance.

Pickett is the only one that inspires something.

 

TEAM:

B: LOCKHART, MAY, LEVER

HB: SALEM, SMITH, HIBBERD

C : LANGDON, PETRACCA, TOMLINSON

HF: BENNELL, JACKSON, PICKETT

F: FRITSCH, T.MCDONALD, BROWN

FOLL: GAWN, OLIVER, VINEY

IC: BRAYSHAW, HARMES, RIVERS, HUNT

EMERG: NEAL-BULLEN, HANNAN, VANDENBERG, JONES

 

IN: BENNELL, JACKSON, BROWN

OUT: MELKSHAM, HANNAN, VANDENBERG

Bennell must play even if he isn't fully fit. He is the class that we lack.

I think we should go 3 tall forwards against Sydney they have a short backline and I think like Lever is best suited to the 3rd tall down back Brown is suited to the 3rd tall up forward. 

Jackson ahead of the Weid for mine has more upside.

7 hours ago, Win4theAges said:

He cost us 2 clear goals from holding the ball, hesitating to kick the ball clear.

How many games has he played this year?

I'll wait.

3 hours ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

A coach like Clarkson would have torn him an absolute new one. Goody probably gave him a cuddle and whispered a few sweet nothings in his ear. 

Fantasyland.

You have no idea what either Clarkson or Goodwin say to their players behind closed doors.

Agree on continuity. Hannan probably did enough, especially on reduced game time, but VDB looks underdone. Bennell for VDB?

Other changes determined by matchups, though one smokey might be Salem out. Only 9 possessions? Not like him.

Edited June 28, 20204 yr by bing181

6 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I'm also shocked to see any calls to drop Tomlinson. He was clearly one of our best in the first half and he's one of the few consistent two-way runners.

Also is our chop-out ruck, not to mention, had more "metres gained" than any other player on the field (both teams).

4 hours ago, bing181 said:

Also is our chop-out ruck, not to mention, had more "metres gained" than any other player on the field (both teams).

Anyone asking for Tomlinson to be dropped must have the IQ of a boiled potato. 

In. “Connection forward of centre”, “Connection inside our forward 50”.  
 

every week now, Goodwin laments this as our key problem. Simply adding this will shoot out game back to 2018 apparently!! 
 

forget the individual moves of Anb, Lockhart, Hunt, McDonald etc etc 

btw Weideman needs to play. Is he or could he be ? That’s would we need answered 

Out: Melksham - slow, out of form and tries to be too cute. AVB - too underdone.

Rivers game was riddled with errors but he's worth persisting with. Lockhart did some absolute howlers but I like what he otherwise brings to the game. His replacement would be Jetta and he's too slow and plodding at the moment.

In: Wiedeman. We need someone else for the bombs into the forward line. Brown doesn't take contested marks so it's either Weed or Jackson. I'm not that fussed which, but Jackson hasn't quite put it together yet. As mentioned earlier, Alir will have a field day if without a second tall. Bennell - need his class and precision although I don't know if the SCG will suit. Otherwise maybe Bedford (pressure and speed) or Jones (experience).