1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:

I want to just balance the views here and point out that those suggesting Schache or Grundy play instead of Tom are in a no lose situation playing Monday morning quarterback. You'll never be proven wrong, but you aren't correct either.

Grundy was tried forward and couldn't do it, he couldn't do it even partially.  He doesn't know how to play the position, he can't judge the ball well in the air and therefore doesn't reliably bring it to ground when it's in his area.  Just look at how Phillips completely outpointed him in the Gather Round last year.  Grundy is a ruck only, we know that now, so to pick him in the team or as sub would have been silly as he's only a back up for Gawn.  If Gawn plays Grundy doesn't.

Schache has been the most unreliable and uncompetitive tall you could imagine at all three AFL clubs he's played for.  There is a reason he's at his third. He isn't strong in the air, he isn't strong in the contest and he doesn't play well in high pressure situations such as finals.  Why was he picked as a sub?  Because he can at least play in multiple positions as a KPB, KBF and ruck, but he does all of these at mediocre VFL level.

In a low scoring game against Collingwood, who have a fantastic defense, Tommy kicked one and should have had two.  He knows how to compete in the air, the opposition have to cover him and he can play as a defensive tall.  These are all things he is better at than Schache or Grundy.  He wasn't a poor option, he was just the last option after JvR, Brown and Petty were all injured.  And Tommy was only half fit.

I reckon that if Grundy or Schache had played that last game the same comments would still be made except it would be Tommy that would be called for at the expense of whoever played.  Tommy's positive was that at least he's got the footy IQ to play the position and do a job, Schache and Grundy don't.

But Schache should have bee bought on mid way through the 3rd quarter vs the Blues. He could hav played a similar plan to Frampton did in the GF.

Deliberately just hinder his opponent and other backs. 

No one will ever know if he could have jagged 1 or 2 or 3 marks and kicked straight. 

Goody let himself down not trying this at least. 

 

3 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

I want to just balance the views here and point out that those suggesting Schache or Grundy play instead of Tom are in a no lose situation playing Monday morning quarterback. You'll never be proven wrong, but you aren't correct either.

Grundy was tried forward and couldn't do it, he couldn't do it even partially.  He doesn't know how to play the position, he can't judge the ball well in the air and therefore doesn't reliably bring it to ground when it's in his area.  Just look at how Phillips completely outpointed him in the Gather Round last year.  Grundy is a ruck only, we know that now, so to pick him in the team or as sub would have been silly as he's only a back up for Gawn.  If Gawn plays Grundy doesn't.

 

Goody & the selectors have been extremely inflexible, risk averse & conservative in the last 2 years.

When a selection option is available they always go for the tried & safe option.

The dumbest selections in 23 were dropping Tommo after the KB game and bringing in 2 talls in Grundy & BBB on a soaking wet day in the Alice.

1 hour ago, 58er said:

But Schache should have bee bought on mid way through the 3rd quarter vs the Blues. He could hav played a similar plan to Frampton did in the GF.

Deliberately just hinder his opponent and other backs. 

No one will ever know if he could have jagged 1 or 2 or 3 marks and kicked straight. 

Goody let himself down not trying this at least. 

 

Have said the same myself and it is very hard to argue against.

Even that last goal came from an intercept and pass from an injured Weitering, with Tom Mac no where near him.

I don't blame Tom, but Schache could have done something, while Tom did nothing.

2 hours ago, Redleg said:

Have said the same myself and it is very hard to argue against.

Even that last goal came from an intercept and pass from an injured Weitering, with Tom Mac no where near him.

I don't blame Tom, but Schache could have done something, while Tom did nothing.

I doubt you'll change your view but the decision to select Tom was made based on his previous game not on his performance in the Carlton game.  Yes he did zip against Carlton but against Collingwood his performance was on a par with Fritta and JvR and only behind JSmith of the tall forward options.

When it came to selecting the team to play Carlton JvR was suspended and Fritta was injured.  It wouldn't have made any sense to drop Tom nor to put an uncompetitive player like Schache on who has a history of being invisible in contested hard games.

And it's a cheap shot to say an injured Weitering wasn't covered by Tom.  Why not talk about Judd McVee not taking the body and spoiling the ball out of bounds in the last play for a goal.  How did that player get free?  And was Tom on the ground in that play?  I don't know and I'm not looking at the replay to find out but there is a good chance he wasn't, he only spent 64% of the game on the ground. Perhaps if he'd spent more time on the ground we would have won.

Nobody knows.

We ran out of viable forwards (our best forward line as a collective might be rated as B or B+ (A is a bit of a stretch))

The forward line that took the field in both finals was no better than C or C-

In defence terms it would have been like losing May, Lever & Rivers (shudder)

I've no doubt that the 5 or 6 forwards that took the field gave their best but talent is talent (and that includes a banged up T-Mac)

Fritsch wasn't right either and Gawn had lost his mojo up forward 

As @rjay has said previously, we ran out of options

Here's what our forward line might have looked like if everyone was fit (and firing)

Pick your best 6

HF Petracca/Kozzie   Petty/T-Mac    Fritsch

F  Chandler/Spargo  Brown/JVR   Melksham

 

Petracca couldn't play forward because with Brayshaw out, we needed him in the midfield full time

T-Mac was not match fit and was on 1 leg

Fritsch was not match fit and obviously hampered

Brown was not available because he was on 1 leg

Melksham was out with an ACL

Petty was out with a foot injury

JVR was out suspended (ok, that's self inflicted)

Gawn had become a liability up forward (for whatever reason) 

Grundy is not a forward (again, that's on the club) 

Edited January 8, 20241 yr by Macca

1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:

I doubt you'll change your view but the decision to select Tom was made based on his previous game not on his performance in the Carlton game.  Yes he did zip against Carlton but against Collingwood his performance was on a par with Fritta and JvR and only behind JSmith of the tall forward options.

When it came to selecting the team to play Carlton JvR was suspended and Fritta was injured.  It wouldn't have made any sense to drop Tom nor to put an uncompetitive player like Schache on who has a history of being invisible in contested hard games.

And it's a cheap shot to say an injured Weitering wasn't covered by Tom.  Why not talk about Judd McVee not taking the body and spoiling the ball out of bounds in the last play for a goal.  How did that player get free?  And was Tom on the ground in that play?  I don't know and I'm not looking at the replay to find out but there is a good chance he wasn't, he only spent 64% of the game on the ground. Perhaps if he'd spent more time on the ground we would have won.

Nobody knows.

My post if you look back at it, was directed at bringing a fresh Schache on in the last quarter and was not about the actual selection of Tom to play in the game.

I think its a bit unfair to say a criticism of a player is a cheap shot, just because other players made mistakes.

If you can only point out things when everyone else is perfect, we should all stop all criticism of our players and Coaches.

Can I mention the times when Tom was in the forward line as the second ruck and didn't get to the contest a few times?

My point is that we had a fresh bloke on the bench and he could have been used.

Would we have won, who knows? 

56 minutes ago, Redleg said:

My post if you look back at it, was directed at bringing a fresh Schache on in the last quarter and was not about the actual selection of Tom to play in the game.

I've seen a few just pot Goodwin without saying what they would have done differently.

I think your suggestion is legitimate & wonder why we didn't make that move.

All I can think is that they didn't trust Schache in the heat of battle and he was only there in case of injury (to Max in particular).

Not saying it's right or wrong but just trying to think it through.

I'm one who thought Goodwin coached well last season under a lot of external pressure plus the internal problems with injury.

Doesn't mean he is beyond criticism but in my mind it needs to be reasoned and also attached to the rider that we don't really know the situation behind closed doors.

The Grundy scenario is another case in point..

Why wasn't he selected?

Had he already mentally checked out?

Etc..

 

Edited January 8, 20241 yr by rjay

3 hours ago, rjay said:

I've seen a few just pot Goodwin without saying what they would have done differently.

I think your suggestion is legitimate & wonder why we didn't make that move.

All I can think is that they didn't trust Schache in the heat of battle and he was only there in case of injury (to Max in particular).

Not saying it's right or wrong but just trying to think it through.

I'm one who thought Goodwin coached well last season under a lot of external pressure plus the internal problems with injury.

Doesn't mean he is beyond criticism but in my mind it needs to be reasoned and also attached to the rider that we don't really know the situation behind closed doors.

The Grundy scenario is another case in point..

Why wasn't he selected?

Had he already mentally checked out?

Etc..

 

Still believe even a mentally checked out Grundy (who was still training as required) was a better option than Schache, a selection that Goodwin refused to use in a crisis! Grundy playing the last quarter against Carlton would have at least been able to contest up forward (if not elsewhere on the ground) and bring the ball to ground.
 

I still blame the Coaching hierarchy for a large part of our finals clusterf**k. The non selection of Grundy was mind boggling, selection of Schache and Bailey as subs in finals were baffling. 

3 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

Still believe even a mentally checked out Grundy (who was still training as required) was a better option than Schache, a selection that Goodwin refused to use in a crisis! Grundy playing the last quarter against Carlton would have at least been able to contest up forward (if not elsewhere on the ground) and bring the ball to ground.
 

I still blame the Coaching hierarchy for a large part of our finals clusterf**k. The non selection of Grundy was mind boggling, selection of Schache and Bailey as subs in finals were baffling. 

I would love to know the reasoning behind the Grundy decision...from the outside looking in it was baffling.

If we're hoping for some kind of Phoenix from the ashes revival from Tom McDonald in order to aid our forward line issues then it makes sense why some people say we need a fair bit to go right to win it all. 

 

On 06/01/2024 at 13:36, picket fence said:

Surely having a non aligned person extraneous from the club is taboo??

Not sure but there are heaps of players that do it.

A lot as been said in this thread about Tom and if there is any consensus it's that a fit Tom at his best would be a welcome addition, but we are unsure he'll get back to his best.

Personally I don't think it is likely that he gets back there but I will add that if he does hit some heights again I won't be surprised.

The reason is that he has traditionally been very slow to recover from injury, to regain fitness and subsequently form.

The lisfrac injury derailed his 2022 and in 2023 he never got back up and going, with a follow up surgery on his ankle. It meant that by the time we got finals 2023 he'd effectively had 16 months injured, with only 6 games between 21 May 2022 and the 2023 finals series.

Assuming this second surgery on the ankle has cleared everything up properly it is very possible that a full preseason means he bounces back really well fitness wise.

If he does we'll be a different team that 2022/2023.

Edited January 8, 20241 yr by deanox

I'll never understand the non substitution of Schache for T Mac but moving on.

We have both BBB and Tomlinson as well as TMac in the marginal fringe brigade and of course Schache. That's four players we are carrying. Each is entitled to be there but I look to the coaching staff to use these four players to our advantage over the season.

In 2023 just like 2022 we didn't take our chances to rotate players. Would it have made a difference. Who knows

At VFL level I see TMac playing down back with Tomlinson. Could be interesting

12 hours ago, rjay said:

I would love to know the reasoning behind the Grundy decision...from the outside looking in it was baffling.

There is no doubt that decisions are made in sport and in this case footy,  by clubs about the abilities of players to play in various positions and to play to a certain standard.

It seems to me that for reasons of pride, tightness of lists, or whatever, some of those decisions are never revisited by the makers of them.

That is why some players leave clubs and go on to successful careers at other clubs.

Of course others are never heard of again.

I have always thought it is a difficult decision to make in many cases. Just look at the divergence of opinions among the fans. As an example, I thought Deakyn Smith could make it for us. The powers that be differ. That is their job to make decisions and no doubt they are often difficult and lineball.

I accept that if these decisions weren't made, playing lists would hardly change.

 

16 minutes ago, Redleg said:

There is no doubt that decisions are made in sport and in this case footy,  by clubs about the abilities of players to play in various positions and to play to a certain standard.

It seems to me that for reasons of pride, tightness of lists, or whatever, some of those decisions are never revisited by the makers of them.

That is why some players leave clubs and go on to successful careers at other clubs.

Of course others are never heard of again.

I have always thought it is a difficult decision to make in many cases. Just look at the divergence of opinions among the fans. As an example, I thought Deakyn Smith could make it for us. The powers that be differ. That is their job to make decisions and no doubt they are often difficult and lineball.

I accept that if these decisions weren't made, playing lists would hardly change.

 

Totally agree  Red. they are difficult decisions that are best made by those with the skill, ability and knowledge or are empowered to make an informed decision.  

A bit of transparency would be desirable to justify any decision though. Even a frank admission that it was just a personal opinion that may have not been the best is better than nothing, especially when accompanied with an honest, and i have learnt from this.

No one is perfect and even though learnings are eternal some make the same mistake over and over hoping that something else in the situation will cause a different outcome. I guess the gambling industry is fuelled by this action. 

16 hours ago, rjay said:

All I can think is that they didn't trust Schache in the heat of battle and he was only there in case of injury (to Max in particular).

 

I'm sure that's the reason why they selected Schache as sub and then would refuse to play him unless Gawn got injured.

What disappointed me about this strategy is:

1) Carlton brought on a fresh Ollie Hollands who had a productive 20% game time including being instrumental in the winning passage of play for them. It basically felt like we were giving them a competitive edge on a mild to warm night by not playing our sub regardless of player.

2) T Mac had a really poor game. 6 possession, 2 marks and 0.0. Why wouldn't we give a fit and healthy Schache a go in the last quarter? He simply could not have done any worse than what T Mac provided, and we probably would've had a net gain because at least he was fresh and could have provided more run.

I would have selected Grundy to play T Mac's role, and had a Woewodin, Laurie or Harmes as the sub to replace Grundy in the final 15-20 minutes in the pursuit of more run.

I think your point about Goodwin coaching well and adapting to injuries was fair. The way he re-integrated Melksham into the forward line was inspired and he had JVR and Petty gelling well together until Petty went down.

I just don't believe he had a good finals campaign, irrespective of injuries - eg the sub debacle and playing a small defence against Collingwood when it was proven all year that we need a third tall down back.

51 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I'm sure that's the reason why they selected Schache as sub and then would refuse to play him unless Gawn got injured.

What disappointed me about this strategy is:

1) Carlton brought on a fresh Ollie Hollands who had a productive 20% game time including being instrumental in the winning passage of play for them. It basically felt like we were giving them a competitive edge on a mild to warm night by not playing our sub regardless of player.

2) T Mac had a really poor game. 6 possession, 2 marks and 0.0. Why wouldn't we give a fit and healthy Schache a go in the last quarter? He simply could not have done any worse than what T Mac provided, and we probably would've had a net gain because at least he was fresh and could have provided more run.

I would have selected Grundy to play T Mac's role, and had a Woewodin, Laurie or Harmes as the sub to replace Grundy in the final 15-20 minutes in the pursuit of more run.

I think your point about Goodwin coaching well and adapting to injuries was fair. The way he re-integrated Melksham into the forward line was inspired and he had JVR and Petty gelling well together until Petty went down.

I just don't believe he had a good finals campaign, irrespective of injuries - eg the sub debacle and playing a small defence against Collingwood when it was proven all year that we need a third tall down back.

With all respect, I find Goodwins coaching feeble and uninspiring. Of course a fit Melksham is an automatic selection because he has some x factor. With regard to Shache this is an example of poor selection and even more so poor coaching by not dragging an insipid T.Mac of and at least giving him a go. You are 100% correct with the Ollie Holands scenario and that more than anything else may have cost us the game.

Edited January 9, 20241 yr by picket fence

44 minutes ago, picket fence said:

With all respect, I find Goodwins coaching feeble and uninspiring. Of course a fit Melksham is an automatic selection because he has some x factor. With regard to Shache this is an example of poor selection and even more so poor coaching by not dragging an insipid T.Mac of and at least giving him a go. You are 100% correct with the Ollie Holands scenario and that more than anything else may have cost us the game.

To be fair in 2023 the coaching panel did fix up some aspects of our game however I agree the coaching is generally conservative & inflexible.

I can't think of anything stupider than bringing in 2 talls for a wet game in Alice Springs.

15 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

Still believe even a mentally checked out Grundy (who was still training as required) was a better option than Schache, a selection that Goodwin refused to use in a crisis! Grundy playing the last quarter against Carlton would have at least been able to contest up forward (if not elsewhere on the ground) and bring the ball to ground.
 

I still blame the Coaching hierarchy for a large part of our finals clusterf**k. The non selection of Grundy was mind boggling, selection of Schache and Bailey as subs in finals were baffling. 

Bailey had been sub the previous week in Sydney vs the Swans and played a good quarter and bit. Was apparently never on the ball vs Pies which most Dees fans say where he should be placed. 

Anyone criticising Tom McDonald's spot on the list in 2024 needs to direct their anger / frustration to the club. Don't blame the player for taking a pay cut whilst extending contract length to help the club out.

It is simply woeful list management to have all of Brown, McDonald and Schache coming out of contract next year, and all likely to be spending much of their time impeding Jefferson's potential development at Casey. Don't be surprised if at least one of those three plays on in 2025, because we're unlikely to delist / retire three similar players at the same time.

That said, I'm one of McDonald's biggest fans and will back him in to have a significant impact if he is anywhere near full fitness.

48 minutes ago, poita said:

Anyone criticising Tom McDonald's spot on the list in 2024 needs to direct their anger / frustration to the club. Don't blame the player for taking a pay cut whilst extending contract length to help the club out.

It is simply woeful list management to have all of Brown, McDonald and Schache coming out of contract next year,

Disagree on both points.

My recollection is that Tom, after a good season, was given a 4 year contract and there was no pay cut, or extending the contract to help the club out.

There is nothing wrong with having BBB, Tom and Schache all coming out of contract next year.

Edited January 9, 20241 yr by Redleg

51 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Disagree on both points.

My recollection is that Tom, after a good season, was given a 4 year contract and there was no pay cut, or extending the contract to help the club out.

There is nothing wrong with having BBB, Tom and Schache all coming out of contract next year.

And if TMac hadn't done a Lisfrac in 2022, we probably wouldn't be lamenting the situation.

In 2022 he had 15 goals from 9 games, his best goals per game average other than 2018. Yeah his overall output may have been down vs 2021 and other standout years but he would have given us a focal point up forward for the last couple of years.

3 hours ago, poita said:

Anyone criticising Tom McDonald's spot on the list in 2024 needs to direct their anger / frustration to the club. Don't blame the player for taking a pay cut whilst extending contract length to help the club out.

It is simply woeful list management to have all of Brown, McDonald and Schache coming out of contract next year, and all likely to be spending much of their time impeding Jefferson's potential development at Casey. Don't be surprised if at least one of those three plays on in 2025, because we're unlikely to delist / retire three similar players at the same time.

That said, I'm one of McDonald's biggest fans and will back him in to have a significant impact if he is anywhere near full fitness.

Which begs another question... So we played a less than fit T. Mac rather than a fit Shache??? Then we got exactly what we deserved and as iterated the coach and selectors should bear full criticism of this factor!

7 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I'm sure that's the reason why they selected Schache as sub and then would refuse to play him unless Gawn got injured.

What disappointed me about this strategy is:

1) Carlton brought on a fresh Ollie Hollands who had a productive 20% game time including being instrumental in the winning passage of play for them. It basically felt like we were giving them a competitive edge on a mild to warm night by not playing our sub regardless of player.

2) T Mac had a really poor game. 6 possession, 2 marks and 0.0. Why wouldn't we give a fit and healthy Schache a go in the last quarter? He simply could not have done any worse than what T Mac provided, and we probably would've had a net gain because at least he was fresh and could have provided more run.

I would have selected Grundy to play T Mac's role, and had a Woewodin, Laurie or Harmes as the sub to replace Grundy in the final 15-20 minutes in the pursuit of more run.

I think your point about Goodwin coaching well and adapting to injuries was fair. The way he re-integrated Melksham into the forward line was inspired and he had JVR and Petty gelling well together until Petty went down.

I just don't believe he had a good finals campaign, irrespective of injuries - eg the sub debacle and playing a small defence against Collingwood when it was proven all year that we need a third tall down back.

Good post 'BBP'...

I must admit my inclination would have been to make similar moves to yours above.

The Grundy T Mac one is a bit harder to justify as Grundy unfortunately proved he was not much chop as a forward...at least Tommy had some runs on the board. I might have been more inclined to take Grundy over of Schache but he wouldn't have given us a lot of flexibility. At least Schache could have played ruck, forward or back but we didn't want to use him, so not much point in him being there really...

...without being part of the inner sanctum I guess we will never know the logic of why we did what we did.

You would have to think there was sound reasoning.

37 minutes ago, rjay said:

Good post 'BBP'...

I must admit my inclination would have been to make similar moves to yours above.

The Grundy T Mac one is a bit harder to justify as Grundy unfortunately proved he was not much chop as a forward...at least Tommy had some runs on the board. I might have been more inclined to take Grundy over of Schache but he wouldn't have given us a lot of flexibility. At least Schache could have played ruck, forward or back but we didn't want to use him, so not much point in him being there really...

...without being part of the inner sanctum I guess we will never know the logic of why we did what we did.

You would have to think there was sound reasoning.

TMac had no runs on the board last September. He was a complete liability in both games. He couldn’t move. It was actually embarrassing to watch. Unforgivable from a Selection pov, but it was done not once but twice, whilst 2 fit blokes were not used. 
will take a long time to forget last September