Review Good/Bad vs Gold Coast, Round 1 2024

Remove this Banner Ad

If a player is just lacking fitness I have no problem with it. It's a worthwhile risk IMO.

I am happy taking my chances at 90% odds.
Is there any actual evidence that Soligo was unfit?

He missed only a few weeks with his ankle injury and played minutes the week before. You don't suddenly become match unfit in the space of a few weeks

(Unless you believed that crap about Fogarty suddenly becoming match fit after a week)
 
And, we're just ignoring the 'evidence' that has fallen away in the mean time. Like the idea that his lack of fitness was evidenced by the work that every sub who barely plays does after the game.
That game gave Soligo an opportunity to build his fitness which he wasn't able to do due to his injury in the preseason. Nicks clearly see him as an important player so did this, you don't? If Soligo isn't in the 18 against Geelong then you can tell us we were wrong which I know you would do. But if Soligo is in the best 18 against Geelong then you need to admit you were wrong again which I know you won't do.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Is there any actual evidence that Soligo was unfit?

He missed only a few weeks with his ankle injury and played minutes the week before. You don't suddenly become match unfit in the space of a few weeks

And if he was now unable to complete a whole match due to the injury, how would having barely played helped with that?
 
Is there any actual evidence that Soligo was unfit?

He missed only a few weeks with his ankle injury and played minutes the week before. You don't suddenly become match unfit in the space of a few weeks

(Unless you believed that crap about Fogarty suddenly becoming match fit after a week)
Few weeks? I thought it was nearly a month which is a lot to miss toward the end of the preseason.
 
Why would it be expressed as a percentage?

If what you're saying is correct, and Soligo couldn't play out a game, the flow through effect of being a player down impacts everyone doesn't it?

Because thats the way to view it. You said the potential harm was 5%. How did you come to that number?

It's one possible theory, but I don't think forced to be correct.

An available alternative theory is that our selection policy overly favours incumbency and he wasn't in the starting team because he wasn't in it against West Coast and he's not seen as a selection priority.

Now I would guess that Soligo playing 37 games over the past 2 years including 21 of 23 in 2023 shows that he is in the best 22. He has only been sub one time in those 37 games and that was his 2nd game.

So Soligo was the Sub against West Coast (played) but Nicks is so rigid that he wouldn't play him against Gold Coast. Both Gollant and Burgess didnt play against West Coast but he brought them in.
 
That game gave Soligo an opportunity to build his fitness which he wasn't able to do due to his injury in the preseason. Nicks clearly see him as an important player so did this, you don't? If Soligo isn't in the 18 against Geelong then you can tell us we were wrong which I know you would do. But if Soligo is in the best 18 against Geelong then you need to admit you were wrong again which I know you won't do.

if Soligo is in the team next week it will prove that I was wrong to not believe he wasn't capable of playing this week? Uh....
 
Because thats the way to view it. You said the potential harm was 5%. How did you come to that number?



Now I would guess that Soligo playing 37 games over the past 2 years including 21 of 23 in 2023 shows that he is in the best 22. He has only been sub one time in those 37 games and that was his 2nd game.

So Soligo was the Sub against West Coast (played) but Nicks is so rigid that he wouldn't play him against Gold Coast. Both Gollant and Burgess didnt play against West Coast but he brought them in.
Tex and Thilthorpe were injured…. What choice did we have but to bring players in?
 
Is there any actual evidence that Soligo was unfit?

Apart from the near month he missed from an Ankle injury? Or Nicks mentioned he was behind due to said ankle injury. Or the fact he missed the Port Trial match. Or that he could only play a half against West Coast.

No evidence whatsoever.

He missed only a few weeks with his ankle injury and played minutes the week before. You don't suddenly become match unfit in the space of a few weeks

(Unless you believed that crap about Fogarty suddenly becoming match fit after a week)

You also don't believe a player is either fit or unfit.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

And if he was now unable to complete a whole match due to the injury, how would having barely played helped with that?

Not only that but didn't Soligo play the entire last quarter with no time on the bench?

What unfit/injured player is spending an entire quarter on the ground?
 
Gut feel is that Soligo's ankle was a convenient way to get what we wanted.

Otherwise we'd have had to make a tough call on Murphy:
Leadership group, loved by all and sundry, on field leader

Or Berry, stellar preseason, really want to reward it.

Soligo as sub allowed us to get our wishes with the other two.

A coaching group with any balls or nous would have made one of the tough calls, sadly ours has neither.
 
Because thats the way to view it. You said the potential harm was 5%. How did you come to that number?
[/QUOTE]

Oh. No, that wasn't really what I was attempting. It was just a rounding of the percentage of one game's competition points against the available total for the season. I.e, the stakes of each game are not insignificant, the four points matter. We learned that last week.

You wouldn't normally express consequences as a percentage. But would we disagree that being a player down is capable of having a significant impact on your chances of winning or losing the particular game?

Now I would guess that Soligo playing 37 games over the past 2 years including 21 of 23 in 2023 shows that he is in the best 22. He has only been sub one time in those 37 games and that was his 2nd game.

So Soligo was the Sub against West Coast (played) but Nicks is so rigid that he wouldn't play him against Gold Coast. Both Gollant and Burgess didnt play against West Coast but he brought them in.

Weren't they forced changes though?

Incidentally, back on Soligo, he's often been the person subbed out hasn't he? I have some recollection this has been controversial at least once.
 
Apart from the near month he missed from an Ankle injury? Or Nicks mentioned he was behind due to said ankle injury. Or the fact he missed the Port Trial match. Or that he could only play a half against West Coast.

No evidence whatsoever.



You also don't believe a player is either fit or unfit.
You're speculating that because he missed a month previously he was unfit for this match.

So I guess Milera was unfit as well? He missed a month with a hamstring around the same time
 
Soligo basically did alot of training indoors for a month

Theory was the back to back full games in 6 days could open up risk of other injuries to other parts of body ie soft tissue

Being a long season a plan was hatched re management , as southerntakeover said incumbents all round were given preference eg Borlaise over Keane …whether that’s right idea you can debate

Burgess and high performance team recommended this approach re Soligo and Nicks agreed , it’s possible they also thought someone of his class would make a difference off sub bench in round 1 as players tire ( this last point not confirmed though )

I agree with others that Nicks is rightly under microscope and needs to perform well before given an extension ( I hope the club really thinks about this after watching what we served up early in this game where we looked under prepared for what was required )


excuses start to run out this year no matter what is thrown at us
 
Because he got another hit out which he didn't have during the preseason. Are you all there?

The massive fitness benefits of playing one quarter?

That you think someone being able to play next week disproves them being able to play this week kind of means you shouldn't be the one asking people if they're there.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top