Our clearance problems:

[thejester]

Thanks for the patronising. If it was Kelly's first bad game for the year I would agree wholeheartily. But it wasn't. He has been below par all season, with an occasional good display thrown in (St.Kilda for example).

That's the story of the entire team and half the players. One more performance will see Kelly canned, but wanting him to be the scapegoat for a blowout is absurd.

But the problem is certain players never get dropped (Kelly, Ling) and others are always in and out (Tenace, Byrnes, Callan).

Probably because they're junior players who are still trying to find there niche - and I again dispute this notion that there are sacred cows at Geelong. In dropping Playfair, SJ and KK Thompson gutted our forward line and dumped a protege - where's the cowardice now? Kelly was given an ultimatum earlier in the season (much like the players mentioned above) that he had to shape up our get dropped, and unlike the players mentioned above he did just that. The situation in judging his form in the next two weeks will be complicated by the fact we're playing a team we should beat handily - but if he fails to perform against Port he's stuffed.

And I like the breathtaking reversal of position: you object to younger players being dropped constantly but earlier in an effort to justify your 'GET RID OF 7!!!1111111' comment you picked Callan and Stokes to be dropped despite the fact they were considered to be among our better players.

None of these guys are indispensible, yet only certain players get demoted. Why does Kelly's poor form warrant retention but Tenace's doesn't?

Because Kelly is a more experienced player who the coaching staff know can do more than Tenace (added to which, I was under the impression Tenace has mainly been out of the seniors due to injury).

And you're right - dropping one player after a 92 point loss is stupid. I'd drop a lot more than 1.

Apparently for the sack of dropping them. Why not just falt out come and say you're interested in constructive solutions to Geelong's problems but instead want endless chopping and changing in the hope a messiah will emerge from the VFL?

 

[GeeCat]

Probably because they're junior players who are still trying to find there niche...Because Kelly is a more experienced player who the coaching staff know can do more than Tenace

So we continue to play guys on the proviso that they're experienced?

How can we expect to ever rid these "junior players" of that respective tag if we're not willing to give them games when they deserve it? Experience for guys like the Callan's, Spencer's, and Prismall's of yesteryear won't come from continuously playing undeserving guys (Kelly) ahead of them. Neither will we ever find out whether or not these guys are capable of offering more to the team than those who currently stand.

There comes a time when experience, and the brownie points you rack up as a result of that, fall you short in warranting a position.

 

[Skeppersap]

It actually wouldnt suprise me if it turned out that ling suffered from a mild form of *ation, going by this years performances.

I have atcually not seen a player with such a negative impact on a game. Sure, there are blokes like Kelly ans Kingsley who dont run and just get a game because of their names, but they dont get the ball so dont actually hurt us. Kingsley misses a few up forward, sure, but that doesnt result in opposition goals.

Ling, on the other hand, has a special ability to make the easy look exceedingly difficult. Passes a ten year old would be able to make, Ling stuffs up (so does Kelly actually). When he receives the ball he often stands on the spot like someone who has just received a labotomy, until an opposition player runs at him, when he quickly handballs it backwards without really looking or caring to whom or where the ball goes. It is his kicking which entertains me the most. I just love how he can hit the chest of an opposition running back flanker who can then deliver lace out to the opposition forwards.

He is one of the slower players in the afl as well.

Then there are players like Josh Hunt. I can nearly see the arrogance oozing out of him (same with Kelly actually). I dont see the same sort of arrogance from players like McLeod and Rucciuto, proven supserstars week in week out.

Drop all 3. I would be more than happy to see none of them at our club next year.

You can chuck Kingsley into that last category as well. I now HATE the fact that I can kick a football better than a lot of people at the GFC who get payed big bucks to do it.

Bunch of f**ing pretenders. Overpaid hacks who embarass those who put their hard earned money into the club.

 

[Beano31]

I think it is clearly evident that Kelly is carrying an injury and should be dropped until he is 100%. Prismall at 100% is going to offer a lot more to Geelong at the moment than an injured Kelly who doesn't look willing to put his body on the line. He played a lot up forward against Adelaide which surely indicates his body isn't up to the under packs role he should be playing in the midfield, so leave him out till he can do that role again.

Ling is definately struggling, but I wouldn't drop him yet. He did limit Goodwin (who remember is the Brownlow favourite and in very good form) for a majority of the game. He got away towards the end, as every Adelaide player did, but I think Ling still has a role in the team as the defensive/tagging midfielder.

We are definately in need of some players who can clear the ball. Against Adelaide wasn't a great example, but there have been games when Ottens and King have rucked admirable, and got clear taps, but the ball is cleared by the opposition. We got beaten in clearances by Essendon when we played them! A team that is regarded as having the worst midfield. I think we have a capable midfield, maybe in need of a clearance king (ie a West type of player) and we just need our pacy players (Tenace, Byrnes, Stokes, Wojcinski) to come on a bit more. IMO, the midfield coaching role needs to be addressed, we seem to be lacking a bit of structure at the stoppages.

I don't think the game against Adelaide is the greatest indication of where the club is it. In all seriousness, Geelong were not bad, I was reasonably satisfied until we gave it away towards the end. We just have to accept we were smashed by an awesome outfit. We clearly drew the short straw having to play Adelaide after the bye, they put on the best display I have seen on the football field for a while. Geelong isn't the first, and surely wont be the last team that the Crows demolish at AAMI stadium this year. The Crows demoralised the Bullies by a similar margin, and they are still looking alrite, so I don't think it is all doom and gloom.

Just another point, and slightly of topic (as is most of this post!), but I was thinking it is time to drop Nathan Ablett while watching the game. In the last 10 or so minutes of the game, I changed my mind. I've seen it before this year, and it happened on Sunday, but when the game is out of reach young Ablett has been leading up the ground and presenting very well. Why does this only happen in the last 10 minutes of the game when we have secured the win, or the win is out of reach. He looks pretty natural starting at half forward and leading into the centre. IMO, he should play this role for an extended period of time, he has been looking a bit lost when playing out of the goalsquare. Forward structure should be something along the lines of Ablett being a hard leading CHF, Mooney floating inside 50. Ottens one out in the goalsquare if possible, and I'd be tempted to put McCarthy in for Kingsley around the goals too, if required.

 

[thejester]

So we continue to play guys on the proviso that they're experienced?

No, if it comes down to dropping one of two players with equally poor form, you drop the junior with expectation the senior one has the experience to step up. That doesn't mean it's a no-limits thing were a player can simply coast forever on his experience, but Kelly simply has not reached the point where dropping him is worth it. If he continues to show excruciatingly poor form, then sure, back to the VFL.

How can we expect to ever rid these "junior players" of that respective tag if we're not willing to give them games when they deserve it? Experience for guys like the Callan's, Spencer's, and Prismall's of yesteryear won't come from continuously playing undeserving guys (Kelly) ahead of them. Neither will we ever find out whether or not these guys are capable of offering more to the team than those who currently stand.

For all your and Partridge's huffing and puffing about how the young fellas aren't getting a go, there is precisely one player that fits the description: Prismall. Callan has got plenty of game time this year. Spencer was given some games and failed utterly in performing, and became redundant when Harley came back into the side. Slade was given game time and was dropped because he began to lose it. Byrnes has been given game time and clearly needs to improve his skills. Stokes has been given time and has flowered. Nathan and Mackie have been put above the coaches protege (Playfair) and darling (Kingsley). The argument that they're not getting game time because of undeserving players (who the others are I'm not sure) is hogwash.

There comes a time when experience, and the brownie points you rack up as a result of that, fall you short in warranting a position.

Sure, but Kelly hasn't reached that point. Put it this way: would you have dropped Jarrad Rooke after Robinson kicked 6 on him? Kelly has had an ordinary season but judgement should be postponed until after the next two games, IMO.

 

[GeeCat]

No, if it comes down to dropping one of two players with equally poor form, you drop the junior with expectation the senior one has the experience to step up. That doesn't mean it's a no-limits thing were a player can simply coast forever on his experience, but Kelly simply has not reached the point where dropping him is worth it. If he continues to show excruciatingly poor form, then sure, back to the VFL.

If you think Kelly's poor form has only just begun, I suggest you take a look back again.

All good and well that Bomber has shown the cajones to drop Dog and Kent, but the novelty behind it all is lost when the the same standard ruling doesn't apply club-wide.

For all your and Partridge's huffing and puffing about how the young fellas aren't getting a go, there is precisely one player that fits the description: Prismall. Callan has got plenty of game time this year. Spencer was given some games and failed utterly in performing, and became redundant when Harley came back into the side. Slade was given game time and was dropped because he began to lose it. Byrnes has been given game time and clearly needs to improve his skills. Stokes has been given time and has flowered. Nathan and Mackie have been put above the coaches protege (Playfair) and darling (Kingsley). The argument that they're not getting game time because of undeserving players (who the others are I'm not sure) is hogwash.

One part of the argument is giving other players a go, as you've put it. The other side is dropping players who don't deserve to be in the team.

Yes, the Callan's, Mackie's and all (your VFL'ers, if you will), have been given the odd call-up, but the rotation system that follows is what needs to be altered. The call for persisting with them more than 1 or 2 weeks aside, there is little point in the 'overlapping' effect of each replacing the other constantly week in week out whilst players, like Kelly, continue to get a free ride.

And yes, they will often look out of depth when their turn arrives, turning the ball over in cringe-worthy fashion, but honestly, what more can you expect when you're not committed to playing them on a regular basis? To borrow a line from you: would you have dropped Jarrad Rooke after Robinson kicked 6 on him? Rhetorical, but I see no reason why the same basic principle shouldn't apply these 'kids'.

And exactly what more has a player like Kelly done with his gifted chances each week in comparison to these who "fail utterly in performing" and "clearly need to improve (their) skills"?

 

[Mr_Cat_Man]

I think that there needs to be a change to personell in the midfield. I think Corey Enright should be encouraged more to play offensively as i think while he is of value at the back he can hurt the opposition alot more than some of the others in there atm. Kelly is not fit and is struggling but he will comeback just needs to realise his importance to the team. Ling is a worry because of his lack of pace and needs to reinvent his game. I t would suprise me if one of our midfield group was traded at the end of year.

 

[thejester]

If you think Kelly's poor form has only just begun, I suggest you take a look back again.

All good and well that Bomber has shown the cajones to drop Dog and Kent, but the novelty behind it all is lost when the the same standard ruling doesn't apply club-wide.

I'm not saying Kelly hasn't had a bad season, but Bomber bluntly told him he had to improve or be dropped and he improved. One bad performance in a team that got flogged by 90+ points should not merit dropping. If he blows it against Port, then he should go back to the twos. The standard clearly does belong to the whole team, and it shows a lot more character on Bomber's part to drop the men he's publically backed as being able to reconstruct the forward line then one amongst a larger, underperforming midfield.

One part of the argument is giving other players a go, as you've put it. The other side is dropping players who don't deserve to be in the team.

And I agree with that, but Kelly is not at the point where he doesn't deserve to be in the team. More to the point, I fail to see anyone who hasn't got a go despite this. Prismall is unique because he broke his wrist, but there is no-one else clamouring for senior selection that has been repeatedly overlooked in the midfield.

Yes, the Callan's, Mackie's and all (your VFL'ers, if you will), have been given the odd call-up, but the rotation system that follows is what needs to be altered. The call for persisting with them more than 1 or 2 weeks aside, there is little point in the 'overlapping' effect of each replacing the other constantly week in week out whilst players, like Kelly, continue to get a free ride.

Frankly, I can't see any evidence of a rotation policy - all I see is young kids being given a go and when (if) they run out of steam being dropped. Slade made way for Callan, Byrnes has yet to show enough consistency to merit a call up for anything other than pace etc etc.

And yes, they will often look out of depth when their turn arrives, turning the ball over in cringe-worthy fashion, but honestly, what more can you expect when you're not committed to playing them on a regular basis? To borrow a line from you: would you have dropped Jarrad Rooke after Robinson kicked 6 on him? Rhetorical, but I see no reason why the same basic principle shouldn't apply these 'kids'.

They're not dropped after one game though, are they? Spencer failed utterly against Scott Lucas and then again was unsighted against Freo, and he was dropped to make space for Harley. King comes back so Blake gets dropped, etc etc. The kids who are serious prospects for permanent places in the 22 - Byrnes, Tenace, Slade, Callan, Prismall, Ablett, Mackie and Stokes - have all been given extended goes (with the obvious exception of Prismall) and have either been dropped because there form didn't warrant an extension or because seniors were returning or both.

And exactly what more has a player like Kelly done with his gifted chances each week in comparison to these who "fail utterly in performing" and "clearly need to improve (their) skills"?

Compare Kelly and Byrnes, who was dropped for this weeks match. Against Freo Byrnes had 10 disposals, 3 marks, 1 behind and 3 tackles. Kelly had 16 disposals, 4 marks, no score and 3 tackles. Against Essendon Byrnes had 18 disposals, 9 marks, 2 behinds and 4 tackles. Kelly managed 21 disposals, 4 marks, no score and 4 tackles. On the weekend Kelly played abysmally - 10 disposals, 2 marks, 1 goal and 3 tackles - yet that still puts him above Rooke and Mooney. Byrnes was (statistically at least) beaten by Kelly and statistics in turn do not reveal Byrnes atrocious disposal (nor, on the other hand, his pace). Kelly should be on his last chance, but he's hardly been preserved unfairly at the expense of Byrnes.

 

[Partridge]

Apparently for the sack of dropping them. Why not just falt out come and say you're interested in constructive solutions to Geelong's problems but instead want endless chopping and changing in the hope a messiah will emerge from the VFL?

Now, I'm struggling with this creative alternative to English (after all, you've got personal - now it's my turn), but I'll continue. I am absolutely interested in constructive solutions and nothing else. I do not want endless chopping and changing. But I do want 22 senior positions earnt every week. And at the moment they are not. Kingsley was mediocre in the seconds and still got back in.

As you are the expert on who's playing well and who isn't, what changes would you make? Mine would be as follows:

Out: Kingsley, Kelly, Ling, Nathan Ablett
In: Prismall, Mackie, McCarthy, Koula

And being dropped to the seconds does not mean banished forever. It means dropped until they get back to good form, whether it's a first gamer or a fourth or fifth year player. Kelly out for Prismall seems a pretty seamless change. I know who'll be more desperate.

 

[thejester]

As you are the expert on who's playing well and who isn't, what changes would you make? Mine would be as follows:

Out: Kingsley, Kelly, Ling, Nathan Ablett
In: Prismall, Mackie, McCarthy, Koula

And being dropped to the seconds does not mean banished forever. It means dropped until they get back to good form, whether it's a first gamer or a fourth or fifth year player. Kelly out for Prismall seems a pretty seamless change. I know who'll be more desperate.

If Kelly isn't match fit or performs atrociously again, then Prismall should definitely be in against Port. Kingsley only came into the team because Mackie was injured, if he's fit then Kingsley should be dropped. Ling stays. Just don't know about Nathan Ablett, but as I said in another thread if McCarthy doesn't get a game then he's clearly for the chop.

 

[Partridge]

If Kelly isn't match fit or performs atrociously again, then Prismall should definitely be in against Port. Kingsley only came into the team because Mackie was injured, if he's fit then Kingsley should be dropped. Ling stays. Just don't know about Nathan Ablett, but as I said in another thread if McCarthy doesn't get a game then he's clearly for the chop.

Agree totally about Mackie in for Kingsley. Also about McCarthy. I still think Nathan Ablett has the talent to make it but needs to establish solid form in the reserves. If McCarthy is performing they've got to reward him, although it's pretty certain he'll be making way for a new number 26 at season's end.