Toast Pods

[1970crow]

You guys are too harsh.

A few things going the other way and he would be hailed as the saviour.

Going for a 3rd rounder next year with the bonus of his coaching attributes. Care to trade?

 

[1970crow]

I'm not saying he was any good today, but which tall forward were you going to put in his place?

Why do we have to have 3 kpf's again stab. You keep asking this same stupid question and I always respond by asking whether we could play with 2 only. Jj does eff all rucking, so he doesn't need any back-up. You have never yet responded as to why we must play 3 kpf's.

 

[King Elvis]

I'm probably one of his biggest critics, but even I can accept that he works his ass off. Problem is that he doesn't have a lot left in the tank after his initial effort and it significantly affects his disposal. He often has to hold up play for a bit to get his breath back. I think the reality is that there's no such thing as a 33yo, but afl young body.

I hope sando has the strength to only use him for depth next year.

I miss Craig and his one year for over thirty year old belief.

We wouldn't have given Reilly two years, and we wouldn't have down this ridiculous path with Pods.

 

[Glenno23]

His contested grabs were something else yesterday! Strong as they come, but its the rest that was bad. Very bad.

He gave away a shot at goal with the ball in his hands, then gave away a 50! Moronic. Hope Sando rips his mate a new one for that

His disposal was bad throughout.....

He's a smart footballer, but geez he was dumb yesterday

 

[dylan123]

I'm probably one of his biggest critics, but even I can accept that he works his ass off. Problem is that he doesn't have a lot left in the tank after his initial effort and it significantly affects his disposal. He often has to hold up play for a bit to get his breath back. I think the reality is that there's no such thing as a 33yo, but afl young body.

I hope sando has the strength to only use him for depth next year.

No doubt, agree 100%. It's not as if he hadn't been doing anything at all prior to AFL level (been playing VFL) so he was still going to have a lot of wear and tear.

The thing is though, Pods is at least doing that first effort that's getting us the ball. Brodie Martin is the same, whilst both struggle to finish, they're at least getting the ball in tough situations which half of our side isn't doing at the moment.

Probably best left to the Martin thread, but after watching yesterdays match, I think I'd rather him in the side over Mackay. Look at how many times he filled a hole in the backline and is also able to get into a dangerous position up forward that sees him have a shot on goall. He obviously makes a few mistakes like the kick into the man in the back down back and not being able to finish in front of goals, but even still, he's at least getting into those dangerous positions which someone like Mackay doesn't even do.

Pods is the same, I doubt McKernan/LJ would have even had half the shots on goal he had last night as they wouldn't have done the hard work required to get the ball in the first place. That is our problem, we've got a good chunk of players that can't do the hard work needed to get the possession and then a good percentage of those that can, can't finish half the time.

 

[King Elvis]

Except, statistically, both McK and LJ are comparable, are they not?

Plus, they're young, so should be on the incline, as opposed to Pods, who will only decline.

 

[1970crow]

Except, statistically, both McK and LJ are comparable, are they not?

Plus, they're young, so should be on the incline, as opposed to Pods, who will only decline.

Despite you being correct and I know it's not your view, I still cannot understand some posters preoccupation with arguing which other tall should take his place. It's a nice crutch if you want the answer to be that pods must remain in the side, but it's a particularly short sighted view to have.

 

[King Elvis]

As you know, I agree completely.

Should've had Kerridge or Lyons in as a HFF for the entire year, or Lynch when fit.

But no, we love having a big, lumbering and slow forward line, and leaving our midfield rotations and our zone a player short, so we can get opened up and slaughtered through the middle.

 

[dylan123]

We're the only team with 3 tall forwards thus leaving our midfield rotations a player short? That's news to me.

Ideally you'd have Lynch as the 3rd tall but there are other teams in the comp that run around with as many talls forward (or even more in Sydney's case) yet are able to cover it just fine.

 

[dylan123]

Except, statistically, both McK and LJ are comparable, are they not?

Plus, they're young, so should be on the incline, as opposed to Pods, who will only decline.

Not sure statistically but you've just got to watch them play to see the difference. LJ can finish, but he doesn't play as a KP forward. I got too frustrating watching him try to double mark everything in his couple of games this year.

McKernan could add in the ruck and is capable of hitting a contest, yet he just seems to go missing/not know what to do.

 

[King Elvis]

And yet statistically, with huge amounts of development left in them, they match up, statistically, with Pods.

And yet we'd still rather draft in a player on the decline, then give those guys a chance to develop.

We're the only team with 3 tall forwards thus leaving our midfield rotations a player short? That's news to me.

Ideally you'd have Lynch as the 3rd tall but there are other teams in the comp that run around with as many talls forward (or even more in Sydney's case) yet are able to cover it just fine.

What other sides run with 3 tall forwards?

Hawthorn. Sydney.

Anyone else?

Are their forwards all big and slow?

Compare the calibre of their forwards, to ours.

Then look at it into the context of our relatively slow midfield, and our recent backline of Talia, Truck, Otten/Hartigan; another area that we're too slow.

 

[Mattrox]

Except, statistically, both McK and LJ are comparable, are they not?

Plus, they're young, so should be on the incline, as opposed to Pods, who will only decline.

But neither crashes packs. And both are not on an incline, plateaued. Pods depth renew list. It puts others on notice that you can't spend years on a list not improving.

 

[King Elvis]

Is Pods ability to crash packs overstated, and, if not, is it of any value to us?

The other thing Hawks/Sydney have is a sstructure/system to maximise the strengths of a tall forward line, and the midfield to further strengthen them.

We have neither, so what's the point of running with three talls?

 

[Mattrox]

If the game plan is contested ball we need some players that will go body on body.

 

[dylan123]

And yet statistically, with huge amounts of development left in them, they match up, statistically, with Pods.

And yet we'd still rather draft in a player on the decline, then give those guys a chance to develop.

That in itself should show you exactly where McKernan and LJ are. They've probably got just as much AFL football left in them as Pods does at this stage.

As always, I hope that they can take the next step up, but that''s looking less and less likely for these guys and I'd there's a decent chance neither will be on any AFL list going into next season (McKernan a better chance then LJ).

What other sides run with 3 tall forwards?

Hawthorn. Sydney.

Anyone else?

Are their forwards all big and slow?

Compare the calibre of their forwards, to ours.

Then look at it into the context of our relatively slow midfield, and our recent backline of Talia, Truck, Otten/Hartigan; another area that we're too slow.

Plenty of sides have throughout the year to leveling degrees of effect. Essendon have with Bellchambers, Daniher, Carlisle. GWS have with Boyd, Patteron and Cameron. Collingwood have with White, Cloke, Grundy/Witts. WCE with Lycett, Kennedy, McGovern.

Midfield spend doesn't matter for the most part. Just take a look at how slow the majority of Sydney and Hawthorn's midfield is for the most part, it's no different to ours. The difference is their midfield can get it/use it better then ours.

Speed is only a factor when we can't get the ball/can't use it/have no defensive game and to be pinning the blame on Pods whilst the rest of the team gets let off is silly imo.

Is Pods ability to crash packs overstated, and, if not, is it of any value to us?

The other thing Hawks/Sydney have is a sstructure/system to maximise the strengths of a tall forward line, and the midfield to further strengthen them.

We have neither, so what's the point of running with three talls?

I think we saw how handy it is to have someone that can crash the packs when we had Tippett with Callinan by his feet. Tippett was a bail out kick which we used very often given our game plan is all about contested possession - not a pretty style, doesn't give you much time to pinpoint targets (we don't have the skill to do that anyways for the most part). Someone like Tippett was able to create a contest out of everything and then others like Callinan were able to benefit from this, seem to recall Callinan's goal kicking average was much higher when Tippett was in the side compared to when he wasn't.

Take Pods/or the big forward that can crash the pack out of our side and then we've got to learn to hit targets/leads which just doesn't look like happening with the sort of entries we have when we do push forward.

Really, this is what Jenkins needs to do (was sort of doing it more against North for a change). Have him crashing packs and the problem is solved.

 

[Sanders]

Even if we accept pods adds something (and I've been converted a little on this front) don't we have to ask the question:

To what end?

Why do we need to top up to reach the heights of 9/10th?

Is it a goal worth striving for? Why roll the dice for something not worth winning

 

[Tex200]

Even if we accept pods adds something (and I've been converted a little on this front) don't we have to ask the question:

To what end?

Why do we need to top up to reach the heights of 9/10th?

Is it a goal worth striving for? Why roll the dice for something not worth winning

Possibly it won the publicity fight.

Bad year last year, Tippett sanctions, Walker ACL. As well as a bit of Tex cover, the name Podsiadly may have been thought to produce more memberships. They certainly pushed him enough in the pre season publicly.

It's possible I guess

 

[Bicks]

Except, statistically, both McK and LJ are comparable, are they not?

Plus, they're young, so should be on the incline, as opposed to Pods, who will only decline.

I'm glad you said "SHOULD be on the incline" because I'm absolutely yet to see even a skerrick of evidence of that happening with either over their respective AFL journey. Pods has been a very handy player at AFL level over the journey, and let's face it both LJ and Smack have been on an AFL list [6years] longer than Pods, 2 years longer actually.

Whilst I agree Pods should only be depth next year, Smack and LJ are not the future.

 

[Stripple]

I can't think of any kind of imaginative moves for weeks

Sando?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I'm probably one of his biggest critics, but even I can accept that he works his ass off. Problem is that he doesn't have a lot left in the tank after his initial effort and it significantly affects his disposal. He often has to hold up play for a bit to get his breath back. I think the reality is that there's no such thing as a 33yo, but afl young body.

I hope sando has the strength to only use him for depth next year.

Pods ideally should have played 70% games this year tops to keep fresh. Problem is injuries to Tex/Lynch & crap form from other talls meant he played too many games & looks weary.

Still handy for next year but as a rotational depth player - not someone who plays every week.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Finally someone has mentioned it - Amen.
In regards to team selection, there are basically two approaches -

1. Thinking that you can win a Premiership every season, and looking ahead only one week at a time (The Neil Craig & Steven Trigg approach).
2. Making an honest assessment of your list at the start of a season and accept that it may not be Premiership material. Then look to get experience into the players you consider will be there for a Premiership. This means you may not be fielding your best team every week, in the short term. Most of all, it means dropping Veterans while they still have something to offer.

For years, the Crows have adopted the first approach, and look where it's got us since Blight left? Time and again I've heard experienced coaches and commentators refer to the concepts or "Rebuilding" and a "Premiership Window" - something that's been considered utter blasphemy at The Crows. Until this changes, we will never win a Flag.

Had we dropped Rutten, Thompson, and Reilly (and some others) around 2012 or 2013, we would not have done as well leading up to now, but we'd be in a much better situation for 2015 onwards. We've basically been looking to "do reasonably well" for years, rather than make an honest, realistic assault for a Flag. Make no mistake, we're far from hitting rock bottom, but the sooner we do, the sooner we'll rebound. Trigg and Craig refused to accept this reality, and submitted this club to a slow, agonising misery.

Agree with it all.

And is the irony of that bolded comment lost on anyone with his mass sackings. He took the risk to shred the list back in 1996 to potentially achieve something in 1999 or 2000 by giving games to young players.

Then we went away from that approach and have not won anything of note since.

 

[TheLeftFist8]

Pods and Thompson should be unofficial development coaches next year and barely play half the AFL games…but we know that won't happen and they'll be selected when available because the coach will be on his last chance and will go for short-term results.

History repeating.

 

[JP Sauce]

I'm not saying Sando is blameless - far from it. But if I were a coach, and I thought my tenure at the club was on the line at the end of the season, I wouldn't be "looking to the future", not at all. I'd be looking to win as many games in the short term as I possibly could to secure my job. What we're dealing with now, in terms of list selection and development, is mainly the result of Craig's last few years at the helm, and Trigg's Tippett-gate debacle....more so than Sando's coaching.

But his tenure isn't on the line and hasn't been all season. We re-signed him for an additional two years at the end of last year for no reason the sole reason of giving him some confidence and long-term stability.

 

[skoobydoo]

What a waste of a year.

deja vu ??

 

[King Elvis]

deja vu ??

Big time.