Prediction Changes: Round 15 Vs Essendon + prematch discussion

[Footskill]

Wasn't Sturt dropped last week too and won a week's grace with Frederick pulling out? Now Frederick is back, he moves out again.

Yeh but haven't you heard..he kicked nearly half the teams goal

 

[mattis117]

Not sure if this has been brought up in this thread b4 but is this Ras n Johnson’s first game together?
Keen to see em both at a centre bounce at some point !


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

It's their first game without one being the sub - I also realised this .

That draft is going to be one of the best ever.

 

[Alfonz]

I don't think Freddy is invincible, and I don't think MC sees him as invincible either. 2-3 bad games in a row would see him dropped. I just think he's only had two bad games in a row this year, and one of them he was clearly playing injured. Like I mentioned before, he had kicked 9 goals in the 4 games before Melb, Rich, and is currently going at 1.4 goals a game. Only two guys on our team are doing better than that. There's also more leeway with small forwards in terms of what constitutes a bad game. Everyone says it. So what he put up against Richmond was objectively bad, but what he put up against Melbourne was just an average game for a small forward when the ball doesn't fall their way.

Schultz rarely puts up a stinker. If he doesn't get the goals he's applying pressure and collecting the ball much further up the ground. Switta similarly, although he's on thin ice atm due to his inability to finish in front of goal. But he also has versatility in that he can pinch hit in the midfield if needed. Versatility will buy you extra games, as we saw with Banfield and Hughes.

As for your point about Sturt and Erasmus, our entire team is young. You can't argue that we need to play Sturt in a forward line that is already headed by a 19, 20, and 21 year old. I highly doubt that Sturt has a 30 goal season in him as it stands, and I can't see him brining more to the team than any of the players mentioned. Freddy is more versatile, can play on the wing, and offers a point of difference when he's on, and is also a decent set shot. His speed is a huge weapon when he's used properly. I just can't see how you can advocate for Sturt to be played over any of those guys, or how you can be upset that younger players are being chosen over him.

I don't think either Banfield or Sturt would be part of any premiership team. It doesn't have to be one or the other. They're both not good enough. But Banfield isn't playing over Sturt this week. Nor is he going to be sub over Sturt this week. So anything to do with him is redundant.

Lets ignore Sturt for a second. There is a very simple argument why one of the 4 short people should not be in the side. It is because no good team plays zero medium forwards and four small forwards for a very good reason. The team balance and structure is better with both mediums and smalls.

This point seems completely lost on the coaching group, and rubs off on most of the supporters. There is a refusal to even entertain the notion that at least one (and possibly 2) of Freddy, Schultz, Switta, Walters should not be in the side if they are all fit.

The best argument is "Freddy is a medium/wing option". But reality is that he still plays like a small forward. Has some reasonable aerial ability, but still well behind the likes of Weightman, Cameron, McCarthy, Elliot, Bolton, Ryan, etc.

The question then becomes, who do we put into that medium forward role if we leave out one of the 4 small forwards? Erasmus and Fyfe are options to rotate through with midfield ability. You can obviously argue they play before Sturt. But Sturt very much has to be in the equation due to being the most natural forward and having an advantage in pace, agility and kicking.

Sturt wasn't as bad or good against GWS as some are trying to make out, but it was clearly an improvement and that's when you keep people in a developing side to see if they can keep building. I think he should at least be the sub this week. People seem to forget he has only played 10 games. And he has played zero games alongside the 3 x J's + Darcy.

 

[Hamann188]

Lol. Maybe Sturt just isn’t that good. Just cause he looks a bit like Bayley Fritsch. He ain’t Bayley Fritsch.

Amiss. Treacy. Fyfe. Sturt. You can only pick 3 of them.

Are we talking just for the forward line?

If that's the case then I'm picking Amiss, Treacy and Sturt.

 

[Freoforever86]

You are anything but a Sturt defender.

Bloke kicks almost half our score, is the third highest tackler and gets dropped the following week in favour of keeping in same old favourites of old mate coach in Hughes, JOM and Ryan. Absolute ******* joke of a selection, same shite that has been happening since round 20 last year.

Haha ok mate. Look at my posts history and you’ll see me often saying Sturt in. I’m over it. at what point do we see reality and realize he mightn’t be up to it?

I hope he is, but I haven’t seen a whole lot of evidence.

So you want Sturt to play key back over Ryan or Hughes? Or play inside mid over Omeara?

You wanna highlight all the games where Sturt didn’t tackle? Or just the 1 time he did.

 

[Freoforever86]

Nah much better to keep rewarding Ryan for his recent efforts, much better, keep him and JOM and Hughes and Henry in the team, keep them in, in fact make no changes except dumping Sturt forever ey???

Ryan was excellent in the run v syd Geel Melb and fine v Rich.. but yeah dump him for a week where everyone sucked

 

[DeanS]

Lets ignore Sturt for a second. There is a very simple argument why one of the 4 short people should not be in the side. It is because no good team plays zero medium forwards and four small forwards for a very good reason. The team balance and structure is better with both mediums and smalls.

This point seems completely lost on the coaching group, and rubs off on most of the supporters. There is a refusal to even entertain the notion that at least one (and possibly 2) of Freddy, Schultz, Switta, Walters should not be in the side if they are all fit.

The best argument is "Freddy is a medium/wing option". But reality is that he still plays like a small forward. Has some reasonable aerial ability, but still well behind the likes of Weightman, Cameron, McCarthy, Elliot, Bolton, Ryan, etc.

The question then becomes, who do we put into that medium forward role if we leave out one of the 4 small forwards? Erasmus and Fyfe are options to rotate through with midfield ability. You can obviously argue they play before Sturt. But Sturt very much has to be in the equation due to being the most natural forward and having an advantage in pace, agility and kicking.

Sturt wasn't as bad or good against GWS as some are trying to make out, but it was clearly an improvement and that's when you keep people in a developing side to see if they can keep building. I think he should at least be the sub this week. People seem to forget he has only played 10 games. And he has played zero games alongside the 3 x J's + Darcy.

So the team should be selected on height rather than ability and form?

 

[Dockeroo]

Haha ok mate. Look at my posts history and you’ll see me often saying Sturt in. I’m over it. at what point do we see reality and realize he mightn’t be up to it?

I hope he is, but I haven’t seen a whole lot of evidence.

So you want Sturt to play key back over Ryan or Hughes? Or play inside mid over Omeara?

You wanna highlight all the games where Sturt didn’t tackle? Or just the 1 time he did.

I think there is a reasonable argument that Sturt should be in ahead of Frederick this week.
I think this board is far too precious about the quality of our small forwards and grossly overrates them as a unit.
All of Schultz, Frederick, Switta and Walters have question marks over them.
Walters is a bit different as he has been a champion and reached the top of the Mountain from an individual player POV by winning an AA. However time waits for no man and he is now 33 and on the wane, but i would still pick him ahead of the other 3, because he has some inherent class they just do not have.
All of Switta, Schultz and Frederick have nice attributes that make them fan favs at times. But they are not elite, and never will be. At lease one of them needs to be upgraded for us to become a serious finals team and flag contender.
This idea that they are indispensable and locked into the 22 is silly.
If someone like Sturt or others are showing good form and might be an upgrade then keep them in.
Collingwood reached a prelim last year and ginnivan kicked 40 goals.
Mcrae wasn’t happy with his small forward brigade and went out recruited Bobby hill.
Ginnivan is now playing VFL footy.
That’s a ruthless team. We need to be like that.

 

[Dockeroo]

Is Alex Pearce

25

Alex Pearce

Age

30

Ht

201cm

Wt

98kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.6

3star

K

5.2

2star

HB

5.4

4star

M

3.4

3star

T

1.8

4star

MG

106.3

2star

No current season stats available

D

11.0

3star

K

5.0

2star

HB

6.0

4star

M

4.4

4star

T

0.8

3star

MG

103.2

2star

subtly hinting To Luke Ryan that he needs to get fitter on this video?!

 

[s_wd6]

I think there is a reasonable argument that Sturt should be in ahead of Frederick this week.
I think this board is far too precious about the quality of our small forwards and grossly overrates them as a unit.
All of Schultz, Frederick, Switta and Walters have question marks over them.
Walters is a bit different as he has been a champion and reached the top of the Mountain from an individual player POV by winning an AA. However time waits for no man and he is now 33 and on the wane, but i would still pick him ahead of the other 3, because he has some inherent class they just do not have.
All of Switta, Schultz and Frederick have nice attributes that make them fan favs at times. But they are not elite, and never will be. At lease one of them needs to be upgraded for us to become a serious finals team and flag contender.
This idea that they are indispensable and locked into the 22 is silly.
If someone like Sturt or others are showing good form and might be an upgrade then keep them in.
Collingwood reached a prelim last year and ginnivan kicked 40 goals.
Mcrae wasn’t happy with his small forward brigade and went out recruited Bobby hill.
Ginnivan is now playing VFL footy.
That’s a ruthless team. We need to be like that.

Our small forward brigade may not be elite, and may not be enough to win a flag for us. But that has nothing to do with Sturt. He won't change the quality of our smalls, and has done nothing thus far to show that he can add more than any of those four.

 

[pK75]

So the team should be selected on height rather than ability and form?

For structural reasons yes, did you miss last weeks results when we went in too small all over the ground? We got smashed.

Darcy is a big improvement to our structure, as we can revert to the JJJs in the forward line, however every time Jackson goes up the ground to play ruck or midfield we’re back to two talls and 4 smalls.

I assume they will play Fyfe, Erasmus or JOM forward whenever that happens to at least keep the oppositions 3rd tall busy. But none are natural forwards, so you’re relying on them just nullifying the opposition rather than being a threat.

 

[s_wd6]

For structural reasons yes, did you miss last weeks results when we went in too small all over the ground? We got smashed.

Darcy is a big improvement to our structure, as we can revert to the JJJs in the forward line, however every time Jackson goes up the ground to play ruck or midfield we’re back to two talls and 4 smalls.

I assume they will play Fyfe, Erasmus or JOM forward whenever that happens to at least keep the oppositions 3rd tall busy. But none are natural forwards, so you’re relying on them just nullifying the opposition rather than being a threat.

We did not get smashed because we were too small. We got smashed because of a complete lack of effort by pretty much every player.

 

[DeanS]

For structural reasons yes, did you miss last weeks results when we went in too small all over the ground? We got smashed.

Darcy is a big improvement to our structure, as we can revert to the JJJs in the forward line, however every time Jackson goes up the ground to play ruck or midfield we’re back to two talls and 4 smalls.

I assume they will play Fyfe, Erasmus or JOM forward whenever that happens to at least keep the oppositions 3rd tall busy. But none are natural forwards, so you’re relying on them just nullifying the opposition rather than being a threat.

Sorry but can't agree with that. Just seems silly to play guys based on their height.

And it was more than a lack of height that got us smashed last week. As the old saying goes, it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

 

[Kapow!!!]

Hard to argue with the sentiments about Sturt. He deserves a few games in a row to string soke confidence together and give him an actual chance to form some synergy with the forwards and the mids. Clangers like that 2 goal turnaround handpass are a sign of rust and lack of confidence.

Harsh call but it does seem that they seem him as the same role as Freddy...

 

[bfff]

I really disagree with this philosophy. You are talking as if Frederick is one of the champions of the club who has earned the right to a B22 place regardless of form.
There is only a handful of players on the list that get to have 2-3 s**t perfomces in a row without getting dropped. They are the guys that are at the elite level in the comp - Serong, AB, Young, Darcy, Jackson or former champions with flashes of class still like Walters, Fyfe.
These guys don’t play wafl if they have a bad 2 weeks in a row. They have earned the right through elite performances over a decent timeframe, to find their form in the AFL because they are better players than the role playing members of the team. Walters last year was a good example.
Michael Frederick is not in this bracket. No way! He can’t afford two or 3 bad games in a row. By contrast, No one is dropping Serong or Brayshaw after a few weeks of average footy. But Banfield, Hughes, Frederick, Nod, Treacy, Sturt etc??
They don’t get that luxury.
I don’t think Schultz or Switta are so untouchable that they can’t be dropped either after 3 stinker performances in a row.

Also - Your point about people like Sturt and Erasmus “missing the phase” would be fine if we were sitting like Port Adelaide with 11 wins in a row and the list build was complete. But that’s not the case. We sit 13th, we lost by 70 points last week and our team is simply not good enough yet to make any impact on this comp. We frankly HAVE to improve and move beyond some of these personnel we have that are okay, but not good enough.
I personally don’t think the forward unit we have right now is anywhere near good enough to win a flag. You just could not have any trust in guys like Switta, Frederick, Banfield etc to kick clutch goals on GF day. Even Treacy has it all to prove still. Players like Switta have other attributes that could see them play a role in a flag team but we need more goalkicking talent in that forward line. I’m 90% sure Sturt is not good enough either to play in a flag team but the difference is I’m 100% certain Banfield isnt.

Agree with this post. You can't have 18 "undroppable" players when you sit 13th and you can't have 3-4 forwards that don't kick goals. So maybe give the guy who managed to kick a couple, when the team performance was abysmal, a chance to back that up.

 

[Taylor]

Is Alex Pearce subtly hinting To Luke Ryan that he needs to get fitter on this video?!

A bit more muscle on him more than fitter

 

[Alfonz]

Sorry but can't agree with that. Just seems silly to play guys based on their height.

And it was more than a lack of height that got us smashed last week. As the old saying goes, it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

I am not saying to play players purely on height, it is about the best balance factoring everything into the equation. If you have 5 x players who are like Shai Bolton that can be spread across the midfield/wing/forwards, then you play them all. But when they are all average performers, then replacing a slightly better small player with a slightly inferior taller player with different strengths (e.g. marking and kicking penetration) can be better for the team balance.

How did the Bulldogs go playing Lobb, JUH, Naughton, Darcy in the forward line? Plenty of people will ridicule that but won't question us playing 4 smalls in the forward line.

And that old saying breaks down when the size of the fight is the same in two different sized dogs. The bigger dog will always win.

 

[Bicco]

Dropping Sturt is a strange selection strategy if nothing else. To me it says that the selection committee is not going to reward recent form or at the least recent form is not as strong a consideration as previous/bank of form. This does not make sense to me.
I agree that Frederick should come back in to the team, but at the expense of the weakest player. A player hanging their hat or being selected on a 3 goal performance 3 weeks ago should be dropped before the highest scorer of last week. Obviously there's 'football eyes' that you need to put into selection. Walters has a huge amount of experience which gives him credits as does the obvious talent of Amiss.
But if Sturt is competing against Banfield, Schulz, Frederick and Switta for 4 spots, on recent form there's no way he is the worst of those 5 players.
It's such a strange policy to not back form. The Australian cricket team dropped Starc for this exact reason, he was the weakest link.
I'll add that IMO forwards run into 'form' differently to mids and backs. If a forward is getting good shots at goal, that should be rewarded.
It's not so much Sturt as a footballer being dropped, it could be anyone, it's the concept that I disagree with.

 

[WilloTree]

Worner emergency again.

That's just mean

 

[Hamann188]

In all fairness guys, we haven't completely dropped Sturt. I'm pretty confident he will be named the sub so odds are good that he'll at least play a quarter to almost a half of footy.

If he can perform anywhere inbetween admirably to spectacularly he's one step closer to B22 selection in the coming weeks.

 

[Footskill]

Dropping Sturt is a strange selection strategy if nothing else. To me it says that the selection committee is not going to reward recent form or at the least recent form is not as strong a consideration as previous/bank of form. This does not make sense to me.
I agree that Frederick should come back in to the team, but at the expense of the weakest player. A player hanging their hat or being selected on a 3 goal performance 3 weeks ago should be dropped before the highest scorer of last week. Obviously there's 'football eyes' that you need to put into selection. Walters has a huge amount of experience which gives him credits as does the obvious talent of Amiss.
But if Sturt is competing against Banfield, Schulz, Frederick and Switta for 4 spots, on recent form there's no way he is the worst of those 5 players.
It's such a strange policy to not back form. The Australian cricket team dropped Starc for this exact reason, he was the weakest link.
I'll add that IMO forwards run into 'form' differently to mids and backs. If a forward is getting good shots at goal, that should be rewarded.
It's not so much Sturt as a footballer being dropped, it could be anyone, it's the concept that I disagree with.

Are you serious you'd be chopping and changing every week based on this logic.

 

[Bicco]

Are you serious you'd be chopping and changing every week based on this logic.

A player is always being dropped. It's just a matter of who.

 

[MadMundy]

Why do you, and all the other Sturt haters /JOM/Hughes/Henry/Ryan defenders keep just quoting the goals, and leave out the other demonstrable things Sturt did far better than all but two or three of our players last week, like tackles, score assists, score involvements or forwards tackling in D50 (ie covering all the ground not just cheating for cheap stats)?

What satisfaction do you get from hating on Sturt?

How can you possibly, possibly defend us being one of less than three teams ever, ever, ever in VFL/WAFL/AFL history, to drop the top scorer, third best tackler and top 10 disposal player?

How? Why do you disregard Sturt so much?
Do you not understand the impact of this selection decision on every other player who has a best ever, best in team ever performance?

Why would anyone except the guaranteed favourites or contracted wonderful specimens ever bother to show up, let alone try after this sort of selection garbage?

FFS, we didn't drop Sturt for Mundy or Pav, we dropped him so we could keep in the mighty awesomeness of performances that is Hughes, JOM and Henry.

This is a selection that reverberates amongst the playing group, just like picking Pearce as captain ahead of Brayshaw / Serong, or picking Mundy as captain ahead of Fyfe.

If what you've gotten from this discussion is that I hate Sturt you're thinking wth your emotions rather than logic, Sturt did some okay things in a bad team, that's not good enough to keep his spot in the team when they guys he was better than have more reps and leeway to have bad games.

This is major overreaction on your end my friend, I guarantee you that Sturt and the other young players are nowhere near as upset about this as you are, I like Sturt, but he's not a best 22 player as of right now.

 

[DeanS]

I am not saying to play players purely on height,

Go back and read your post #528. That's exactly what you said.

 

[Hamann188]

If what you've gotten from this discussion is that I hate Sturt you're thinking wth your emotions rather than logic, Sturt did some okay things in a bad team, that's not good enough to keep his spot in the team when they guys he was better than have more reps and leeway to have bad games.

This is major overreaction on your end my friend, I guarantee you that Sturt and the other young players are nowhere near as upset about this as you are, I like Sturt, but he's not a best 22 player as of right now.

Not yet, but neither was Treacy after round 1. There are a lot of people who wouldn't have picked him until we were forced to give him consecutive games due to Taberener's injury. Now look at him go.

That was a reactive selection that worked out for the best. We could try something different and be proactive by allowing Sturt a couple of consecutive games to find his feet and build form and confidence, which it kind of looks like we are doing if he ends up as sub.