View Full Version : Psst, Mark - We're second last
Capital Power
14 May 2006, 17:44
Just in case no-one's pointed this out to him yet. :mad:
Total Power
14 May 2006, 17:46
Our season is over :( , now i am not sure what to do... finishing 9-12th is going nowhere, but finishing with the spoon is not Port Adelaide's way either.
crazy_big_al
14 May 2006, 17:47
we are better than a spoon team.
Capital Power
14 May 2006, 17:49
we are better than a spoon team.
We are?
Ford Fairlane
14 May 2006, 17:49
Psst Mark - we're crap.
Total Power
14 May 2006, 17:49
we are better than a spoon team.
Agreed, but having a top 3/4 pick wont hurt either :)
we are better than a spoon team.
Someone should tell the players that then.
Ford Fairlane
14 May 2006, 17:49
We are?
Yeah I agree with c_b_a ... there is too much talent there to be as bad as we were today.
Psst Mark - we're crap.
agreed. An U13's team could have beaten us today as we were so pathetic.
Total Power
14 May 2006, 17:52
Lets get Sellar or Gibbs :thumbsu:
Santos L Helper
14 May 2006, 17:53
we are better than a spoon team.
By about one win over the season.
RoosterLad
14 May 2006, 17:54
Port wont win the spoon
crazy_big_al
14 May 2006, 18:16
I dont think we are going to playing for a finals berth but i dont want to get a spoon. I want to see us fight back from this. But some though decisions need to be made now, not at the seasons end.
Total Power
14 May 2006, 18:17
I dont think we are going to playing for a finals berth but i dont want to get a spoon. I want to see us fight back from this. But some though decisions need to be made now, not at the seasons end.
As much as i would like to see that happen, it wont happen.If we play the kids we would do a Richmond and get belted by 20 goals, atleast the kids would learn .
As much as i would like to see that happen, it wont happen.If we play the kids we would do a Richmond and get belted by 20 goals, atleast the kids would learn .
Do you think a team with the desparation with the likes of Pearce, Surjan, Ezard et al would lose games by 20 goals? I certainly don't think so. They'd probably lift a few of the current passengers too.
Capital Power
14 May 2006, 18:26
Bresh, I don't think so either. The margin wasn't the youngsters fault. Where were the 1:1 match ups? As Macca said elsewhere it wasn't even obvious most of the players knew who their opponents were.
The cows take a punt on their youngsters and are rewarded with a bunch of no-names punching way above their weight. Time for us to give it a try.
Total Power
14 May 2006, 18:27
Do you think a team with the desparation with the likes of Pearce, Surjan, Ezard et al would lose games by 20 goals? I certainly don't think so. They'd probably lift a few of the current passengers too.
Half of those blokes have played none or less than a couple of AFL games. Against a quality side they will get belted, although we will still get belted even with the seniors, theres not much of a diffence, i agree.I really encourage to include the youngsters in our lineup, however fielding all of em at once is not a good idea IMHO. Look what Richmond did, fielded everyone of their youngsters yesterday and got smashed.
Half of those blokes have played none or less than a couple of AFL games. Against a quality side they will get belted, although we will still get belted even with the seniors, theres not much of a diffence, i agree.I really encourage to include the youngsters in our lineup, however fielding all of em at once is not a good idea IMHO. Look what Richmond did, fielded everyone of their youngsters yesterday and got smashed.
And we got thumped today without blooding many youngsters at all.
crazy_big_al
14 May 2006, 18:29
As much as i would like to see that happen, it wont happen.If we play the kids we would do a Richmond and get belted by 20 goals, atleast the kids would learn .
Not at all. I think Bishop, Dew, Kingsley, Motlop need to get the boot this week. With keeping some experianced players around to allow the younger players to learn from.
I want players who will have a red hot go and to see who is worth keeping and who is worth sending to the AFL scrap heap. We do need to have a look to the future and get back to the place Port Adelaide Supporters expect of their side.
Half of our guys have played a lot of football... and get smashed most weeks. It's not a hard decision to make. BTW, I'm not advocating rushing in every youngster on the list as I have stated on other threads, just get rid of say 5 pieces of the deadwood and see if we can lift the other current passengers who may have something left in the tank (i.e. Cassisi).
Total Power
14 May 2006, 18:31
And we got thumped today without blooding many youngsters at all.
We are playing essendon, carlton next up! so theres a great opportunity to blood youngsters next week and so on. However agaisnt quality sides, if we get belted, is it good for the kids confidence/morale?
Capital Power
14 May 2006, 18:31
Psst, Mark - We're second last
We are now also only one goal from being the worst defence in the league. Sorry to bring that up here but I didn't want to start another depressing thread..... :(
Not to mention, the guys that have only played a handful of games as you say... when are they supposed to turn into 20-30 games players? Throw them to the wolves next year, just because we didn't want to get thumped this year? It's just delaying the inevitable.
PJ Power
15 May 2006, 00:00
Not to mention, the guys that have only played a handful of games as you say... when are they supposed to turn into 20-30 games players? Throw them to the wolves next year, just because we didn't want to get thumped this year? It's just delaying the inevitable.
Exactly. Now is the time to do it.
If we do finish bottom 4 playing the young kids, we will get them 15 games closer to becoming consistent, we will be able to make more informed decisions about which ones we need to keep and which ones may be tradeworthy and if we pick up a top quality big man or midfielder in the draft, then that certainly would not be the end of the world.
Bring in a Gibbs or Sellar to a group where Thomson, Lower, Symes, Willits have all played 15 extra AFL games and next year might be a whole lot happier experience. Mind you we had the same debate for much of last year.
The problem is we are getting murdered playing our senior team.
Porthos
15 May 2006, 00:02
If by senior, you mean old and :D:D:D:Dhouse, then you are correct.
If by senior, you mean best available, I should warn you that what you're smoking may be an illegal substance.
Also, as usual, Bresh speaks truth.
PJ Power
15 May 2006, 00:09
If by senior, you mean old and :D:D:D:Dhouse, then you are correct.
If by senior, you mean best available, I should warn you that what you're smoking may be an illegal substance.
Also, as usual, Bresh speaks truth.
Senior in years and disability, Porthos.
And no, I don't smoke that stuff.
Alberton_Magpie
15 May 2006, 00:29
Next Week:
Outs: Tredrea(find his form in SANFL like everybody else), Kingsly(See Tredrea), Dew(Unfit), Bishop (Shi t and Old), Motlop (Lazy and a Pussy), Thurstans(See Motlop+no talent), Cassisi (Crap at the moment).
Ins Chaplin, Willits, Symes, Ware, Thompson, Ezard, Eckerman
you can't drop tredrea. it won't happen
One of the best players in the AFL and captain of the side. It won't happen guys.
Besides, get the ball to him nicely, and he may actually do something. Kick it short of him, or over his head, and he won't do much. Sure he hasn't been as inspirational as we expect tredrea to be. But he isn't playing all that bad with the limited opportunities.
There is NO point mixing up the forward line, chopping players left right and centre. There is ONE reason the forwards are not performing, and that reason is our midfield. Get them to play more accountable football. How many times did a swarm of bulldogs run the ball through the centre, whislt iour players stood by and watched?
When we got the ball, we either waited for their players to catch up, or we kicked it over our forwards, or to a 2 on one contest, or just to general bad positions.
PJ Power
15 May 2006, 01:44
What I can't understand is where our players were when their guys were running the ball out amongst themselves without an opponent within coo-ee.
If our guys were running back to flood their forward 50m arc, I sure missed them, because their forward line looked very open.
Our guys weren't on the wings, they weren't in the centre square, they were definitely outnumbered in our forward zone and there weren't enough of them in defence.
Basically they made sure they were anywhere but where the ball was.
We are scared at the moment of going near the footy. Our confidence is rock bottom.
RussellEbertHandball
15 May 2006, 02:21
2nd last, 2 wins, crap %. Just following the long term plan of shadowing Brisbane. Have done so since 1997 with 2000 being the big exception.
PJ Power
15 May 2006, 05:44
2nd last, 2 wins, crap %. Just following the long term plan of shadowing Brisbane. Have done so since 1997 with 2000 being the big exception.
Has seemed that way for a long time.
Magpiespower
15 May 2006, 06:09
The players are going through the motions.
Until they start chasing, tackling, harrassing, putting pressure on the opposition...
We'll continue to get belted.
Larry the Liquidator
15 May 2006, 10:54
Living in Melbourne, I watched the game on tv.
Dermott Brereton made a very good point. Only 31 games ago, Port won the Premiership. And yet look where we are now.
But we all new that at some point, we would begin to slide down the ladder, it is the nature of AFL that what goes up, eventually comes down. Since the new millenium (2001), Port is the only side not to have missed a finals series. That is 5 years of not being able to que up early in the draft. It will get you eventually. So lets be positive about this and deal with it now before it plagues us for the next 5 or 6 years. I don't want to do a Carlton or an Essendon.
I suggest we play the youngsters. I don't care if we don't win another game for the rest of the year. At least then we get some early draft picks, plus a bonus pick for winning less than 5 games. Plus it will get the kids match tough and experienced, particularly in defence and in the middle where I believe we need it the most. Our current list is going no-where fast so what is the point of playing them in their regular positions. Yesterday I saw lack of passion, lack of hunger, lack of everything that is needed to be a force in this competition. A few of our senior players also need to be put on notice as well.
And what is it with Thurstans? Only 18 months ago he kicked 3 goals against arguably the greatest team ever in a Grand Final. One would have been forgiven for thinking back then that his performance would only better him and he would grow from strength to strength. What a disappointment he has been.
As for Ebert, I am convinced in my mind that he is a midfielder. I just know he can do a job there.
Mad Dog
15 May 2006, 11:02
Did anyone hear KG on the radio this morning...
Named Dew, Pettigrew, Thurstans as needing to ask themselves the question as to whether they want to play AFL football or not....:eek:
He was very very strong on this point
Ford Fairlane
15 May 2006, 11:07
Good on him. It's about time the media started to do some analysing and asking hard questions again instead of just reciting what Port feed them through press conferences. While things are running smoothly at West Lakes, let the spotlight burn away at the inadequacies at Port.
Toots Hibbert
15 May 2006, 11:07
Did anyone hear KG on the radio this morning...
Named Dew, Pettigrew, Thurstans as needing to ask themselves the question as to whether they want to play AFL football or not....:eek:
He was very very strong on this point
Mad Dog....what can I say? KG is the village idiot. Presumably you're quoting him because he's saying what you want to say. Why not just say it yourself and leave sh*t-for-brains out of it?
Good on him. It's about time the media started to do some analysing and asking hard questions again instead of just reciting what Port feed them through press conferences. While things are running smoothly at West Lakes, let the spotlight burn away at the inadequacies at Port.
Yep, I agree. :thumbsu:
If questions need to be asked, it is their job to ask them.
Mad Dog
15 May 2006, 11:14
Mad Dog....what can I say? KG is the village idiot. Presumably you're quoting him because he's saying what you want to say. Why not just say it yourself and leave sh*t-for-brains out of it?
Actually Toots......it's not what I wanted to say.....because I don't watch Port Power games closely enough to be able to pass comment on who is trying and who is not....I think you understand the way I work a bit better than that - if I've got something to say I'll say it......
....I was asking if anyone had heard KG......he basically said that these 3 weren't even trying.....is he right or is he wrong ?
wharfie_1870
15 May 2006, 11:22
.........I was asking if anyone had heard KG......he basically said that these 3 weren't even trying.....is he right or is he wrong ?I don't listen to KG but I agree with what he is saying in this instance (which is probably the only time I will agree with that particular village idiot). I also think his list is a bit short. On the performances of Port so far this year there are a lot of players just going thru' the motions.
Mad Dog
15 May 2006, 11:24
I don't listen to KG but I agree with what he is saying in this instance (which is probably the only time I will agree with that particular village idiot). I also think his list is a bit short. On the performances of Port so far this year there are a lot of players just going thru' the motions.
the other one he mentioned was Motlop I think..:confused:
Ford Fairlane
15 May 2006, 11:26
FWIW "I heard" that before the game Motlop was told this was his last chance or he's back at North next week. Certainly had the desired effect ... if you wanted him dropped :rolleyes:
Porthos
15 May 2006, 11:26
What I can't understand is where our players were when their guys were running the ball out amongst themselves without an opponent within coo-ee.
If our guys were running back to flood their forward 50m arc, I sure missed them, because their forward line looked very open.They were jogging back. Choco engineered it so that our loose men were never anyone with some genuine pace, and certainly not anyone interested in using it. Don't ask me why.
Porthos
15 May 2006, 11:29
Named Dew, Pettigrew, Thurstans as needing to ask themselves the question as to whether they want to play AFL football or not....:eek: I noticed Capel had a go at the Grew in the paper this morning too. I really am not sure why. When he's stuffing up, its damaging, but when he's effective, its also damaging. And he's also a bloody rookie. I didn't see him shirking contests or just being astoundingly dumb under no pressure like many other players. Why the big hate on the Grew in the SA media?
Ford Fairlane
15 May 2006, 11:35
Poor Grew, he's played a handful of games and is yo yoed up and down the field by the genius coach. No wonder he can't settle. He's one of the last ones I'd be pointing a finger at.
Powerstufff
15 May 2006, 11:44
Yeah I agree with c_b_a ... there is too much talent there to be as bad as we were today.There is if actually selected on merit and on potential for the future.
Why the big hate on the Grew in the SA media?
Because they are a bunch of t**sers and rookies are a soft touch. Plenty of things to address before we get down to our young brigade but that's to challenging for the media
Rodney18
15 May 2006, 12:24
Did anyone hear KG on the radio this morning...
Named Dew, Pettigrew, Thurstans as needing to ask themselves the question as to whether they want to play AFL football or not....:eek:
He was very very strong on this point
Bit harsh on Pettigrew, I would have Lonie before him.
Did anyone see him in the 1st quarter close to the boundary line about 50M from the bulldogs goal. - the ball was coming from the bulldogs goal towards him and he would not put his body behind the ball and the bulldogs played brushed him aside and they goaled.
I thought surely he will be dragged for that insipid display.
Nope Williams left him on.
Ford Fairlane
15 May 2006, 12:44
I saw another one where he had a high ball to mark and needed to take a step back to be sure of grabbing it. But a Bulldogs player was coming in from the side and just behind and so was in better position - but Lonie wouldn't step back and take the contact he just tried to reach higher. Of course the ball went over the top and spilled out the back to the doggie who ran off merrily. It happens far too often with this guy. He would never play in any Port side I picked. Same as Thurstans. And as far as defending Thurstans goes, I'm with PJ - if you do that then you've become accepting of mediocrity because of the tripe that the rest are serving up.
Macca19
15 May 2006, 17:05
I think Pettigrew is getting mentioned mainly because of one incident which cost a goal - where he got a hot handball and tried to baulk around a player...he got caught, threw it up and it resulted in a goal. Third quarter I think. I actually thought it was his best game for the year. He certainly provided something up forward when we were coming back.
As many have said, the poor bloke gets moved all around the ground every quarter. Bit hard to develop your game when you get moved every 15 minutes. So far hes always looked dangerous up forward but has been a bit of a bombscare in defence. I say leave him up forward and let him develop there.
stewie griffen
15 May 2006, 17:15
The thing that annoyed me the most was that ok we are down by 10 goals, lets see if surjan can do a real job in midfield, playing kingers in there is pointless, we know what he can do (or used to do) but isnt now the time to bite it and say to choco, ok you keep your job regardless of whether we win or lose but lets blood 4 or 5 kids each game and see how we go
and what is the deal with motlop? theres no way he is a defender and putting him back there is like sending a lamb to the slaughterhouse
Macca19
15 May 2006, 17:17
What I can't understand is where our players were when their guys were running the ball out amongst themselves without an opponent within coo-ee.
If our guys were running back to flood their forward 50m arc, I sure missed them, because their forward line looked very open.
Our guys weren't on the wings, they weren't in the centre square, they were definitely outnumbered in our forward zone and there weren't enough of them in defence.
I noticed at the ground that when we had the ball a lot of our players ran forward of the play. When the inevitable turnover happened they didnt show the same commitment running back. A lot of players took a good 5 seconds to start running back, even then it was just a jog and by then the ball was 60-70 metres down the field anyway.
nivek48
15 May 2006, 17:24
What I can't understand is where our players were when their guys were running the ball out amongst themselves without an opponent within coo-ee.
If our guys were running back to flood their forward 50m arc, I sure missed them, because their forward line looked very open.
Our guys weren't on the wings, they weren't in the centre square, they were definitely outnumbered in our forward zone and there weren't enough of them in defence.
I noticed at the ground that when we had the ball a lot of our players ran forward of the play. When the inevitable turnover happened they didnt show the same commitment running back. A lot of players took a good 5 seconds to start running back, even then it was just a jog and by then the ball was 60-70 metres down the field anyway.
i noticed that happended a few times when rowan smith had the ball on the outer wing on his own (did he smell coz none of our guys went near him :rolleyes: )
... no-one manned up and there were two occasions when i saw port players (i wont mention names) turn their back on play and ran away from smith towards the centre and not even to man up on another player so just letting smith keep running in towards goals (and they scored both times) ...
my observation - some our players seem to be fixated with protecting a 'zone' instead of manning up or even a simple act of pressuring a player with the ball. Some players do chase and Pearce was one who never gave up.
nivek48
15 May 2006, 17:31
The thing that annoyed me the most was that ok we are down by 10 goals, lets see if surjan can do a real job in midfield, playing kingers in there is pointless, we know what he can do (or used to do) but isnt now the time to bite it and say to choco, ok you keep your job regardless of whether we win or lose but lets blood 4 or 5 kids each game and see how we go
and what is the deal with motlop? theres no way he is a defender and putting him back there is like sending a lamb to the slaughterhouse
just caught a grab on abc radio news of choco saying we only had 9-10 players up to afl standard and 5 others developing ... did he mean our list or yesterday's 22 ... hope he meant the '22' :rolleyes:
... selection this week should be interesting and i expect changes to be made!
wharfie_1870
15 May 2006, 17:43
just caught a grab on abc radio news of choco saying we only had 9-10 players up to afl standard and 5 others developing ... did he mean our list or yesterday's 22 ... hope he meant the '22' :rolleyes:
... selection this week should be interesting and i expect changes to be made!Interesting comment :eek:
If he means the list then you would have to assume that the 22 yesterday only had 6-7 AFL standard players as 3 (Wanganeen, Brogan, Francou) did not play because of injury, assuming Choco sees those guys as AFL standard. Either way it doesn't say much for our list.
my observation - some our players seem to be fixated with protecting a 'zone' instead of manning up or even a simple act of pressuring a player with the ball. Some players do chase and Pearce was one who never gave up.
got it right there, no surprise that the teams we have always struggled against are the ones that apply midfield pressure. We don't and we are atrocious at blocking up the back half anyway. I'd like just once to see the back 6 left to their own devices and the midfielders chase and pressure their own man. Just once play man on man football, then we will at least see which players are capable of beating an opponent. We don't even go man on man when we are 5 goals down in the first quarter! Good sides have more than one plan. Teams like the camries (as much as I hate to say it) play freee running football when they are on a roll, then shut down the game when the opposition is. You have to have the options open to adjust your style, not just move Cornes forward or Burgoeny into the middle. [/rant]
raikkonen
15 May 2006, 17:50
Last year you started in similar fashion if I remember, with 3-1-6 after 10 rounds, and finished with somethng like 11-1-10 and in the eight. So I wouldnt be giving up just yet, with (as much as I hate to say it) a successful club like yours.
I think that (along with others in this thread) that Dew, Bishop, Motlop, Lonie, Pettigrew, and even tredders need to go and find some form. Give the youngsters a go. It is working over our way when the senior players are unavailable. The tredrea returning from injury excuse is getting a bit old now. Ricciuto kicked 6 in his first game back in round 1, then 5 the next week, as well as another 5 when he returned for us yesterday from injury. Tredrea should be producing that kind of form 3-4 weeks back into the game now. He won't be dropped, but he has to pick up his game majorly.
Motlop is possibly the worst recruit ever by your mob. He plays for himself, and not the team, and he is a show-pony. :thumbsd:
stewie griffen
15 May 2006, 17:51
Teams like the camries (as much as I hate to say it) play freee running football when they are on a roll, then shut down the game when the opposition is.
unfortunately playing shut down footy means hitting your targets,a nd thats something we are struggling with at the moment.....
nivek48
15 May 2006, 17:53
my observation - some our players seem to be fixated with protecting a 'zone' instead of manning up or even a simple act of pressuring a player with the ball. Some players do chase and Pearce was one who never gave up.
got it right there, no surprise that the teams we have always struggled against are the ones that apply midfield pressure. We don't and we are atrocious at blocking up the back half anyway. I'd like just once to see the back 6 left to their own devices and the midfielders chase and pressure their own man. Just once play man on man football, then we will at least see which players are capable of beating an opponent. We don't even go man on man when we are 5 goals down in the first quarter! Good sides have more than one plan. Teams like the camries (as much as I hate to say it) play freee running football when they are on a roll, then shut down the game when the opposition is. You have to have the options open to adjust your style, not just move Cornes forward or Burgoeny into the middle. [/rant]
we seem to start off at the bounce with our players standing next to an opponent (unless they're named rowan smith) then the next time thay are together is the next bounce. is it just us or is that the new 'basketball-like' afl?
either way i don't like it - yea man up or run with your player - what a novel idea - might catch on - haha!
:rolleyes:
Macca19
15 May 2006, 18:01
we seem to start off at the bounce with our players standing next to an opponent
Cant agree with that given what I saw yesterday. Numerous times Bulldogs players were on their own on the wings/half forward line at a centre bounce down. Its just slack
wharfie_1870
15 May 2006, 18:03
Cant agree with that given what I saw yesterday. Numerous times Bulldogs players were on their own on the wings/half forward line at a centre bounce down. Its just slackYep, at one centre bounce Eagleton was all on his own on the members side of the centre square while Salopek was standing next to Lonie on the outer side :eek:
Powerstufff
15 May 2006, 18:05
.....Motlop is possibly the worst recruit ever by your mob. He plays for himself, and not the team, and he is a show-pony. :thumbsd:I wish he did play for himself, he'd at least do something. He started with us looking a bit like that. But now he doesn't play for anyone - he does nothing at all.
nivek48
15 May 2006, 18:06
deleted - double post
nivek48
15 May 2006, 18:07
Cant agree with that given what I saw yesterday. Numerous times Bulldogs players were on their own on the wings/half forward line at a centre bounce down. Its just slack
Yep, at one centre bounce Eagleton was all on his own on the members side of the centre square while Salopek was standing next to Lonie on the outer side :eek:
yep ok - that just means we never manned up on their players!!!! :mad:
... i only noticed rowan smith coz he was near me. i agree ... slack!
nivek48
15 May 2006, 18:20
double post - oops
nivek48
15 May 2006, 18:21
deleted
Porthos
15 May 2006, 19:10
I noticed at the ground that when we had the ball a lot of our players ran forward of the play. When the inevitable turnover happened they didnt show the same commitment running back. A lot of players took a good 5 seconds to start running back, even then it was just a jog and by then the ball was 60-70 metres down the field anyway.Bingo
Next Week:
Ins Chaplin, Willits, Symes, Ware, Thompson, Ezard, Eckerman
That is the most amazing set of ins I have ever seen!
How many of them have played 5 games?
That is the most amazing set of ins I have ever seen!
How many of them have played 5 games?
It doesnt matter how many games they have played in the AFL. They should be given the chance to come out and play for the Power. FFS they cant do any worse then the current line up that are running out on the oval week after week.
Give the young guys the chance to prove themselves. We drafted them for a reason. Not to be playing in the SANFL week after week.
Powerstufff
15 May 2006, 22:26
That is the most amazing set of ins I have ever seen!
How many of them have played 5 games?For the future I can tolerate a loss due to inexperience, and I would be more than happy to see these guys in. I guarantee we wouldn't see the heartless performance we saw last Sunday.
hoochie mama
15 May 2006, 22:32
I think some of you have to be careful going with the thoughts that playing all of youngsters is the way to go. You have to have a nice mix otherwise you get flogged and it teaches nothing.
*PAFC*13
15 May 2006, 22:35
No way in hell Eckermann will be in, he is playing ressies for Sturt.
I think some of you have to be careful going with the thoughts that playing all of youngsters is the way to go. You have to have a nice mix otherwise you get flogged and it teaches nothing.
We're getting flogged now so what difference does it make. The youngsters have to be given the chance to show that they can perform at this level. We have seniors at present that are'nt capable so why not give the young guys a go.
portentous
16 May 2006, 09:54
You run the risk of totally shattering the remaining youngsters' confidence if we play them all at once-that is the ones that Choco hasn't done that to already. It can take ages for them to get it back-Ebert, Pettigrew, Surjan et al know that all too well.
Vipertooth
17 May 2006, 18:13
Go Lions, Brisbane Lions, we'll kick the winning score (against port this week:p ) you'll hear out mighty roar!
PJ Power
17 May 2006, 18:41
I think some of you have to be careful going with the thoughts that playing all of youngsters is the way to go. You have to have a nice mix otherwise you get flogged and it teaches nothing.
This comes up a fair bit, and I can understand the rationale, but right now the younger players are being developed in an environment where those that do get to play at AFL level are only being taught bad habits of poor decision making, poor execution, unaccountability and softness by their senior colleagues. Moreover many of them are yo-yoing from one footy team at AFL level to another at SANFL.
I'm not sure that Chaplin benefits that much from seeing Bishop trail his man, or Salopek by watching Kane Cornes get his touches by running around the back of a ruckman only to then chip a 20m pass to the side.
If you want a balance it should be of hard-working, well-performing seniors and the most enthusiastic and determined of the kids.
Seniors who should be selected when fit:
Burgoynes
Corneses
Wakelin
Wilson
Walsh
Cassisi (as a HBF or tagger)
Tredrea
Lade
Brogan
That is 11 players. Mahoney and Kingsley can also be added to that group when they are performing near their best.
We should therefore be able to find room for 9-11 sub50 game players.
White, Salopek, Pearce and Surjan hold their places from the weekend.
Chaplin should return.
Thomson should never have been dropped.
Ebert needs to be played to make a definitive decision re his future with us.
Symes has earnt his spot.
Lower and/or Thomas look very likely and would not suffer for the early exposure.
Pettigrew - I am ambivalent about atm.
That does not seem an outrageous mix of young and old.
Outs:
Cassisi (injured)
Bishop
Thurstans
Dew
Motlop
Lonie
Ins:
Symes
Brogan
Chaplin
Thomson
Lower
Ebert
Porthos
17 May 2006, 18:43
You run the risk of totally shattering the remaining youngsters' confidence if we play them all at once-that is the ones that Choco hasn't done that to already.It can take ages for them to get it back-Ebert, Pettigrew, Surjan et al know that all too well.OK, those two statements are not a logical progression. While the confidence of Ebert, and possibly Surjan, has been shot, it is not because they have been played all at once. It has in fact been because of a refusal to bring young players into the side when we need to.
Right now we need to. Choco had a chance to introduce them more gradually, but he's PIS5ed that chance away now. He's PIS5ed a lot of chances away.
PJ Power
17 May 2006, 18:47
This week's side
B....Chaplin.....Wakelin.....Wilson
HB....Lower.....Chad Cornes.....Symes
C....Salopek.....Shaun Burgoyne.....Walsh
HF.....Pearce.....White.....Surjan
FF.....Pettigrew....Tredrea.....Mahoney
R....Lade....Peter Burgoyne.....Kane Cornes
Int....Brogan...Kingsley.....Ebert.....Thomson
I would absolutely love for that side to be picked.
nivek48
17 May 2006, 20:01
Go Lions, Brisbane Lions, we'll kick the winning score (against port this week:p ) you'll hear out mighty roar!
slow news day with akers?
Next Week:
Outs: Tredrea(find his form in SANFL like everybody else), Kingsly(See Tredrea), Dew(Unfit), Bishop (Shi t and Old), Motlop (Lazy and a Pussy), Thurstans(See Motlop+no talent), Cassisi (Crap at the moment).
Ins Chaplin, Willits, Symes, Ware, Thompson, Ezard, Eckerman
Eckerman?
Has U seen him play this year?
Obviously not. He's playing reserves, and not that well...
By all means, bring in some youngsters, but bring them in for the right reasons, not just because they're young...
Next Week:
Outs: Tredrea(find his form in SANFL like everybody else), Kingsly(See Tredrea), Dew(Unfit), Bishop (Shi t and Old), Motlop (Lazy and a Pussy), Thurstans(See Motlop+no talent), Cassisi (Crap at the moment).
Ins Chaplin, Willits, Symes, Ware, Thompson, Ezard, Eckerman
Good to see the team getting backed boys.Cripes! We have been spoiled with success,wake up and smell the roses,YOU CANT STAY AT THE TOP FOREVER!! FFS!!!
Malibu#27
18 May 2006, 16:07
Since the latter part of last season, we have been seeing quite a few kids played... certainly more than in years past. Havent included white, but the same situation applies for him.
chaplin, grew, pearce, salopek, ebert, thomson, symes, surjan, deluca etc. I know people on here had their knives sharpened and ready because they thought wanganeen, kingsley, francou etc would get "rushed" back to take their spots but that hasnt happened as yet either.
The question will become how many should we be playing at a time - we certainly cannot play them all at once ...
I agree with many, that we have to play kids, and theres thomas, lower, ware, and willits also around the mark, but i dont think you can be as simplistic as saying play em all now, you have to manage how many are played on a given week.
Macca19
18 May 2006, 16:53
My theory is if you have an under performing senior player who may or may not be nearing the end of his career, and an in form junior player who plays a similar role, the junior player should gain preference at the moment.
I dont think we should throw in 17 juniors and see how they go. Obviously they would struggle. But in years gone past they havent been given a fair go and those under performing senior guys have had it too easy.
The junior players we need to come good should be given preference. This is why im still dirty that Thomson isnt in the side. Hes our only true young inside midfielder on our list and he should be in the Power side developing, not in the SANFL.
Malibu#27
18 May 2006, 17:04
My theory is if you have an under performing senior player who may or may not be nearing the end of his career, and an in form junior player who plays a similar role, the junior player should gain preference at the moment.
I dont think we should throw in 17 juniors and see how they go. Obviously they would struggle. But in years gone past they havent been given a fair go and those under performing senior guys have had it too easy.
The junior players we need to come good should be given preference. This is why im still dirty that Thomson isnt in the side. Hes our only true young inside midfielder on our list and he should be in the Power side developing, not in the SANFL.
Agree with all that. and in particular Thomson - I still maintain that from what I have seen of him Chocko has a problem with his kicking.... still should be playing though - he is ahead of the curve (in terms of kids) when playing in congestion.
The case that annoys me is when people are suggesting untried players, in many cases it appears based on very little, and it almost appears its just 'cause they're a kid - maybe its an overcorrection for the past when it was very hard for the younger players to break into the side, that now we have supporters calling for inclusions after 1 good game in the SANFL.
dyertribe
18 May 2006, 17:05
The junior players we need to come good should be given preference. This is why im still dirty that Thomson isnt in the side. Hes our only true young inside midfielder on our list and he should be in the Power side developing, not in the SANFL.
It's to be expected though.
Remember last year when Chaplin had that stormer against North only to be dropped the following week for Cochrane? Masterstroke...
In all seriousness you're 100% correct. If you can't blood the youngsters now when can you? As you say, throwing them all in would be silly, but to leave ones out who will, must, become key performers in the coming years is even more ridiculous.
Porthos
18 May 2006, 17:36
The case that annoys me is when people are suggesting untried players, in many cases it appears based on very little, and it almost appears its just 'cause they're a kid - maybe its an overcorrection for the past when it was very hard for the younger players to break into the side, that now we have supporters calling for inclusions after 1 good game in the SANFL.Which players do you think are being suggested to come into the side that wouldn't/couldn't fill a hole in our side?
Thomas/Lower - accountable defenders that can take a hit. Currently lacking.
Willits - aggressive, short-leading big forward. Currently lacking.
Ezard - run-with midfielder. Currently lacking.
Who besides them?
Powerstufff
18 May 2006, 17:45
....The case that annoys me is when people are suggesting untried players, in many cases it appears based on very little, and it almost appears its just 'cause they're a kid.....My view, and my view only, is that when you sat through what I sat through last Sunday you throw caution to the wind for the next game. I apologise to those who think we can make the finals still, because we can't. People say Eckermann won't get picked because he's struggling in Sturt's reserves. Put him in the AFL team and let him fight for his future. Unleash Thomson, Thomas, Willits etc on the Lions. They may get thrashed but at the very least no-one will take six bounces up the wing against us. We must have hungry players.
....maybe its an overcorrection for the past when it was very hard for the younger players to break into the side, that now we have supporters calling for inclusions after 1 good game in the SANFL.Obviously it was hard for juniors to get games in the past, likewise for Brisbane. Yet who'd have thought 2 years ago we'd now be fighting each other to avoid the wooden spoon. Neither side have anything to gain by winning this match per se. OK not winning the wooden spoon is good, but there is no other issue. For me the best possible match would be our juniors vs their juniors, both sides topped up by their respective fit and interested veterans. After all I'll be sitting there watching it. :rolleyes:
Porthos
18 May 2006, 17:48
OK, I don't see room for Eckermann in the top side right now. Even with theoretically pitching gold pass players, there would be a heap of junior ahead of him in line.
Powerstufff
18 May 2006, 17:59
OK, I don't see room for Eckermann in the top side right now....Sure. And picking him because he could do no worse than some of last week's players is a hell of a comedown for a proud side. But I really want to see a roll of the dice. At his best he was fast and brave.
PJ Power
18 May 2006, 20:35
Sure. And picking him because he could do no worse than some of last week's players is a hell of a comedown for a proud side. But I really want to see a roll of the dice. At his best he was fast and brave.
I'm with you Powerstuff. Hungry players in; players needing wakeup calls out.
Re Eckerman, he is a fair way down the pecking order when you consider the other young/untried talent waiting for opportunity.
In addition to those added to the 25 today, there are:
Lower
Thomas
Ware
Willits
Carlile
who are playing at league level for sides doing better than Sturt.
Eckers looked like such a likely AFL player last year. He polled well in the Magarey. Looked like one of those kids (bit like Symes) who takes everything in his stride and works hard enough that success is bound to come. That was the case even after his injury against WCE.
Something pretty significant must have happened to see him fall so far down the ladder.
Malibu#27
19 May 2006, 09:32
Which players do you think are being suggested to come into the side that wouldn't/couldn't fill a hole in our side?
Thomas/Lower - accountable defenders that can take a hit. Currently lacking.
Willits - aggressive, short-leading big forward. Currently lacking.
Ezard - run-with midfielder. Currently lacking.
Who besides them?
Porthos which of these players have you actually seen play..... and how often. Or what are you basing this on. Have you seen enough of Lower (who has played 1 game back in the league side) to know hes ready.
Willits has played the entire year in defence. I think Port should move him to another club that will play him up forward ... but thats by the by.
Also the most recent game I saw Ezerd play he didnt remind me of a run-with midfielder. That beingsaid - people who have seen more of his games than me this year aresaying he would be leading Wests B&F - so its a good selection.
EDIT: I rate both Thomas and Lower ... but especially in Lowers case he has played one game back in the league this year - lets give him a couple and then push him up if hes still performing (which I think he will).
Porthos
19 May 2006, 12:09
EDIT: I rate both Thomas and Lower ... but especially in Lowers case he has played one game back in the league this year - lets give him a couple and then push him up if hes still performing (which I think he will).Normally I would agree that he shouldn't get a game, but I think our need for team-minded defensive small backmen is now so great that we should be jumping at any good form at SANFL level.
I'd put money on this being Wilbur's last year (and its certainly Wangas), and once they're gone, what do we have?
In the case of Lower or Thomas, its not a matter of forcing someone more appropriate out, its a matter of filling a hole that is very obviously there.
Normally I would agree that he shouldn't get a game, but I think our need for team-minded defensive small backmen is now so great that we should be jumping at any good form at SANFL level.
I'd put money on this being Wilbur's last year (and its certainly Wangas), and once they're gone, what do we have?
In the case of Lower or Thomas, its not a matter of forcing someone more appropriate out, its a matter of filling a hole that is very obviously there.
Lower 1 senior game 1 in the best + 1 ressies best - Thomas 4 senior game 3 in the best + 2 ressie bests
Both solid hard footballers -both WILL play they are both keeping the preasure on the senior (and 3rd year) players
Malibu#27
19 May 2006, 13:39
Normally I would agree that he shouldn't get a game, but I think our need for team-minded defensive small backmen is now so great that we should be jumping at any good form at SANFL level.
I'd put money on this being Wilbur's last year (and its certainly Wangas), and once they're gone, what do we have?
In the case of Lower or Thomas, its not a matter of forcing someone more appropriate out, its a matter of filling a hole that is very obviously there.
Certainly agree on Wilbur. Agree that Thomas seems to be a similartype defender. But not so sure thatswhere Lower will end up (defensive backman) as I've heard conflicting reports .... although he was given a defensive job on the weekend and did it well, otherreports I had heard had him as a player with a bit of flair.
Anyone seen oneough of him to elaborate.