View Full Version : Brisbane Lions vs. Western Bulldogs - Round 11
Lions_Master
2 Jun 2007, 23:02
To get our minds off the draw with Richmond which even I'm itching my head over. This is our big game against Aker and it'll be good for the Gabba ticket sellers! To be honest I can't ourselves winning the match based on our poor form.
We look good on paper but on the field we are pretty average. Are they any changes we need to make or will any of our changes make no difference?
We look good on paper but on the field we are pretty average. Are they any changes we need to make or will any of our changes make no difference?
We are just recycling players between the seniors and reserves.
There are no other changes that will particularly strengthen the team atm - the boys on the park just need lift.
The Flying Belgian
2 Jun 2007, 23:10
I've stickied this thread for all talk leading up to the game.
Can we keep all in/outs discussions, training reports, etc. in here please?
Lions_Master
2 Jun 2007, 23:12
We are just recycling players between the seniors and reserves.
There are no other changes that will particularly strengthen the team atm - the boys on the park just need lift.
Do we need to bring Samuel L Jackson along to give a "Harden the blank up" talk with the players :cool:
Grimreepah
2 Jun 2007, 23:13
We are just recycling players between the seniors and reserves.
I still think you've got to rotate them in and out until you find the winning formula.
I still think you've got to rotate them in and out until you find the winning formula.
Agree Grim it is a bit of trial and error, it will take time and patience.
If our players approach this game with an "us versus Aka" mentality, we will get smashed.
I'm over the whole Aka thing and I reckon it's in our best interests if we (players and spectators alike) just treat him as another opposition player.
If our players approach this game with an "us versus Aka" mentality, we will get smashed.
I'm over the whole Aka thing and I reckon it's in our best interests if we (players and spectators alike) just treat him as another opposition player.
I don't think they will , the Media will will make a big thing of it though.
I don't think they will , the Media will will make a big thing of it though.
And so will the club. And so they should. We need to get 40 thousand there next week and a bit of passion in the crowd. It's become very quiet at the Gabba lately. The ground goes silent after the first bounce.
I see the Lion's website has a "wear maroon" header to welcome back Aker.
Lions_Master
2 Jun 2007, 23:47
And so will the club. And so they should. We need to get 40 thousand there next week and a bit of passion in the crowd. It's become very quiet at the Gabba lately. The ground goes silent after the first bounce.
I see the Lion's website has a "wear maroon" header to welcome back Aker.
We need too. Queenslanders love a winner and the Lions haven't been that for a while. It'll be fun the Aker battle. This might be the thing to get the plaers into gear. Maybe if Aker says a couple words during this week to spark something up. We need something!
TheBrownDog
3 Jun 2007, 01:11
Load Chris Scott up with painkillers and send him in.
Maybe if Aker says a couple words during this week to spark something up. We need something!
Apart from his infamous first press conference as a Bulldog player, he has been very subdued with his media comments.
TheBrownDog
3 Jun 2007, 03:52
Good article by Vossy in The Age
Aka and Lions: split the only solution
Michael Voss
Link to Original Article (http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/aka-and-lions-split-the-only-solution/2007/06/02/1180205577654.html)
JASON Akermanis — you might hear and read a little about him this week ahead of his Gabba homecoming on Saturday night.
The Western Bulldogs against the Brisbane Lions is a date many people have circled in red for a long time, simply because it is Akermanis' first game against his old club. The exiled favourite son is returning to the scene of many a triumph.
There will be plenty trying to build it up, regurgitating all sorts of stories and re-living the dramas of 2006. To be honest, I've had enough of it. But all the hype comes with the territory for Aka.
He even has been the focus of the Lions' pre-game advertising. Before last night's game against Richmond, the club had posted a special masthead on its website urging fans to "wear Maroon for Aka's return".
But to me, it's not all about hype. And it's not about who was right and wrong when he left the club. It's about closure.
There were no winners in the Akermanis saga, and I'm not about to apportion blame. Suffice to say, there were faults on both sides — Jason's and the club's, myself included.
The events leading up to his departure put a massive strain on a lot of people. Particularly Jason, coach Leigh Matthews and yours truly, as captain. And a lot of people probably would wish, if they could have the time over, they could do things differently.
But there wasn't a textbook on how to handle a situation where a home-grown, triple-premiership player, Brownlow medallist, dual club champion and four-times All-Australian splits in such a public fashion from the club where he'd played 248 games.
What it did for me, though, was underline just how important communication and relationship building is and how this is a forever moving target. It is something that needs to be constantly massaged and checked, and never taken for granted.
The club was as good for Aka as Aka was for the club. In complete unison, they tackled the might of the rugby codes in the north. It was sad that the relationship ended because as a group, we'd shared so much joy and success together. And Aka had been such a big part of all that. He'd been a champion player and a terrific marketing tool for the club and game. If I remember correctly, it was Aka who first gave away a replica football to a member of the crowd after a win. Now almost every club does it. His victory handstands were folklore.
But let's remember, too, that he thrived in an environment provided by the club and alongside a lot of teammates who were crucial to its success. They'd welcomed him as a teenager, given him an opportunity to follow his dream and worked tirelessly to help him.
It's a two-way street. Neither side can ever think they have done more for the relationship than the other. It's a mutual thing. Just like a marriage. Investing in a relationship takes time and patience. Time to understand people, to do the little things that make people feel worthwhile within any organisation.
It can be the time you spend with them on a personal front to really want to get to know them. To understand what drives them.
For the coach, it might be getting the players to understand the game plan and the role, importance and contribution they can have in executing the plan. Spending time in reward for effort, too, through acknowledgment of what they have done.
For a player, it might be demonstrating that belief by always putting the team first. Understanding that you are only one part of the overall unit, and that without the full unit, you cannot achieve maximum success — making sacrifices for the group.
In any relationship, you need to believe in the other person and what they stand for before the relationship can work. It needs mutual trust and respect. Investing in relationships is one critical way of convincing people that you are the right person to follow. And it needs both parties to be absolutely committed to each other.
You could have the most fantastic skill base and knowledge in the world; be the best coach or the most skilled player. You could know everything there is to know on a subject, and be totally armed for the challenge. But unless each party believes in the other, they will find another way, against the belief and the direction you are giving the organisation, because they don't believe in who you are, what you know and what you do.
To me, this is what fell apart in Brisbane last year; each party lost belief in the other. All the things that happened along the way, filling umpteen hours and pages of media time and space, only provided more evidence of this.
Aka lost belief in the club and perhaps where Matthews was taking the group. And Aka lost the respect and trust of those around him.
In the end, it became two parties going in two different directions. There was only one possible solution — a split.
And the future? I hope time will be the healer and that when the premiership reunions come around, all can be forgotten and we can enjoy the good times and restore a relationship between club and player.
As for Saturday night at the Gabba, I'm sure Aka will get a fair-dinkum contest from the players. Just as anyone would. Some fans will boo and some will cheer.
If he plays forward, as you'd expect, he'll probably find a close liaison with Robert Copeland. And "Bushy" will annoy the beejeebas out of him. Just as he tries to do to his opponent every week.
Somehow, though, I think Aka would love a win not just for the four points but to do one last lap of the Gabba and say a silent thank you to all his fans who have watched him over the journey — a lap I'm sure the Brisbane Lions team will want to deny him.
Good article by Vossy in The Age
As always, puts things in perspective.
Love ya Vossy:thumbsu:
There were no winners in the Akermanis saga, and I'm not about to apportion blame. Suffice to say, there were faults on both sidesThought he was talking about this forum for a moment there...
He is being interviewed on 7 news tonight about the game.
I wonder if Eade would have considered dropping him next week if it wasn't against the Lions.
Was ordinary again today.
Changes:
IN: Wood, Macdonald, Power
OUT: Johnson (foot), Schmidt (omit), Harding (omit).
The Flying Belgian
3 Jun 2007, 22:00
JMac's comintogetcha...
In: Wood, Power, J. MacDonald
Out: Johnson (foot), Harding, Rischitelli
If brissy don't win 3 of the next 5 games i think Leigh should try and give a few of young guns (e.g. Tyler, Sheldon, Hawksley, Schmidt and Berger) about 5 games each.
king and i
3 Jun 2007, 22:06
Aker played pretty well today, unfortunately I reckon he could be in for a blinder next week... good luck to him. Pretend he doesn't exist would be my advice.
I watched the Bulldogs - Carlton match today and next week is certainly going to be interesting. There is no way that the Bulldogs should have lost that match. They just looked too classy but they just let Carlton hang around and got jumped.
Acker is starting to get a bit more of the ball each week but he is still a shadow of his former self. He is starting to do more of the unselfish things that make the team better and he could run into form in time for the finals. I always considered that we would tag him on his return but now I am thinking that there are a lot of other guys who we should be keeping a closer eye on. If we were going to have someone run with him I would expect Copeland to get the job although as I mentioned earlier in the year I think Sherman could give Acker a lot of trouble given that he be given licence to try and run off him a bit.
If Fixter was fit this week I might be tempted to bring him back in. I reckon he would match up well with West and it would give us another defensive option. I would give Selwood the job on Cross and let Colm run with Cooney.
Against our forward line I think the Bulldogs could struggle provided they get decent service. Against Carlton they didn't look particularly big and they appeared slow. In addition to the big targets they had trouble with the likes of Lappin floating through to take the marks. If Patfull plays like he did this week he could do well for himself. I would be trying to make sure that Patfull matched up on Gilbee. Force him to be accountable and don't let him run lose from defence. Patfull's marking ability would cause problems for Gilbee and his defensive abilities should prevent him running off.
Down back for us will also be interesting. We don't have a natural match up for Johnson that I can see and you might see a few get a go. Drummond might well get a start if he is playing deep in defence but it wouldn't surprise me if Merrett was given him when they leave him one out in the forward line. Merrett has the speed, strength and height but might struggle on the agility side. He would make it difficult for Johnson though. Mills is another one who might cause Brad difficulties and might get a look in for selection this week. He moves well, is a tight marker and is probably more agile than Merrett.
Ins for me this week - Wood, McGrath and Fixter (if fit)
Outs - Johnson (inj), Harding and Schmidt
I missed the Richmond game and I would love to see Schmidt get another game but I think this will be one that the Lions would really like to win. I really think we match up okay with the Bulldogs and if we can kick straight we have a pretty good chance. I am hoping the Lions come out breathing fire and return to the hard tackling team from earlier in the year.
Power:confused:
In: Power, McGrath, Wood, Fixter
Out: Johnson, Harding, Rischitelli, Schmidt
???
That's going with form. However, it could create an unbalanced team which has a shortage of runners, and one which may well struggle against the Bulldogs, although that was always going to happen when you bring in 1 extra ruckman. But it's difficult to pick runners just for the sake of having runners if they're not performing.
I am worried about Brad Johnson this week. We don't really have a natural match-up for him. Merrett's lack of agility and smarts could be exposed and Johnno would be too good overhead for other options. I would seriously consider bringing Roe back in for this game and maybe even consider giving Merrett a week off. I doubt they will do that but Darcy aside (who spends time in the ruck and on the bench), I can't see a natural match-up for Merrett.
konstas_87
4 Jun 2007, 12:44
Anyone give us a real chance in this game?
i must admit i have tipped us in almost every match this year and its costing me so i think ill have to start trying to be less biased.
We never go that well against the doggies, although the 1 saving grace is that they are having a pretty poor year by their standards too. We have injected a fair bit of pace into the side the last year or two, but for me we just arent playing good enough footy to win this one.
Regardless of the result, i hope aker is made to fill the hole at CHB and browny comes crashing out and polaxes him!
GO Lions!
Homer Jnr
4 Jun 2007, 13:15
I am worried about Brad Johnson this week. We don't really have a natural match-up for him. Merrett's lack of agility and smarts could be exposed and Johnno would be too good overhead for other options. I would seriously consider bringing Roe back in for this game and maybe even consider giving Merrett a week off. I doubt they will do that but Darcy aside (who spends time in the ruck and on the bench), I can't see a natural match-up for Merrett.
Maybe send Rog forward and play 3 talls ala the glory days? :cool:
Maybe send Rog forward and play 3 talls ala the glory days? :cool:
The other option is to play him as the 2nd ruck? Just a thought - get him to follow Darcy everywhere - forward, ruck, bench. That allows us to play the same number of running players last week or include Roe as a play tall/small defender.
On Aker, I reckon we are best served in totally ignoring him. I would put Adcock on him and try and expose Aker's lack of pace (:eek: who would've thought?) and leave Copeland for Cooney or Higgins where he might put the young blokes off their game.
If Aker was in form, fit and firing, I could see the merit in going with Bushy to try and shut him down but I see him as a weak link for the Dogs atm and Jed would be the best man to take advantage whilst still paying him enough respect so that he can't play himself into form.
Grimreepah
4 Jun 2007, 13:35
The other option is to play him as the 2nd ruck? Just a thought - get him to follow Darcy everywhere - forward, ruck, bench. That allows us to play the same number of running players last week or include Roe as a play tall/small defender.
Not a bad idea, but I'd like to see Merrett play on Johnson. If he scraps a few off the ground then so be it, but if he starts marking in front of goal then we'll be in for a long night. I'm not sure who, apart from Merrett, can stop him doing that.
TheBrownDog
4 Jun 2007, 13:48
We played the perfect Bulldog killing game in the NAB cup.
Apply intense pressure to their on-ballers and rovers to kill their ability to run free from the clearances and when you get the ball, kick it forward quickly before their mosquito fleet can rush back.
If we can put that plan into action again, we're a chance.
Not a bad idea, but I'd like to see Merrett play on Johnson. If he scraps a few off the ground then so be it, but if he starts marking in front of goal then we'll be in for a long night. I'm not sure who, apart from Merrett, can stop him doing that.
I've seen Johnson kick bags of goals without taking a mark on the lead. That's what worries me about Merrett playing on him.
roostersgal4eva
4 Jun 2007, 14:23
Apart from Wood coming in as an extra ruckman and roey to strengthen our defense i wouldn't chance anything
This week is Riska
Last week it was Justin
Week before that it was Jeol
I wonder which poor sod gonna get it next week
FFS lets get some perspective - if we are serious about this youth policy lets play our best 22 and keep them there come hell or high water.....not change the side every week cause we don't like the scoreboard
Last time i check i couldnt think of a player who didnt have the 2-3rd year blues
FFS lets get some perspective - if we are serious about this youth policy lets play our best 22 and keep them there come hell or high water.....not change the side every week cause we don't like the scoreboard
Last time i check i couldnt think of a player who didnt have the 2-3rd year blues
We're not saying to leave them out of the team because they're no good - just probably due for a rest.
lionbear
4 Jun 2007, 14:28
We're not saying to leave them out of the team because they're no good - just probably due for a rest.
I agree with that BigCat2, I believe how we manage our younger players over the next 5 weeks could have a major influence on how strongly we finish the 2007 season.
It is a very long year for young bodies.
roostersgal4eva
4 Jun 2007, 14:35
I can see that
I can also see that we are too trigger happy to dump players - sometime stability is a good thing in a young team. I want the guys to have the confident to back their ability not looking over their shoulders thinking if i stuff this up I'll get dragged next week
like i said in the main board, Justin and Riskas case to me is more of being heavily tagged than last year cause coaches know how good they will be. It's something these two - who we believe will be our main leadership duo in the future - will need to learn how to deal with it
I dont think they can do that in the QFL
The Flying Belgian
4 Jun 2007, 14:52
I'm a bit old-fashoined in that if you're playing poorly and someone else's form is better than yours, you deserve to be dropped. That's a simplistic way of putting it and there are other factors, but in essence that should be the way it works. Players should not be rewarded for poor form.
The trouble with the "best 22" theroy is that it's not a set list of players - it's a fluid thing. Some will find form and some will lose form.
I personally don't buy that Shermo et al have been heavily tagged. They've had opponents, yes, but that's part and parcel of footy. When you start out you get more latitude because you pretty much a nobody. Now they're getting a few games towards their belt and are taking on a more important role they'll get better opponents, one's who know how to play defensively as well as offensively. It seems that the "tagged" tag was people looking for excuses why some boom youngsters suddenly had a dip in form.
It's quite apparent that confidence is down ATM. It seems as though the selectors give a few weeks to come back into form before weilding the axe.
roostersgal4eva
4 Jun 2007, 15:03
its no excuse FB
Justin last opponent never looked at the ball in stoppages once and your telling me its an excuse - gimme a break!
Confidence is down - its gonna get even worse if players are looking over their shoulder thinking if i stuff this up then i'll be out next week - what is wrong with giving players the license to back their abilties
You guys want your cake and eat it too in this instance - we were ok with the youth policy at the start of the season now the scoreboard doesnt look like how we want it, supporters are starting to turn off the idea
You might hate the term rebuilding but like it or not every club has to do it - now its our turn
As you said - its part and parcel of footy mate!
Short term pain for long term gain
Confidence is down - its gonna get even worse if players are looking over their shoulder thinking if i stuff this up then i'll be out next week
But the other side of the argument is that for some players, if they're guaranteed a run then they become complacent, and in that case getting a kick up the backside does a world of good.
For some, the fact they know that they're not guaranteed a spot will make them hungry and try and perform the best they can.
roostersgal4eva
4 Jun 2007, 15:16
Lions were at their best when our players are allowed to back themseves
campbell
4 Jun 2007, 15:23
Lions were at their best when our players are allowed to back themseves
Agreed.
I just think that its no point dropping players willy nilly. Stability is the key.How else do they get to know each others style of play and work as a team. They gotta be a team together, not changing each week.Then players are waiting for the tap on the shoulder and don't know when they will be dropped, they start to play for themselves.
remember 98 anyone.
Nobody is talking about dropping someone who's had one poor game after 4-5 good performances.
There are those whose performances have been quite average to poor for a few games in a row now. Sure you've got to question their place in the team at the time?
Besides, you can only afford to carry players as long as you're winning. When you're losing, you've got to look for ways to improve the team.
I understand that we're trying to build a team that can make a serious tilt at a premiership in a few years time, but there's no point playing kids into the ground if their form/confidence is shot. A rest every now and then may be beneficial.
In the AFLQ comp, players will generally be far more heavily tagged than they are in the seniors. That is because, when the best three opposition taggers go to Black, Power and Lappin, you are often left to go "head to head" with your opponent. In the seniors as a young guy, you don't generally have someone who sacrifices their own game to make sure you aren't in the contest. When you go back to the AFLQ, you will get the fittest tagger the opponent can muster. I have seen the opposition coaches on a Friday night assign match-ups for a Suncoast game and the most attention is paid to whoever was dropped from the Seniors. Talk about hard tags - the opposition to a team focus on the senior listed players. That's not to say that it is tougher because the dropped senior player is still fitter, faster and generally stronger and smarter than his opponent. But as the big fish in the small pond, you cop the hard tag from the opposition stopper that is reserved for Black, Power et al in the senior league. I've seen coaches give maximum match votes to a player who kept a senior Lions player to about 15 possessions and a goal and didn't touch the ball himself. On paper, the senior listed player had an adequate day. In reality, the stopper produced a superb performance to prevent his opponent from racking up 30+ touches. That's how much a Lions scalp is valued. If you ask me, for a guy who has trouble breaking a tag at senior level, it is often instructive for them and be tagged at local level. They generally end up breaking the tag because they are fitter - which should tell them what they need to do in the next off-season to break tags at senior level.
And on the youth policy, it is not as though we are giving some old codger a run instead of the young guys. We replace youth with youth at the moment. While it is all well and good to show loyalty to the guys like Riska who look to be our future, I believe the coaching staff have an equal obligation to consider those outside the best 22 who are working just as hard and playing well in the reserves.
And on the youth policy, it is not as though we are giving some old codger a run instead of the young guys. We replace youth with youth at the moment. While it is all well and good to show loyalty to the guys like Riska who look to be our future, I believe the coaching staff have an equal obligation to consider those outside the best 22 who are working just as hard and playing well in the reserves.
Couldn't have put it better myself. :thumbsu:
roostersgal4eva
4 Jun 2007, 15:33
i dont think your attitues are looking at the future
only the scoreboard
Agreed.
I just think that its no point dropping players willy nilly. Stability is the key.How else do they get to know each others style of play and work as a team. They gotta be a team together, not changing each week.Then players are waiting for the tap on the shoulder and don't know when they will be dropped, they start to play for themselves.
remember 98 anyone.
I remember Shaun Hart being dropped on several occasions. Darryl White too. They were dropped because their performance had declined over several weeks and the club wanted them to "go and find some form". Champions of our club and integral parts of our team. We won a few premierships in those years, IIRC, so I doubt that the instability affected us.
roostersgal4eva
4 Jun 2007, 15:35
I also remember that players were allowed to back their abilities back then too
and we had senior players who didnt need to be taught how to gel together as a team
There was stability - we didn't drop players willy nilly!!
i dont think your attitues are looking at the future
only the scoreboard
The corollary of your position that we only have 22 players who are going to be with us in the future. It also suggests that dropping players is so damaging that they unlikely to have decent football careers.
I have more faith in:
1. the coaching staff; and
2. the internal fortitude of our players.
i dont think your attitues are looking at the future
only the scoreboard
Sorry I can't agree with that. How is critically examining the performance of our players not looking to the future?
I for one never expected or demanded that our team played finals football this year - if it happened it was a bonus. I certainly demand better performances than 2006, because I believe that would reflect the development of the team as a whole.
We (and several other clubs) were good because we played with a positive attitude and winning culture. In the days gone we'd never be satisfied with any win, but would be absolutely gutted with any loss. I'd like to see that continue. When we got thrashed by Carlton in early 2001 we didn't look for excuses but admitted that it was our 'darkest day'. Our players vowed to never put in another performance like that, and they were true to their word for several years.
I'll always celebrate a win and feel disappointed by a loss, but by no means are they the absolute for me. If we played good football but got beaten by a team that played better then I can accept that. Ultimately what matters to these players is winning premierships, not by the number of times you qualify the finals or come runner-up.
campbell
4 Jun 2007, 15:46
I also remember that players were allowed to back their abilities back then too
and we had senior players who didnt need to be taught how to gel together as a team
There was stability - we didn't drop players willy nilly!!
totally agree with you roosters.
I wonder if we will drop 5 this week.?How many was it last week, and the week before?
One other thing, why play Browny if as reported he has a very bad chest infection and is on his 3rd course of antibiotics? Thats just daft.I would prefer him getting over this infection and not putting added stress on his body to recover by playing football.
roostersgal4eva
4 Jun 2007, 15:47
i dont believe we have only 22 players
We have a young team atmo - I dont see whats wrong in having a sable one as well
roostersgal4eva
4 Jun 2007, 15:49
Sorry I can't agree with that. How is critically examining the performance of our players not looking to the future?
I for one never expected or demanded that our team played finals football this year - if it happened it was a bonus. I certainly demand better performances than 2006, because I believe that would reflect the development of the team as a whole.
We (and several other clubs) were good because we played with a positive attitude and winning culture. In the days gone we'd never be satisfied with any win, but would be absolutely gutted with any loss. I'd like to see that continue. When we got thrashed by Carlton in early 2001 we didn't look for excuses but admitted that it was our 'darkest day'. Our players vowed to never put in another performance like that, and they were true to their word for several years.
I'll always celebrate a win and feel disappointed by a loss, but by no means are they the absolute for me. If we played good football but got beaten by a team that played better then I can accept that. Ultimately what matters to these players is winning premierships, not by the number of times you qualify the finals or come runner-up.
exacly
and how was this achieved - certaintly no by dropping players willy nilly and not knowing who was in the side one week to the next
I dont expect anyone here or in charge of the club to agree with me
totally agree with you roosters.
I think Daniel Bradshaw would disagree with both of you on the stability of the side back then.
One other thing, why play Browny if as reported he has a very bad chest infection and is on his 3rd course of antibiotics? Thats just daft.I would prefer him getting over this infection and not putting added stress on his body to recover by playing football.
I am only clutching at straws here but I assume it is because he had recovered and was fit to play. I contrast his situation with Luke Power who was not fit to play and, consequently, didn't.
So we can keep underperforming players in the team and keep great performers in the AFLQ out of the team simply for stability's sake?
Having the same players in the team do provide stability, but some players provide more stability than others. These are invariably senior and/or vital players. Say if lose Jonathan Brown or Simon Black - that's going to cause instability.
Chris Schmidt came in for another youngster on the weekend - I don't think that caused instability.
roostersgal4eva
4 Jun 2007, 15:52
So we can keep underperforming players in the team and keep great performers in the AFLQ out of the team simply for stability's sake?
Having the same players in the team do provide stability, but some players provide more stability than others. These are invariably senior and/or vital players. Say if lose Jonathan Brown or Simon Black - that's going to cause instability.
Chris Schmidt came in for another youngster on the weekend - I don't think that caused instability.
Chris came in and some people in forum want him dropped already
how can you see the good in that?
campbell
4 Jun 2007, 15:53
I think Daniel Bradshaw would disagree with both of you on the stability of the side back then.
I am only clutching at straws here but I assume it is because he had recovered and was fit to play. I contrast his situation with Luke Power who was not fit to play and, consequently, didn't.
I think it was cripsy creme said after saturdays game that he has a very bad chest infection. So he is not recovered at all, he is still struggling with the infection and thus he is not a very well man at all.3 course of antibiotics and still unwell is not very good for poor browny.
Brown played and Power missed because the first was passed fit to play, and the second wasn't. You have to back your medical staff to advise correctly to the match selection panel as to who is available.
As for us only sticking to the same players in our last rebuilding phase - I don't think that's quite true either. The important thing in rebuilding is not only to develop players' skills, confidence, decision making and playing as part of a team, but also to identify who are in your best 22 and who are depth players. As POBT has already alluded to, the best 22 changes over time. Even our 3peat premiership teams had different players in each team too.
campbell
4 Jun 2007, 15:54
Chris came in and some people in forum want him dropped already
how can you see the good in that
I remember that happened a few years ago to Brett Voss, best on ground in a match at the Gabba, I think it was Richmond, dropped the next.Poor thing.
i dont believe we have only 22 players
We have a young team atmo - I dont see whats wrong in having a sable one as well
OK - but what it means is that unless injury or retirement hits the best 22, then there is limited capacity for those in the reserves to play senior footy.
Almost to a man, the guys in the reserves are in their first 3 years of senior football. They are the future - well, that is what the club thinks by signing them up. If you create a special class of youth, you risk destabilising the club because Player A thinks "Not matter how hard I train and play, Coach isn't going to give me a run because he is determined Player B will get a game every week."
Why is it that Riska or Shermo or any of the others get the opportunity to play senior footy? Because they are better players. But if their form declines and the form of those in queue behind them increases AND the side is not performing well, then don't the other guys deserve a crack? That has to be the basic premise of running a football club.
roostersgal4eva
4 Jun 2007, 16:01
I remember that happened a few years ago to Brett Voss, best on ground in a match at the Gabba, I think it was Richmond, dropped the next.Poor thing.
Look at Cam Wood - gone from rising star to not being considered
That's gonna work so well for him :rolleyes:
Chris came in and some people in forum want him dropped already
how can you see the good in that?
Sorry I don't quite understand your question here. Are you asking why bring in a player for one game, then dropping him for the next?
If that's what you're asking, then I can see arguments for both retaining him and relegating him for the next game. I would keep him based on the fact that while he didn't have a great game, he did show some promising things, and another game or two for him would be beneficial to his development at this stage. I would drop him if there are players who are loudly banging down the selectors' door and demanding inclusion based on their form.
Here I define form as sustained performance over a period. If I have someone who's played well for 5-6 games and has an off night, I wouldn't drop him for some other bloke who's only been ok for a while but suddenly plays one absolute blinder.
However, if someone in the AFLQ has been putting in great performances in a row (eg Chris Schmidt) and somebody in the senior team looks like they might be struggling, the jugment call here becomes much more difficult.
We'd all like to think our all Lions players and rookies are going to turn out absolute guns, but history tells us that some of them probably won't make it as a long term AFL player. What if say, hopothetically, there was an absolute dud in our 22 that played last weekend? Do we keep him there forever just for the sake of stability?
You can only assess a player one way or another by giving them game time. There comes times when a player demand a place in the senior team based on his performance, in that he's going better than some current players in the senior team, and I believe that the match selection panel and the coach have responsibility to give that player a chance to show what he is capable of.
campbell
4 Jun 2007, 16:04
Look at Cam Wood - gone from rising star to not being considered
That's gonna work so well for him :rolleyes:
How good for the confidence is that hey? Poor thing.I see he got 4 goals in the ressies on the weekend.
In 2001 we dropped players "willy nilly". Blokes like Picken, Cupido, Robbins, Craig Bolton, Copeland, Shattock, Kennedy, Knobel, McGrath, and Charman would be in the team one week, and out the team the next.
I'm guessing they were dropped on form. Most of them were young blokes trying to find their feet in the game. And guess what? We won the premiership that year.
If a player isn't performing, he will be sent back to the twos. I don't know what sort of competition you think we are playing in - it's the AFL, it's not the Thursday Island local league.
Look at Cam Wood - gone from rising star to not being considered
That's gonna work so well for him :rolleyes:
Aye, because winning a rising star nomination provides you immunity from being dropped for 2 years. :rolleyes:
Look I know Cam is one of your favoured players. I really like him too, in that I think he can develop into a top line ruckman, is actively trying to help our club (see his involvement in players' suggestion to club on how to improve membership) and seems happy to stay here in Brisbane.
He didn't get dropped because of some conspiracy or because we wanted to provide instability.
He got dropped because he wasn't playing well enough.
roostersgal4eva
4 Jun 2007, 16:06
Sorry I don't quite understand your question here. Are you asking why bring in a player for one game, then dropping him for the next?
If that's what you're asking, then I can see arguments for both retaining him and relegating him for the next game. I would keep him based on the fact that while he didn't have a great game, he did show some promising things, and another game or two for him would be beneficial to his development at this stage. I would drop him if there are players who are loudly banging down the selectors' door and demanding inclusion based on their form.
Here I define form as sustained performance over a period. If I have someone who's played well for 5-6 games and has an off night, I wouldn't drop him for some other bloke who's only been ok for a while but suddenly plays one absolute blinder.
However, if someone in the AFLQ has been putting in great performances in a row (eg Chris Schmidt) and somebody in the senior team looks like they might be struggling, the jugment call here becomes much more difficult.
We'd all like to think our all Lions players and rookies are going to turn out absolute guns, but history tells us that some of them probably won't make it as a long term AFL player. What if say, hopothetically, there was an absolute dud in our 22 that played last weekend? Do we keep him there forever just for the sake of stability?
You can only assess a player one way or another by giving them game time. There comes times when a player demand a place in the senior team based on his performance, in that he's going better than some current players in the senior team, and I believe that the match selection panel and the coach have responsibility to give that player a chance to show what he is capable of.
thats my point
give them the game time - dont drop them after 2-3 bad weeks which all young players go through
roostersgal4eva
4 Jun 2007, 16:08
Aye, because winning a rising star nomination provides you immunity from being dropped for 2 years. :rolleyes:
Look I know Cam is one of your favoured players. I really like him too, in that I think he can develop into a top line ruckman, is actively trying to help our club (see his involvement in players' suggestion to club on how to improve membership) and seems happy to stay here in Brisbane.
He didn't get dropped because of some conspiracy or because we wanted to provide instability.
He got dropped because he wasn't playing well enough.
that has nothing to do with it :mad:
it was an example - he was dropped 2 weeks after that........surely his form didnt drop off that badly?!?!
How good for the confidence is that hey? Poor thing.I see he got 4 goals in the ressies on the weekend.
Did you consider Beau McDonald's confidence while he was playing in the twos behind Wood?
campbell
4 Jun 2007, 16:08
Aye, because winning a rising star nomination provides you immunity from being dropped for 2 years. :rolleyes:
Look I know Cam is one of your favoured players. I really like him too, in that I think he can develop into a top line ruckman, is actively trying to help our club (see his involvement in players' suggestion to club on how to improve membership) and seems happy to stay here in Brisbane.
He didn't get dropped because of some conspiracy or because we wanted to provide instability.
He got dropped because he wasn't playing well enough.
So when will he be back, with our current 1 ruck policy? When we have worn out poor Charmo, and he is injured?
I remember that happened a few years ago to Brett Voss, best on ground in a match at the Gabba, I think it was Richmond, dropped the next.Poor thing.
So the two circumstances are totally different. In one match, the player dropped was best on ground. In the other, the young guy looked a bit lost. I would have thought that dropping the young guy is probably justified.
I'm not trying to be a smart-arse - I am just trying to point out that the stability of the premiership years were both a cause and effect of our good form. Why change a winning combination when you don't have to? Similarly, premiership teams rely on a stable core of regular senior players. Both cause and effect.
But it takes some time to get there. When you are not a premiership favourite (which we are clearly not), you have to change your side up fairly regularly. Things you try don't work. Youngsters lose form and confidence. Players are switched positionally. New players are signed up. Old players might be discarded before their time is up. Everything is going to be in a state of flux until we find that right combination that will allow us to play at a really high level every week.
I can think of nothing worse than playing the same 22 each week and running last. It will be a lost opportunity for most of the other 17 guys on the senior list.
Homer Jnr
4 Jun 2007, 16:12
In 2001 we dropped players "willy nilly". Blokes like Picken, Cupido, Robbins, Craig Bolton, Copeland, Shattock, Kennedy, Knobel, McGrath, and Charman would be in the team one week, and out the team the next..
Copeland played 16 straight games from Round 9 (Straight off the rookie list).
Kennedy only ever played as a stop-gap that season, and most of the other names never saw game time after that horrible Round 8 game at Optus Oval.
roostersgal4eva
4 Jun 2007, 16:13
So the two circumstances are totally different. In one match, the player dropped was best on ground. In the other, the young guy looked a bit lost. I would have thought that dropping the young guy is probably justified.
I'm not trying to be a smart-arse - I am just trying to point out that the stability of the premiership years were both a cause and effect of our good form. Why change a winning combination when you don't have to? Similarly, premiership teams rely on a stable core of regular senior players. Both cause and effect.
But it takes some time to get there. When you are not a premiership favourite (which we are clearly not), you have to change your side up fairly regularly. Things you try don't work. Youngsters lose form and confidence. Players are switched positionally. New players are signed up. Old players might be discarded before their time is up. Everything is going to be in a state of flux until we find that right combination that will allow us to play at a really high level every week.
I can think of nothing worse than playing the same 22 each week and running last. It will be a lost opportunity for most of the other 17 guys on the senior list.
and if we dont have the same 22 and still finish last? is that any better
Hawthorn prime example - kept the same team together regardless of results and its bearing fruit atmo cause they were patient with their youngsters
campbell
4 Jun 2007, 16:15
The young players can't learn to be a part of the team in the ressies. If they never know when they are too be dropped, they start to play for themselves not the team.As happened with ALL players in 98, they never knew.
Stability makes players confident in their ability from week to week.
I think we owe that to our players.
that has nothing to do with it :mad:
it was an example - he was dropped 2 weeks after that........surely his form didnt drop off that badly?!?!
He won the nomination in round 2.
He got 4 possessions and 16 HOs in round3.
And 3 possessions and 13 HOs in round 4.
He didn't take a mark in either of those games.
I'd say his form did drop off "that badly" and it would have been the wrong decision to keep him in the team as Charman was coming back and Beau was playing well. A Rising Star nomination doesn't mean you are better than other players in your position.
Do you want us to play everyone?
So when will he be back, with our current 1 ruck policy? When we have worn out poor Charmo, and he is injured?
You mean the 1 ruck policy that has been employed for all of ONE match, brought in to replace the 2 ruck policy that has been used for NINE matches, because of the opposition we were playing?
No I'm sure that playing 2 rucks will be the norm.
thats my point
give them the game time - dont drop them after 2-3 bad weeks which all young players go through
I on the other hand think 2-3 games in a row is sufficient time to review a player's performance.
The alternative is to watch some poor bloke run around in the seniors for a couple of months when they're clearly struggling.
campbell
4 Jun 2007, 16:22
He won the nomination in round 2.
He got 4 possessions and 16 HOs in round3.
And 3 possessions and 13 HOs in round 4.
He didn't take a mark in either of those games.
I'd say his form did drop off "that badly" and it would have been the wrong decision to keep him in the team as Charman was coming back and Beau was playing well. A Rising Star nomination doesn't mean you are better than other players in your position.
Do you want us to play everyone?
So a player is down on form, but doing his job as ruck in hitouts, for 2 weeks. So we drop him.He goes back to the ressies and does what is asked of him and more, but he is still not getting a game.He appears to be going to struggle now, seeing though we have this new 1 ruck policy.
Why was he only given 2 weeks, keeping him in the team would have been a whole lot better for team stability and his confidence.A better thing all around.
and if we dont have the same 22 and still finish last? is that any better
Hawthorn prime example - kept the same team together regardless of results and its bearing fruit atmo cause they were patient with their youngsters
Firstly, I think it is better to change things up if they are going badly. Instead of 22 players playing 22 games, you might have all 39 playing averaging about 15 games each. You've had the opportunity to judge all of the players on the list instead of just the favoured 22.
And Hawthorn is a bad example. Dawson, Thurgood, Ellis, Dowler, Roughead are a few names that I can think of who are in and out of the Hawthorn senior side.
campbell
4 Jun 2007, 16:24
You mean the 1 ruck policy that has been employed for all of ONE match, brought in to replace the 2 ruck policy that has been used for NINE matches, because of the opposition we were playing?
No I'm sure that playing 2 rucks will be the norm.
So which ruck will get the extra gig this week?If indeed we decide to go back to 2.
We had that one ruck policy for part of the beginning of last season as well.
So a player is down on form, but doing his job as ruck in hitouts, for 2 weeks. So we drop him.He goes back to the ressies and does what is asked of him and more, but he is still not getting a game.He appears to be going to struggle now, seeing though we have this new 1 ruck policy.
Why was he only given 2 weeks, keeping him in the team would have been a whole lot better for team stability and his confidence.A better thing all around.
He was dropped because Charman was fully fit and waiting to come back. Beau's performance had been better than Woody's at that point so it was Cameron who made way.
On what other basis should players be selected other than form? Their hair colour?
On the contrary, I don't think Cam has struggled due to us 'mistreating' him. He wasn't performing, so he was dropped to work at his game. He had a few up and down games, but now seems to be playing better, even kicking 4 goals on the weekend. I think his performance right now very much demands a recall to the senior team, and if we name 2 rucks in the team this weekend as expected, I should think that Wood would be in.
So a player is down on form, but doing his job as ruck in hitouts, for 2 weeks. So we drop him.He goes back to the ressies and does what is asked of him and more,
Well, you said yourself that he had at least 1 ordinary game in the reserves.
here (http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7495882&postcount=21)
Homer Jnr
4 Jun 2007, 16:26
The past two weeks we have made five changes, most of which were NOT forced by injury, it is hard to build stability that way. Surely you can't argue with that?
For sure, two or maybe three (if we get pumped a few weeks in a row) players getting dropped is understandable.
The thing is, reading around here, there are another five scapegoats for this week in the minds of some. Whereas some others aren't wanting as many dropped, they aren't panicing as badly.
Have some faith in the young guys, give them some confidence and the results may well come.
So which ruck will get the extra gig this week?If indeed we decide to go back to 2.
We had that one ruck policy for part of the beginning of last season as well.
For who will come in, see my other post.
But you can hardly call something that happend more than 12 months ago, and something that's happened once since then, a policy.
Copeland played 16 straight games from Round 9 (Straight off the rookie list).
Kennedy only ever played as a stop-gap that season, and most of the other names never saw game time after that horrible Round 8 game at Optus Oval.
Picken played after round 8.
Robbins played after round 8.
Bolton played after round 8.
Shattock played after round 8.
McGrath played after round 8.
Charman played after round 8.
Kennedy played after round 8.
Bradshaw was in and out of the team.
The Flying Belgian
4 Jun 2007, 16:27
OK, foot coming down................ NOW.
Everyone take a step back. Breathe. Relax. We've all got different opinions, but i can't help see some taking sides and it's going both ways. People need to:
(a) not get frustrated with someone else, becuase they can't grasp a point. If they're not understanding you, walk away;
(b) not cry foul because the majority don't agree with you on this topic
(c) be sure of your facts before posting. If you're not, then don't.
And while i'm at it (and this I assure you is not aimed at anyone in particular), if I see the phrase FFS or any other similar abbrevation used, you'll cop an infraction. This is your warning.
roostersgal4eva
4 Jun 2007, 16:28
The past two weeks we have made five changes, most of which were NOT forced by injury, it is hard to build stability that way. Surely you can't argue with that?
For sure, two or maybe three (if we get pumped a few weeks in a row) players getting dropped is understandable.
The thing is, reading around here, there are another five scapegoats for this week in the minds of some. Whereas some others aren't wanting as many dropped, they aren't panicing as badly.
Have some faith in the young guys, give them some confidence and the results may well come.
THANK YOU!
Thats what ive been trying to say all along
So when will he be back, with our current 1 ruck policy? When we have worn out poor Charmo, and he is injured?
:rolleyes: It was one week against a team with one spud ruck.
Why are we still harping on about 'stability' as though it was the only thing that matters? Sure stability is important, but also important are ability, form and winning contests.
So if say we pick the same 22 players every week, and come last. We'll be able to come out and claim that that season has been a success because we've been able to create a stable team. Yeah, a stable and crap team.
Homer Jnr
4 Jun 2007, 16:30
Picken played after round 8.
Robbins played after round 8.
Bolton played after round 8.
Shattock played after round 8.
McGrath played after round 8.
Charman played after round 8.
Kennedy played after round 8.
Bradshaw was in and out of the team.
Get your facts right.
'Never' was a mistake, good hustle fixing it, my mistake. I admitted Kennedy played, he was in the Prelim team from memory. The other players were stop-gap in the line-up.
Homer Jnr
4 Jun 2007, 16:33
And while i'm at it (and this I assure you is not aimed at anyone in particular), if I see the phrase FFS or any other similar abbrevation used, you'll cop an infraction. This is your warning.
That is internet speak, this is an internet forum... That is a bit much really. Or is it just a short term idea??? Because that has some shortterm merit.
That is internet speak, this is an internet forum... That is a bit much really.
Ok, so the second F in FFS is acceptable because it's on a forum?
The Flying Belgian
4 Jun 2007, 16:34
I'll just refrain from having an opinion shall so to conform to forum?
Majority rules i guess
Having a different opinion dosent make me any less of a supporter mate
Read the post again. It is addressed to all.
Homer Jnr
4 Jun 2007, 16:36
Ok, so the second F in FFS is acceptable because it's on a forum?
No, but the sentence reads as though all abbreviations are out of bounds, not just abbreviations that include coarse language. (I only know of the one in question)
Grimreepah
4 Jun 2007, 16:37
and if we dont have the same 22 and still finish last? is that any better
Yes. When things aren't going well you need to have a look at different players to see who has a future and what players are capable of. It's a learning curve for players and coaches. You won't know which direction is best for the future unless you try different players and experiment a little.
The Flying Belgian
4 Jun 2007, 16:38
So... Other posters can talk down to others and never admit fault whilst being condescending and get away with it?
If so, I'll change my posting style to fit in. :)
That is internet speak, this is an internet forum... That is a bit much really. Or is it just a short term idea??? Because that has some shortterm merit.
Read the post again. Everyone needs to step back. Many posters are guilty.
That abbrevation, spelled out is a breach of the terms and conditions. It has long-term merit as it's a sign of frustration and we know eher that leads.
No, but the sentence reads as though all abbreviations are out of bounds, not just abbreviations that include coarse language. (I only know of the one in question)
Nah, it said "FFS and similar abbreviations", not "all abbreviations".
I'm sure things like IIRC (if I recall correctly) and AFAIK (as far as I know) are ok.
I remember that happened a few years ago to Brett Voss, best on ground in a match at the Gabba, I think it was Richmond, dropped the next.Poor thing.
Was Schmidt best on ground on Saturday night?
And he wasn't even listed in the best list.
Look at Cam Wood - gone from rising star to not being considered
That's gonna work so well for him :rolleyes:
Why do you bring up the rising star nomination? What has that got to do with whether he should be in the team or not?
You don't get the nomination for being in the best 2 rucks in Brisbane.
Homer Jnr
4 Jun 2007, 16:44
Nah, it said "FFS and similar abbreviations", not "all abbreviations".
I'm sure things like IIRC (if I recall correctly) and AFAIK (as far as I know) are ok.
IMO that sounds fair. :p
IMO that sounds fair. :p
Agreed. :)
And on that note shall we go back to discussing the coming match against the Bulldogs? I think we've all expressed our views and have had ample opportunity to clarify with each other. Let's drop the matter.
Ok. I need to address an issue here:
Wood and B.McDonald:
Wood was dropped because Beau was playing better. Nothing wrong with that. How many years have we waited for Beau to be fit enough to play. LET'S NOT WASTE THE WAIT. I'm all for his selection!
I notice that 90% of posters are calling for woods return this week because he kicked 4 goals. As far as I can tell there were no 'posters' at the game on the weekend, so read the match summary again. Wood was NOT in the best players list. Beau WAS in the best players list. Beau must have been rucking and was one of the best. So if we're bring a ruckman in for this week doesn't it make sense that the spot should go to Beau.
I notice that 90% of posters are calling for woods return this week because he kicked 4 goals. As far as I can tell there were no 'posters' at the game on the weekend, so read the match summary again. Wood was NOT in the best players list. Beau WAS in the best players list. Beau must have been rucking and was one of the best. So if we're bring a ruckman in for this week doesn't it make sense that the spot should go to Beau.
I must admit that because none of us were able to learn a lot from the reserves game, I backed my judgment from the previous week where Woody performed well in the reserves, while Beau struggled in the seniors.