Whenever I listen to Goody's press conferences it makes me wonder why they don't ask about this.  

We are currently blessed with depth - to the extent that even with injuries there's constant debate about the best mix especially at either end of the ground.  Once Salem comes back and Gus can play on the wing again it will also be talked about for the midfield.  In defence in particular, they seem to be able to mix it up in terms of the number of talls and smalls and still get the job done.  And yet I've never heard of selection being based on the opposition's lineup or game style and/or ability to exploit any weaknesses.  When it comes to finals, if they're all healthy and in form then choosing out of Hunt / Hibberd / Smith / Tomlinson etc should come down to who's best suited to the opposition.

But we don't seem to approach it this way (as far as I can tell).  Injuries aside at the moment, why not?

 

I think you're being too reactive or short term. The team selection would be based on form and providing versatility and options over the coming month of games, with a mind to further build connection between the 22, and refining the 22's ability to cope with any scenario...  

I'm thinking its because we just back our best 22 to do the job week in, week out without worrying much about the opposition.

Although there are always some significant one on one plans for certain players who lock down (Petty, May, Hunt etc), it looks like we just play a system brand and back our system in to choke teams to win.  We're the hunted at the moment, all over the ground and teams are trying to stop us rather than vice versa.

We have had an incredible run with injuries which won't last (sadly) and then test our depth.  I'm still not certain that it's as good as everyone thinks and some players are riding on the coat tails of Trac, Oliver, Gawn who are just so dominant in winning the ball and putting others into space.

It still worries me that if any of these three get injured or worse, more than one, we'd come crashing back down to Earth fairly quickly.

We'd still win the flag of course, but maybe only by 4 goals instead of 8.

I think this is in the same category as changing game style based on your opponent. We saw Port try a whole different game style against us earlier this year and they looked lie they had no idea how to play. So you'd by and large back in your game plan/style and the team to pull that off no mater the opposing team.

I think as a front running team it's a luxury we have, I always thought when we were performing badly we'd be bringing in guys just for the match up and as soon as you do that you go away from really trying to win and just minimising the damage the opposition do - it's funny but if I was in charge of Nth, WC, GWS or the Suns I'd be setting up the game plan and going with that even if it means massive losses. I think that's why Adel, Hawks and Carlton have looked better this year, they've gone away from focusing on the opposition match ups. 

Edited May 13, 20223 yr by Red and Blue realist

I think they don’t worry about the opposition too much because our mix of defenders is so versatile. We have players like Hunt and Salem who can play on small or  mid-sized forwards, May and Petty can play on tall forwards but May is not out of his depth on a medium-sized forward.Lever  really does his own thing and cuts off attacks before they ever get to his opponent – in other words, probably the only thing that might bring a reaction would be if there were, for example, four hulking tall high marking forwards on a fine weather day.  But how often does that happen? And if it does, then the opposition are very vulnerable to us bringing the ball to ground and running away with it. 

Last year there were several games where we were say 20 points ahead well into the last quarter.

It surprised me that we did not use those opportunities to practice a few offensive and defensive two minute drills.

Perhaps the game is so unpredictable that there is little use.

On the thread title I'm not sure there is much quality depth at VFL level but the failures of that competition are so many that it can be hard to judge

We have the right mix of players than can play our game and not worry about the oppos' game.

Let them worry, not us. We can get the job done.

I remember when we brought in Ted Fidge to belt Darren Millane and he got a six week ban. (I loved Ted as a 7 year old because of his name.)

I don't think we need to do stuff like that anymore.

Ted never played for us again!

It's interesting getting people's thoughts.  I don't necessarily disagree.  But I find it interesting that seemingly the system is so strong that it doesn't really matter who is playing as the 6th or 7th defender - they are moved around to get the best out of the 6-7 that are selected.  Which is why if you have a player not playing that is suited to the opposition, isn't that an overall win?

There are individual opposition players that are capable of causing big headaches for us (just like we have for them).  So say Richmond get their act together and have no injuries in the second half of the year.  Dusty is back in form and as a team they are looking like they were 2017-2020.  Hibbo is back from injury and has played a couple of games to cover for best 22 players (just like last year before Smith got injured).  Does he come into the side given his record on Dusty?  Or do we trust whoever is playing in the side the week before (eg Hunt, Smith etc).

Oh, memories of Ted and brother John. There was one game against Richmond when the fight went on for so long that they turned the MCG screen off.  Ted did angry very well indeed.

Edited May 13, 20223 yr by UK Demon
Spelling

2 hours ago, UK Demon said:

Oh, memories of Ted and brother John. There was one game against Richmond when the fight went on for so long that they turned the MCG screen off.  Ted did angry very well indeed.

Which one showed the potential to really be able to play UKD?  So long ago I've forgotten. Didn't one of then go to Essenscum and turn it on one day? 

We "gave" one of the Fidge brothers to the inaugural Brisbane Bears.

Under the AFL rules each team had to release two players. Needless to say no one released any stars

Only my amature understanding (from what i've gathered listening to players/line coaches, head coach & so called experts)....

Team defence and playing the 1.5 style zone means that match ups are not quite as critical as they used to be aside from obviously covering Key Position (KP) players with other KP players that can go with them which is still pretty critical.

Re defense, players are given a fair bit of licence to take more calculated risks & peel off their player a little more often now to impact a contest.   Providing the assists/1%ers in the back half and where possible intercept and start the rebound chains.

If the defensive unit is super tight, the player peeling off trusts that the player he has just left will most likely be covered (to some extent) by a team mate more often than not.

Coaches are more likely to favour players who are 'best fit' and capable of slotting into the method of defence and attacking or defesive ball movement being asked.  And this is reviewed each week with (fringe) players' performance & ability to meet the requirements being considered over a block of games (eg up to three to four matches or so) vs coach requirements / internal KPIs etc when making future selections.

Edited May 13, 20223 yr by Demon Dynasty

We have the system and cattle to cover most scenarios.  Hunt on the small forward, May and Petty, Viney and Harmes doing shut downs if needed.  Forward pressure on Danirel-types…..

matchups from within, not as a key decision for inclusion.  Play your role is the mantra.

3 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

We "gave" one of the Fidge brothers to the inaugural Brisbane Bears.

Under the AFL rules each team had to release two players. Needless to say no one released any stars

Was John, he was a good players

Played back at Glenelg afterwards, recall him doing well, but Wikipedia reminds me he kicked 124 goals ina year there

7 hours ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

Which one showed the potential to really be able to play UKD?  So long ago I've forgotten. Didn't one of then go to Essenscum and turn it on one day? 

As I remember, Ted was in the Tom Bugg mould. John was much bigger and a key position player. He showed potential. I'm not sure about Essendon connections.

11 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

We "gave" one of the Fidge brothers to the inaugural Brisbane Bears.

Under the AFL rules each team had to release two players. Needless to say no one released any stars

John fidge and the other was mark withers

on topic

goody had confidence in our team  , defensive matchups are may on the big ff , lever on chf  , petty on third tall .  . If we tag an opposition mid , its usually harmes . Salem and bowey on the small forwards

The last 33 games the opposition have had to try to match up to us . And not very successfully 

6 hours ago, UK Demon said:

As I remember, Ted was in the Tom Bugg mould. John was much bigger and a key position player. He showed potential. I'm not sure about Essendon connections.

John actually went to the SANFL and kicked 100 goals, maybe we should have persivered a bit longer with him.

8 hours ago, UK Demon said:

As I remember, Ted was in the Tom Bugg mould. John was much bigger and a key position player. He showed potential. I'm not sure about Essendon connections.

I remember Ted standing on the wing with 2 Richmond players.  One of them goaded Ted.  Ted obliged.  There was much blood.  The other Richmond player just looked at his team mate and dismissively waved him to the bench.