View Full Version : A burden too heavy for kids to carry
Boucks09
31 May 2009, 20:26
The match today was obviously a reality check for a variety of reasons, but I think the key lesson was for the match committee. This isn't a thread about sticking in the boot, but rather pointing out the difficulties in playing our brand of football.
We can not afford to carry senior midfielders into form by playing them when they are not 100% match fit
We simply do not have any midfield type players that have the class or ability to play in our senior side with our style of play unless that are close to 100% match fit.
Fletcher could. Lloyd could. We don't have a Judd, Ablett, Kerr type that can play 70% fit and have an impact. That is not a criticism just a fact.
When the game was up for grabs in the first half (the match was effectively over at halftime) we had two senior big bodied midfielders/half forwards who had had absolutely 0, zero, zilch impact on the match; McVeigh and Skipworth. It was obvious today that even our most highly skilled players (which McVeigh would be) are of no value to our side when they are not 100% fit. They were infact a major liability.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but McVeigh is one of our best midfielders who is at his best winning the contested ball and occasionally resting down forward where he can be dangerous.
In the first half McVeigh sat deep forward (or on the bench) because obviously he did not have the match conditioning or fitness to spend any significant time on ball. If this was the case (as would've been known before the game) he should never have played in the first place and it was a major error in selection. If he was simply selected as a forward cum midfielder that is also an error IMHO.
On the almost exclusive occassion that he went into the middle, he got a solid centre clearance which lead to a scoring opportunity. That is what he is in the side for...if he wasn't able to do that for a high percentage of match time he should not have been selected.
As a result during the game he lost confidence, was under pressure and made decision making errors. Hardly the way to get form into your best midfielder. Alternatively he could've played at Bendigo for another week (got thumped as a side) but been able to play larger patches in the midfield and gain match conditioning and confidence before coming back next week with another solid game under his belt.
Skipworth has played this season as an attacking midfielder/half forward who seems to play his best in our side linking up through the midfield and providing a solid lead up target.
My brother and I watched Skipworth when he was playing half back on Shannon Byrnes and he had absolutely no idea what he was doing as a defender. This is not as much his fault but the decision of the match committee to play him there in the first place. We lost 2 running half backs last week (Dempsey and Lovett-Murray) and brought in 2 hard bodied midfielders/forwards which proved to be a shocking decision. It didn't cost us the game by any stretch, but it certainly didn't help us to win the match.
Surely if we needed to fill a hole at half back (which surprise surprise is where Dempsey and Lovett-Murray have been playing) we could've brought in at least one half back player (e.g. Daniher, Quinn, Myers) and perhaps dropped another in and under midfielder (e.g. Lonergan)? Too many times today we lost drive and run out of defense whilst also lacking a leading target through half forward.
Where did we struggle most today?
- It wasn't in the contested ball (of which McVeigh and Skipworth had no impact)
- It wasn't in the clearances (of which McVeigh won 1 clearance after being belatedly moved into the centre)
It was due to our inability to get our run and carry game going due to our primary runners either missing, (Dempsey), tagged out of the game (Lovett and Winderlich) or given defense roles (Houli, Stanton, Dyson).
I can't help feeling that the match committee were a little spooked by Geelong's bigger bodies and the fact that we were a young side. Thus they decided against playing more attacking players and were conservative by playing more experienced bigger bodied players.
I've got no problem with McVeigh and Skipworth in our side as they are exteremly valuable. But not when they are not 100% fit, and not when it disrupts our team balance and structure.
Thoughts?
AndyLesPaul
31 May 2009, 20:34
True.
Great post.
We came into the game with knowledge that McVeigh was 100% match fit, and tbh, He let us down.
I think Knighta summed it up on MMM that we went into our shell a bit instead of run and carry. They didnt really allow us too either.
Think your spot on with selection errors. Dempsey is crucial to the half back line, yet we brang in two small forwards/midfielders. Agree also with dont play blokes if they are not at least 90 fit! Even if Prismall has another 2 games in the VFL.
I think we were due a loss like this. The boys are still young and that brings inconsistency. We have played some good footy for 4-5 games now and were due for a downer.
Hopefully we bounce back this week and they pick guys for their roles. Presume Dempsey is right for this week?
Skeeta Olly
31 May 2009, 20:46
Completely agree.
Lloyd wasn't 100% either, and it really showed across half-forward.
Ben the Gooner
31 May 2009, 20:52
I think Knighter and co. dropped the ball on this one.
Obviously our two changes were forced, and I daresay that there would have been no changes were it not for injury and suspension.
They were obviously looking for bigger bodies to come in and didn't pay as much credence to like-for-like switches as if we were playing Melbourne.
Daniher and Myers/T Slattery/Nash would have been better selections in hindsight (which is alway 20-20).
lemon chicken
31 May 2009, 20:55
Where did we struggle most today?
- It wasn't in the contested ball (of which McVeigh and Skipworth had no impact)
- It wasn't in the clearances (of which McVeigh won 1 clearance after being belatedly moved into the centre)
Skipworth 15 touches 6 were contested possesions.
Your right he shouldnt of been on a back flank and definitly not matched up to one Geelongs quickest players but the match-ups for the whole day were nothing short of mind boggling.
lemon chicken
31 May 2009, 20:57
Can anyone recall Lovett taking on any Geelong players when he got the ball today? Looked like he wanted to swap jumpers for most of the match.
Can anyone recall Lovett taking on any Geelong players when he got the ball today? Looked like he wanted to swap jumpers for most of the match.
They closed down his space, for all their ball winning ability the geelong midfielders biggest strength is denying their opponents clean possesion. Lovett like all our midfielders were forced to give it up under pressure all game.
The Dustbin
31 May 2009, 21:05
Can anyone recall Lovett taking on any Geelong players when he got the ball today? Looked like he wanted to swap jumpers for most of the match.
We only started using the corridor in the 4th quarter. Geelong owned it and pushed us wide all game. Lovett wasn't allowed any space, what little space he did find, it was quickly shut down by Geelong.
Credit to Geelong.
We only started using the corridor in the 4th quarter. Geelong owned it and pushed us wide all game. Lovett wasn't allowed any space, what little space he did find, it was quickly shut down by Geelong.
Credit to Geelong.
Is it fair to say our game plan suits the MCG better, more space to run and teams cant zone off as easy.
The Dustbin
31 May 2009, 21:27
Is it fair to say our game plan suits the MCG better, more space to run and teams cant zone off as easy.
Can't take anything away from Geelong, who guarded the space well. We play Dome pretty well but recently as you said we appear to be better suited at the G.
The game plan worked fine against Hawthorn and St Kilda. Geelong are just a damn good team.
The game plan worked fine against Hawthorn and St Kilda. Geelong are just a damn good team.
:thumbsu: Spot on. Forgot bout those games :)
Well said Boucks. Another great post!
kelvin_sheedy
31 May 2009, 22:22
If you do a player by player comparison Geelong would be better in about 90% of the positions out there today.
They won almost all of them and it would not have mattered who we picked.
Only thing you could probably look at is Daniher not being selected to have a crack at SJ if things went pear shaped like they did.
A half fit McVeigh is a better option then anything else we had in reserve.
Bombermania
31 May 2009, 22:46
Top notch OP!!
Whilst it would be easy to critise some of todays game I look at it this way.
- Geelong are the best side and we were within 10 goals of them.
- As long as we can bounce back next week against Adelaide this match actually has a few positives for our players had a change to see up close what the best is about and hopefully they learn from it.
- We are 5-5 which is a good position to be in with several winnible matches coming up
- Several key players to return from Injuries
Valve Bounce
31 May 2009, 22:56
We can not afford to carry senior midfielders into form by playing them when they are not 100% match fit
Thoughts?
Great post :thumbsu:
Your entire post was spot on. I just want to include this part you underlined which is the crux of our problem.
Funny how the young guys who took over from injured seniors in previous games helped us win. No team can carry injured/unfit players, and certainly not against a good team like Geelong. The rest of our players had to play too many guys in the opposition when that happens.
I mean, would you run only 16 players against a side like Geelong?
How the hell can they run and carry with two guys missing in action?
emblurr
31 May 2009, 23:04
I was disappointed because I hoped we would have been competitive like we were against St Kilda. That one felt like a win because we played hard and they played hard and was good for the progression and experience of the team even though we lost. But when you get smashed and you're not competitive it just seems like a write off.
Boucks09
1 Jun 2009, 00:52
If you do a player by player comparison Geelong would be better in about 90% of the positions out there today.
They won almost all of them and it would not have mattered who we picked.
Only thing you could probably look at is Daniher not being selected to have a crack at SJ if things went pear shaped like they did.
A half fit McVeigh is a better option then anything else we had in reserve.
I agree with you regarding the 90% statistic. I would have Ryder and perhaps Pears (when he went to Hawkins) as the only players to win their respective positions - 90.9% :thumbsu:
A half fit McVeigh is a better option then anything else we had in reserve:confused::confused:
He played a worse game today than anything that David Myers or Leroy Jetta has dished up this year. Atleast Myers was accountable for an opponent when he played. McVeigh was utterly terrible and was embarrassed by his performance which is no way for our star onballer to be 'reintroduced' to the seniors after a long stint out. I was sitting 5 rows from where he kicked the goal in the last quarter and after he kicked it he was almost apologetic in his demeanour.
I don't entirely blame him for his performance because he would do anything for this club and always gives his best. However the decision should've been taken out of his control and Knighta should've made the tough call to keep him in the 2's for one more week.
BringBackCransberg
1 Jun 2009, 01:18
I was disappointed because I hoped we would have been competitive like we were against St Kilda. That one felt like a win because we played hard and they played hard and was good for the progression and experience of the team even though we lost. But when you get smashed and you're not competitive it just seems like a write off.
I think part of the problem is that Geelong are just a whole heap better than St Kilda. I can't wait to see the two teams play, but Geelong just seem to be more dominant on a fundamental level. I don't mean 'fundamental skills' or anything, more that they're good on a deeper level -- they're dominant in their bones, St Kilda are dominant in their muscles. Some crap like that. Thompson has made a special team. Lyon has got a special thing going with an excellent team. We're in the early stages of the former, which gives us a chance against teams that are in the latter. But not against teams in the former that have progressed a hell of a long way further than we have. (:confused:?)
So don't feel too bad (I know it's not easy). Cycle of life. All the signs are there for us to get back to the kind of dominance Geelong are enjoying now -- we're doing a real rebuild, not a Richmond/Collingwood kind of rebuild.
And kick-arse OP Boucks. Get a job at Windy Hill already.
zaharakamania
1 Jun 2009, 09:29
In the end it turned out to be a real pity that changes were forced on the team, Dempsey's influence looks to be greater than i had thought & as most have suggested, McVeigh & Skipworth just shouldn't have been out there yet.
& see what happens when we leave Myers out for too long;)
I don't think we should of brought both Skippy and McVeigh in. Initally I would of said just McVeigh, but he barely even ran through the middle all day. Skipworth played his worst game for the club by far. Both will keep their spot and should be a lot better for it next week. Hopefully we'll get McVeight into the middle next week.
I don't think we should of brought both Skippy and McVeigh in. Initally I would of said just McVeigh, but he barely even ran through the middle all day. Skipworth played his worst game for the club by far. Both will keep their spot and should be a lot better for it next week. Hopefully we'll get McVeight into the middle next week.
Exactly my thoughts. Mcveigh was always going to be underdone. I think Knights and the selectors rolled the dice on this one and lossed big time. I can't work out what the rationale was. We were never going to out muscle Geelong so surely our best chance was our run and therefore Daniher may have been a better selection to cover for Dempsey.
Hopefully Dempsey will be back this week as he is critical to our structure.
TheDon35
1 Jun 2009, 11:00
Skipworth 15 touches 6 were contested possesions.
Your right he shouldnt of been on a back flank and definitly not matched up to one Geelongs quickest players but the match-ups for the whole day were nothing short of mind boggling.
So because he had 15 touches he played well or ok or held his own?
He was pathetic, he had 2 decent handballs late in the last quarter which glossed over a horrible game.
6 contested possesions.... because he was too slow to get away from the apponent so it became a contested situation. Most of the rest of his possesions were little bunts forward or behind a player really not contributing any value to the team.
Got hideously exposed in defense, provided zero attacking impact other than 2 handballs in the final quarter.
Spent most of the game camped a couple of meters of the contest asking for a handball.
Poor selection. Poor player.
kelvin_sheedy
1 Jun 2009, 11:34
I don't entirely blame him for his performance because he would do anything for this club and always gives his best. However the decision should've been taken out of his control and Knighta should've made the tough call to keep him in the 2's for one more week.
Running around in our two's is no different to a training run. We have to get McVeigh ready for the next 4 weeks and the best thing to do was play him in the seniors.
Skipworth missed 4 weeks, played a full game and was ready to come back in. He wasn't ready to play the Cats and will never be.
They played poorly but the players you suggested have been poor all year against ordinary opposition.
I agree Kelvin, selection was a suprise but the next 4 weeks will determine our season, not last week.
We defintely had this is mind, with 2 so clearly unlike-for-unlike changes when we had options there, such as Daniher (who IMO would be the best matchup for Stevie J on our list).
Slattery_20
1 Jun 2009, 11:50
I agree with you regarding the 90% statistic. I would have Ryder and perhaps Pears (when he went to Hawkins) as the only players to win their respective positions - 90.9% :thumbsu:
Surely Neagle. Kicked 3 from the 4 or 5 times they went to him in the F50. The knock on him (and reasonably so) is fitness but if he can be that efficient he stays
Side picked was too short. Full stop. No match-up for Johnson, I would have preferred to see Pears on him and pick another tall for Hawkins, but the cupboard was reasonably bare. Even TSlatts would appear to be the right size, with the proviso I have no idea of his formline/fitness
Boucks09
1 Jun 2009, 12:50
Running around in our two's is no different to a training run. We have to get McVeigh ready for the next 4 weeks and the best thing to do was play him in the seniors.
Skipworth missed 4 weeks, played a full game and was ready to come back in. He wasn't ready to play the Cats and will never be.
They played poorly but the players you suggested have been poor all year against ordinary opposition.
There was more value in playing a fully fit kid then playing a 50% fit McVeigh in my opinion. McVeigh would have taken nothing out of that match whatsoever whilst a young player would've learnt heaps against he best team in the comp.
Yes we need him firing for the second half of the season, and his selection wasn't the difference in the game, but surely he would've gotten more out of playing at Bendigo (which is better than a training run) then standing at full forward doing SFA for a half of football and then coming on ball when the sting was well and truly out of the game. The second half of the Geelong match was as close as you will get to a training run in terms of intensity and he still contributed very very little.
Surely Neagle. Kicked 3 from the 4 or 5 times they went to him in the F50. The knock on him (and reasonably so) is fitness but if he can be that efficient he stays
Side picked was too short. Full stop. No match-up for Johnson, I would have preferred to see Pears on him and pick another tall for Hawkins, but the cupboard was reasonably bare. Even TSlatts would appear to be the right size, with the proviso I have no idea of his formline/fitness
I actually realised that afterwards that Jay probably held his own up forward. I think they ended up playing Milburn on him in the second half. Makes it 86.3% ;)
lemon chicken
1 Jun 2009, 12:51
So because he had 15 touches he played well or ok or held his own?
He was pathetic, he had 2 decent handballs late in the last quarter which glossed over a horrible game.
6 contested possesions.... because he was too slow to get away from the apponent so it became a contested situation. Most of the rest of his possesions were little bunts forward or behind a player really not contributing any value to the team.
Got hideously exposed in defense, provided zero attacking impact other than 2 handballs in the final quarter.
Spent most of the game camped a couple of meters of the contest asking for a handball.
Poor selection. Poor player.
He is a better option as a small half forward than Monfries who continually gets off free after producing poor performances on a weekly basis. I cant think of one thing Monfries did to gloss over another mediocre performance but lets stick it to a bloke just because you never wanted him drafted to begin with.