CHANGES: Rd 12 vs Collingwood

[DeeSpencer 25,765]

2 hours ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

I see many calling for Jones to be dropped next week. I am interested to know what it is people aren’t liking about him at the moment. 
 

I understand that he doesn’t get a lot of the ball these days, but I thought that, at times, he composed himself when the other mids turned too helter skelter and set up some nice link play. 
 

I am unsure why so many are critical of him. He seems to play his role.

Doesn’t tackle, can’t evade tackles, naturally isn’t strong in the air but he’s hardly winning it at ground level all that well either. Doesn’t break lines or burst out in space. 

He used it well enough and it’s always hard to value the importance of a guy who still knows pretty well where to run. 

But he’s an aging midfield playing wing/forward. If we’re a decent side we’ll have better options 

[Diamond_Jim 12,600]

27 minutes ago, Go the Biff said:

Need to think of a strategy for Darcy Moore, I'd love to see him follow his old man's footsteps & come over to us. With Howe out, if you can limit Moore's impact & negate Maynard, the 'Pies much-vaunted defence can be opened right up.

Moore without Howe is vulnerable.

Quite rightly M is encouraged to take risks... how do you take advantage ?? Let's see

[FireInTheBennelly 4,072]

Does anyone know if our lucky umps are travelling back to Brisbane with us?

I love those guys.

[Dr.D 1,771]

Oliver has got to be dropped. His kicking by foot is a liability remember ?  Where are those fickle fans that wanted him dropped. Own it

[Lampers 563]

5 hours ago, Dr.D said:

Oliver has got to be dropped. His kicking by foot is a liability remember ?  Where are those fickle fans that wanted him dropped. Own it

I never wanted Oliver dropped, but his foot disposal was underwhelming up until the last couple of weeks (against comfortably the two worst teams this season). It looked like Oliver at times was over thinking things, trying to pull off dinky little kicks and failing. They always look bad, a botched 55 metre kick frustrates the fans much less. But his hands are so good you can never seriously contemplate dropping him. Even if he kept ignoring coach’s orders I’d want him being “punished” by being played deep forward or on a half forward flank, not out of the team.

I hope the penny has dropped and his confidence is up after the last two “easy kills” because his balance of disposal mix and confidence to use his foot speed has been just about perfect for mine in those games. And he’s been hitting up some really nice kicks too.

[dazzledavey36 55,052]

I'd be dropping Vandenberg before Jones. Vandenberg has been terrible and gives away far too many crucial free kicks. Goodwin talks about being discipline and yet Vanders is not that.

Jones had 6 involvements last week on the back of 6 again last week. Vandenberg only had 1 last week.

Vandenberg had 55% disposal and 2 score involvements last night. He is cooked.

[grazman 7,441]

16 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I'd be dropping Vandenberg before Jones.  He is cooked.

I think a lot of supporters had a rather optimistic view of Vanders disposal. It's never been great and he's had a couple of brain fades in the last couple of weeks with free kicks, but if he played this week with a fractured cheekbone snd eye socket no way does he get dropped next week. 

Goodwin loves him for a reason and he plays the tall defensive winger role that both Jones and Tomlinson don't do as well as Vanders. He crashes into packs and hurts the opposition, that's his role. Others can worry about score involvement AVB is there to worry the oppo.

Edited August 9, 2020 by grazman

[dazzledavey36 55,052]

5 minutes ago, grazman said:

I think a lot of supporters had a rather optimistic view of Vanders disposal. It's never been great and he's had a couple of brain fades in the last couple of weeks with free kicks, but if he played this week with a fractured cheekbone snd eye socket no way does he get dropped next week. 

Goodwin loves him for a reason and he plays the tall defensive winger role that both Jones and Tomlinson don't do as well as Vanders. He crashes into packs and hurts the opposition, that's his role. Others can worry about score involvement AVB is there to worry the oppo.

This is overstates way too much on here. Him crashing into packs is the reason why he gives away stupid free kicks. If that's his role then he is not doing that at a reasonable standard.

Besides his Gold Coast game where I thought he was okay, he's been uneffected all year.

[Pates 9,660]

29 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I'd be dropping Vandenberg before Jones. Vandenberg has been terrible and gives away far too many crucial free kicks. Goodwin talks about being discipline and yet Vanders is not that.

Jones had 6 involvements last week on the back of 6 again last week. Vandenberg only had 1 last week.

Vandenberg had 55% disposal and 2 score involvements last night. He is cooked.

I’d be up for dropping AvB for Viney and trialling Jack in his role. I felt the mix looked a lot better in the midfield with Trac, Oliver, and Gus. 

I agree that he isn’t making the impact that’s expected of him. 

Also Jack is surprisingly good contested mark, playing him in a HF role could get him on the scoresheet. 

Jones looked better but there was one moment that he very clearly got right in Clarry’s way, I just worry he upsets the balance in there. 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

33 minutes ago, grazman said:

I think a lot of supporters had a rather optimistic view of Vanders disposal. It's never been great and he's had a couple of brain fades in the last couple of weeks with free kicks, but if he played this week with a fractured cheekbone snd eye socket no way does he get dropped next week. 

Goodwin loves him for a reason and he plays the tall defensive winger role that both Jones and Tomlinson don't do as well as Vanders. He crashes into packs and hurts the opposition, that's his role. Others can worry about score involvement AVB is there to worry the oppo.

He's going to need to 'crash packs' in a pretty damn impressive way if he's going to continue to give away goals and have massive turnover and clanger numbers. Also going to need to have more than 2.5 tackles if he's a 'defensive winger'.

 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,235]

IN: Gawn Viney Lockhart Bennell

OUT: TMac Jones Harmes Vandenberg

 

 

 

[titan_uranus 25,020]

11 hours ago, binman said:

Omac has to come back in.

If Tomlinson stays in, it cannot be as defender. He is clueless down there. The first three goals were all on him.

Losing Daw and gifting him a goal, free kick to Larkey and then out marked by Larkey

Had to be moved of Larkey, a  22 year old in his 21st game, 10 minutes into the first quarter and one of lever or may was then forced to play deep on him for the rest of the game.

That's tow games in arow he has been embarrassed by a kid.

Just imagine the vitriol that would have rained down on Omac if that had been him.

My initial impression of Tomlinson was pretty poor, too.

But in the spirit of your work after the Port game, I thought I'd go back and have a look at those three first quarter goals.

If it had been OMac, here's what I reckon you'd have said about them:

1. The Daw one wasn't OMac's fault, it was Lever's for failing to kill the ball (he goes for a one-handed mark).
2. The second one was barely a free kick and then vandenBerg gave away a dumb 50. So hardly OMac's fault there either.
3. The third one there was no one in the hole in front, letting Larkey lead up. Zone defence, etc. etc.

I'm not saying Tomlinson was good, but much like you spun OMac's game vs Port to suggest it was better than it was, I'm not convinced Tomlinson was as bad as you wish he was. 

[titan_uranus 25,020]

9 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Smith’s biggest mistakes were flying for contests he didn’t need to, defensively he gave McKay and Rohan a bath and kept Riewoldt relatively quiet given the chances Richmond had

Hannan fumbles or turns it over on about 50% of touches, he’s far from clean. I want him in the side but chasing and tackling at full fitness. 

Vanders stays until we look at Harmes, Rivers (Or Bennell, Baker, Sparrow, JJ etc) on a wing and find a proper solution (non Jones, non Gus). His importance to the defensive structure overcomes most of his mistakes - outside of gifting goals from free kicks but that shouldn’t be a consistent thing. 

But that's the thing: these past two games, it has been consistent. 

And I'm not sure he's as important to defensive structure as you think. 

As to Smith, I'm wholly against players who are untrustworthy. Smith's untrustworthy. 

And suggesting he gave McKay a bath is absolutely ridiculous. McKay was dropping marks and having players kick over his head all game. Wasn't Smith's doing, it was Carlton's.

[chookrat 4,257]

11 hours ago, WERRIDEE said:

IN: GAWN, VINEY

OUT: JONES, TOMMY

I reckon this could be right as Jones/Sparrow are competing for same spot and with Jackson playing well and looking better every week, I reckon he offers more than Tom MacDonald on current form. Who would have thought 3 - 4 years ago we'd have such depth that Nathan Jones and Tom MacDonald would be in and out of the side.

I thought Pickett and Spargo offered alot as half/small forwards with smart kicking in our forward half.

Another one I'd consider is whether to play Harmes or Tomlinson as a half back/utility based on team balance.

[binman 43,183]

8 hours ago, rjay said:

You've got to play tight and physical on Stephenson.

He will do you on the outside if given space but with no space he just doesn't go...

I think he would be too smart for Smith.

Could May go with him?

May could for sure. But I reckon it locks him up and I reckon he is more damaging higher. 

I'd play May on miocheck as he is a player who is good one on one but may will be too good. And he plays up around the hf line.

Hibberd could take Stephenson, or perhaps even Lockhart?

Who takes Reid rjay if not omac or Tomlinson?

[grazman 7,441]

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

This is overstates way too much on here. Him crashing into packs is the reason why he gives away stupid free kicks. If that's his role then he is not doing that at a reasonable standard.

Besides his Gold Coast game where I thought he was okay, he's been uneffected all year.

Overrated by those here or the FD, because i  bet London to a brick he won't get dropped. 

[dazzledavey36 55,052]

12 minutes ago, grazman said:

Overrated by those here or the FD, because i  bet London to a brick he won't get dropped. 

Nah he obviously won't get dropped, but like Melksham, he's one of Goodwins favourites. 

[binman 43,183]

32 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

My initial impression of Tomlinson was pretty poor, too.

But in the spirit of your work after the Port game, I thought I'd go back and have a look at those three first quarter goals.

If it had been OMac, here's what I reckon you'd have said about them:

1. The Daw one wasn't OMac's fault, it was Lever's for failing to kill the ball (he goes for a one-handed mark).
2. The second one was barely a free kick and then vandenBerg gave away a dumb 50. So hardly OMac's fault there either.
3. The third one there was no one in the hole in front, letting Larkey lead up. Zone defence, etc. etc.

I'm not saying Tomlinson was good, but much like you spun OMac's game vs Port to suggest it was better than it was, I'm not convinced Tomlinson was as bad as you wish he was. 

Good work

I don't mind Tomlinson in. Just not as a defender. I'm not that critical of his work as a defender as he isn't one. Barely played any footy there, apart from stints at CHB. And it shows.

 I'm not wishing him bad.  Honestly. I'd like to see him establish himself in the team on the wing, where how height provides a down the line marking option other than maxy, can take some throw ins and his aerobic capacity can be best used.

You're right lever should have killed that ball but when it hit the ground Tomlinson read it wrong and didn't go with daw. Instead went to the boundary. A rookie defenders mistake as you need to defend the goal side

The free was there. He panicked one out. Sure the 50 gave him a sure goal (brain fade by vdb) but he still would have had a shot from 50.

And totally agree larkey should not have had space to run into (we were way too flat in that first quarter). But it wasn't a mark on the lead as such (it was a contested mark), Tomlinson was slow to react and should have been able to spoil that.

Again looked not someone who is not a natural defender.

So even if the daw one is not solely on him the other two are absolutely on tomlinson.

Immediately after that larkey mark they took Tomlinson off him, so before the end of the first quarter.  This threw the structure out meaning may (mainly) and lever had to play deep, when both are more damaging up the ground.

Tomlinson looked much better playing higher and that is because it is closer to the position we recruited him to play - the wing.

[rjay 25,002]

30 minutes ago, binman said:

May could for sure. But I reckon it locks him up and I reckon he is more damaging higher. 

I'd play May on miocheck as he is a player who is good one on one but may will be too good. And he plays up around the hf line.

Hibberd could take Stephenson, or perhaps even Lockhart?

Who takes Reid rjay if not omac or Tomlinson?

I think Reid will be lucky to make the game after a 4 day break.

It may be the big American.

Either way, I would like to have a better option than we have in Tomlinson or Omac.

[Caligula's cohort 1,014]

8 hours ago, rjay said:

Hasn't worked for us, it's not bollocks.

It's only bollocks when you have 3 good ones.

We don't.

We've tried it once... and against the best team in the comp being Port. Play Weid and Jacko as our main tall forwards and let Tmac be out Utility mr. fix it. He plays forward, back, wing and ruck. 

Jones is virtually having no impact on the game at all so we might as well put Tmac in there instead. Atleast he is a marking option, decent field kick and can lay some tackles. 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,816]

11 hours ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

I see many calling for Jones to be dropped next week. I am interested to know what it is people aren’t liking about him at the moment. 
 

I understand that he doesn’t get a lot of the ball these days, but I thought that, at times, he composed himself when the other mids turned too helter skelter and set up some nice link play. 
 

I am unsure why so many are critical of him. He seems to play his role.

Just as Hillary Clinton's book cover,  "What Happened Hillary Rodham Clilnton" was a question and answer all in one, so too, is your own post.

 

Jones has been a loyal and consistent warrior, but it's time for him to announce his retirement. For the rest of this season, rather than questioning his place in the team, his career needs to be celebrated.    

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,765]

10 hours ago, Garbo said:

We tried that it didn’t work, unless tmac can play down back again or weid of Jackson go horribly out of form he goes straight out once gawn is fit

Yep. They won't change the two talls forward line for the foreseeable future. Goodwin said as much after the Port game.

TMac should stay as a forward. Our backline is functioning well without him. When he tried to play Max's role on the weekend and roll back to assist the defence, he just got in the way.

If there's not a spot there for him up front, he stays out until form or injury forces a change.

It's a good position to be in.

[Caligula's cohort 1,014]

3 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

This is overstates way too much on here. Him crashing into packs is the reason why he gives away stupid free kicks. If that's his role then he is not doing that at a reasonable standard.

Besides his Gold Coast game where I thought he was okay, he's been uneffected all year.

Actually he gave away a free kick last week for pushing an opponent in the back while he was already down, and yesterday he ran through the mark. Were they brain fades? yes... but he'll learn from that. Jones was cooked 2 years ago, his impact on games these days are minimal and not even VFL standard. Vanders overcomes injury after injury and just needs a clean run at it. Cooked? hardly...

Edited August 10, 2020 by Caligula's cohort

[Altona-demon 321]

The team looked relatively balanced to me - but a few performance stood out as lacklustre.

 

1. James Harmes - fumbling, poor disposal, and free kicks. He's down on form - and looks lost across the half-back line, although admittedly is finding himself in good positions. 

2. Nathan Jones - he's cooked, let's give that position to someone a bit more hungry for the ball and with much more run.  Watched the tape back again this morning, and his lack of run and aggression is noticeable.  Been a great servant, but I think he needs to have a rest and is at this stage a depth player. 

 

Underrated performances perhaps:

1. Langdon  - continues to run into great positions and dispose poorly.  If he can clean that disposal up, could be very damaging.  He can kick, there was a great example when he got back into the defensive pocket to support and managed to release pressure with a 30-40m laser kick to I think Salem.  More of that please entering forward 50.

2. Christian Salem - once again, everywhere and in everything - he is SO crucial to the back half and rebound of the footy team.  Although interestingly Jake Lever is starting to support in that role (think Jake is really coming into his own now)

 

[titan_uranus 25,020]

15 minutes ago, binman said:

Good work

I don't mind Tomlinson in. Just not as a defender. I'm not that critical of his work as a defender as he isn't one. Barely played any footy there, apart from stints at CHB. And it shows.

 I'm not wishing him bad.  Honestly. I'd like to see him establish himself in the team on the wing, where how height provides a down the line marking option other than maxy, can take some throw ins and his aerobic capacity can be best used.

You're right lever should have killed that ball but when it hit the ground Tomlinson read it wrong and didn't go with daw. Instead went to the boundary. A rookie defenders mistake as you need to defend the goal side

The free was there. He panicked one out. Sure the 50 gave him a sure goal (brain fade by vdb) but he still would have had a shot from 50.

And totally agree larkey should not have had space to run into (we were way too flat in that first quarter). But it wasn't a mark on the lead as such (it was a contested mark), Tomlinson was slow to react and should have been able to spoil that.

Again looked not someone who is not a natural defender.

So even if the daw one is not solely on him the other two are absolutely on tomlinson.

Immediately after that larkey mark they took Tomlinson off him, so before the end of the first quarter.  This threw the structure out meaning may (mainly) and lever had to play deep, when both are more damaging up the ground.

Tomlinson looked much better playing higher and that is because it is closer to the position we recruited him to play - the wing.

I agree that Tomlinson looked better when he was higher up the ground.

Our defence rests heavily on May and Lever working well together. I'm increasingly warming to the notion that the improvement we saw when OMac was brought back was coincidental, not causative, and that as May and Lever have gelled together and both lifted their games, we've done better.

However, I think structurally we're better with a third defender playing the role OMac was playing. Right now, OMac's the best player on our list for that role. Tomlinson offers more in offence but that doesn't make sense for the role we're talking about. Smith is more athletic but again, that doesn't make sense for the role we're talking about (plus, unlike OMac and Tomlinson, Smith is untrustworthy).

Maybe long-term Petty is this player. Until then, I still think structurally we never should have dropped OMac, but form-wise he wasn't offering much more than Tomlinson, and Tomlinson wasn't as bad as the goals in the first quarter suggested he might have been.

If we persist with Tomlinson this week vs Collingwood, I will be very keen to see how the defence holds up in a significantly sterner test than Adelaide/North.