Team Mgmt. 2017 Team selections, injuries and availability

[Lore]

So you're probably aware of the spreadsheets I keep posting everywhere. Well this will be something of a home for it I guess.

Spoiler: 2016 version

 

[Killer_Mike]

I think he's been taking a match-up meant for Paddy Ambrose or Mitch Brown for most of the year, so I don't think it's really fair to judge him on that with regard to his strength and being outbodied by bigger opponents It's like saying Walla isn't great overhead and therefore is a bad player, but really he shouldn't be matched up on jumping marking opponents with 7 or 8 inches on him before they've even left the ground either.

The question really is, if he were allowed to play on someone more appropriate, would he be at that an appropriate level to command a best 22 position, and if not, is it an appropriate use of resources to replace him in that role. I think while the former is arguable, he is definitely able to play a role and replacing him with someone better would probably cost more than it is worth (especially if we're talking about premiership norm smith medallists or something), although that's a discussion for the trade/draft thread.

It's probably more a question for eth-dog, but if we look at some of the best offensive set ups in the country at the moment, what is the best way of structuring our defence to match up on them? And within that given structure, who do we have for each role?

I don't follow you with the Ambrose and Brown comment? Brown and Gleeson are playing the same role so they would only be in the side together if Ambrose or Hurley were out injured. Based on whats happened this year Hartley and Ambrose are competing as well so the players that Gleeson is lining up on are the ones he should be playing on.

 

[TheGrizz]

I think he's been taking a match-up meant for Paddy Ambrose or Mitch Brown for most of the year, so I don't think it's really fair to judge him on that with regard to his strength and being outbodied by bigger opponents It's like saying Walla isn't great overhead and therefore is a bad player, but really he shouldn't be matched up on jumping marking opponents with 7 or 8 inches on him before they've even left the ground either.

The question really is, if he were allowed to play on someone more appropriate, would he be at that an appropriate level to command a best 22 position, and if not, is it an appropriate use of resources to replace him in that role. I think while the former is arguable, he is definitely able to play a role and replacing him with someone better would probably cost more than it is worth (especially if we're talking about premiership norm smith medallists or something), although that's a discussion for the trade/draft thread.

It's probably more a question for eth-dog, but if we look at some of the best offensive set ups in the country at the moment, what is the best way of structuring our defence to match up on them? And within that given structure, who do we have for each role?

I get what you are saying but I am not sure that is the case though. If you look at selection all throughout the year, Woosha has been really unwilling to play 3 pure key defenders at once and would rather 2 with a flexible tweener defender to mix and match on opponents. When Ambrose was fit at the start of the year, the combination was essentially;

Hurley, Ambrose as KPD, and Dea/Gleeson as the third (these two were swapped a bit)
then when ambrose was injured and Gleeson hit form...

Hurley, Hartley as KPD and Gleeson as the third.
Now that Ambrose is back....

Ambrose, Hurley and Gleeson.
Although this week he showed a willingness to play two smaller KPD's in Gleeson AND Dea.

It would seem that Woosha does have a structure he likes to stick to in trying to matchup with opposition forward lines. He wants two genuine KPD's and then one or maybe two mid sized defenders such as Gleeson and Dea. Maybe he enjoys the positional flexibility that comes with being able to swap the third defender onto small and talls depending on opposition forward rotations or he just doesnt want to get caught too tall, as he can always throw Hooker behind the ball if an opposition tall is getting on top.
For what its worth I think he had the right idea againt Adelaide, he realised that he needed and extra tall/medium defender because of the Crows aerial strength and included Dea. I think he just had the wrong execution for the right idea and should have included Hartley to play on Jenkins so Hurley could play McGovern or Lynch. Its interesting though that he seems to have a defensive setup he is loathe to change.

RE Gleeson, he is not a KPD, not even a third tall. He is a medium defender who intercepts and shouldnt be relied on to play on KPF's, otherwise you are setting him up to fail.
For me his role is Darren Milburn for Geelong, who always had Scarlett, Harley and Egan/Taylor (before and after foot injury) or Ryan Hargreave for the Doggies that always had Lake, Morris and Williams/Hahn which let the 190cm Milburn/Hargreave run off halfback and beat his smaller opponent in the air or intercept. Not saying he will be as good as Milburn or Hargreave (who wasnt awful -200 games), but that is his best role.

 

[blitzer]

If we get to the end of the season and don't play finals - does anyone else feel like we've missed quite a few opportunities to play some more youngsters and give them a taste of AFL like Langford, Mutch, Begley, Francis, McNiece (prior to injury) in favour of guys like Watson, Stanton, Dea, Howlett and Baguley. Dea I wouldn't mind but I just don't think he's part of our long term equation.

The only older guys who really played well this season were Goddard and Kelly. It was pretty obvious to all of us by about round 8 that we were not going to be in any kind of premiership contention this year.

I know there's this pervasive argument about "they should have to earn their spot" but really its pretty clear that pumping games into youngsters can be really beneficial as long as they are physically ready. Last year we did it and benefited from it. Plus I remain to be convinced that we would have really suffered not having those guys I named out on the field.

At this stage despite strong form from Mutch and Begley it looks like we will only have 2 debutants this year (McGrath and McNiece played a couple of games). Not counting guys like Green and Stewart who were traded in and had some AFL experience. That number doesn't sit well with me. Our time is not 2017 its 2019-2021 range and I don't reckon we've done everything we could this year to maximise our premiership chances in the future.

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

 

[Lore]

There was a period through the middle of the year when we had Hurley and Hartley as the only available talls. We started with Hurley, Ambrose and Hartley in round 1. Hartley was then dropped to work on the attacking side of his game and Brown was selected in his place. Ambrose was then injured, replaced by Dea, before Brown was also injured and the selection panel was forced to select Hartley despite the fact that his attacking game hadn't improved and the poor guy seemed confused as to what he was actually supposed to do, so his defensive game had then also suffered.

Dea hasn't played since round 10, after which we played five of Baguley, Kelly, McKenna, McGrath, McNiece, Gleeson, Stanton and Myers (for one game). Stanton is listed under the midfield, and Francis under tall defender - you might as well ignore those labels as they are listed according to what they sorta-kinda are (which is fairly arbitrary and open to interpretation). Francis definitely didn't play as a defender in the two games that he played, but has since been playing and training in defence as far as I'm aware.

As far as whether Gleeson is a medium defender, general defender, third tall, (he's not a KPD by anyone's imagining).... I don't really care about the terminology. People get too preoccupied with it when the reality is that so many people define it in so many different ways that it is essentially rendered meaningless. I'm quite certain that a coach would look at what he needs and who he thinks can do it, regardless of what label other people might put on that player.

Gleeson was initially selected alongside 3 talls (Hurley, Ambrose and Brown/Hartley). He was then dropped, and only came back in firstly after Ambrose was injured for two weeks (no idea what role he played then) and later to replace Dea. He's played every game since round 11, which I don't necessarily think he would have, had Ambrose and Brown been available. It's not necessarily directly one player for the other, but it could be that it has a knock on effect, when Ambrose is available Dea is preferred, when Hartley is in the side then they prefer Gleeson (or something).

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Very good article.

 

[Zach Package]

Mentioned in the crows preview thread that the team selection smacked of a side that didn't back themselves to stop the opposition so just decided to go ham and pick the side that we've had the most success with, which is essentially what we did.

We've played our best footy this year with 2 talls at the back and a rotating cast of 4 or 5 smalls so we went with that. It was doomed to fail because they ended up being too tall for us but the reality is that we got torched on the spread anyway, the addition of someone like Hartley only plays further into their hands and makes us slower IMO

 

[TheGrizz]

If we get to the end of the season and don't play finals - does anyone else feel like we've missed quite a few opportunities to play some more youngsters and give them a taste of AFL like Langford, Mutch, Begley, Francis, McNiece (prior to injury) in favour of guys like Watson, Stanton, Dea, Howlett and Baguley. Dea I wouldn't mind but I just don't think he's part of our long term equation.

The only older guys who really played well this season were Goddard and Kelly. It was pretty obvious to all of us by about round 8 that we were not going to be in any kind of premiership contention this year.

I know there's this pervasive argument about "they should have to earn their spot" but really its pretty clear that pumping games into youngsters can be really beneficial as long as they are physically ready. Last year we did it and benefited from it. Plus I remain to be convinced that we would have really suffered not having those guys I named out on the field.

At this stage despite strong form from Mutch and Begley it looks like we will only have 2 debutants this year (McGrath and McNiece played a couple of games). Not counting guys like Green and Stewart who were traded in and had some AFL experience. That number doesn't sit well with me. Our time is not 2017 its 2019-2021 range and I don't reckon we've done everything we could this year to maximise our premiership chances in the future.

Was thinking this exactly today.

If i to had to choose between 7 wins and 10-12 games each into begley, francis, Mutch, Langford, laverde, redman, and long
Or conservative selection of older players leading to a first round finals exit then I am choosing the former everyday of the week and twice on Sunday's. If we just miss finals I will be ropable.

I would honestly rather we bit the bullet and blooded as many kids as possible after the Brisbane loss.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Backline is interesting.

I'm still not completely sold on Hurley / Ambrose, given both are on the small side for KPPs.

I like Hartley in for this reason.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

If we get to the end of the season and don't play finals - does anyone else feel like we've missed quite a few opportunities to play some more youngsters and give them a taste of AFL like Langford, Mutch, Begley, Francis, McNiece (prior to injury) in favour of guys like Watson, Stanton, Dea, Howlett and Baguley. Dea I wouldn't mind but I just don't think he's part of our long term equation.

The only older guys who really played well this season were Goddard and Kelly. It was pretty obvious to all of us by about round 8 that we were not going to be in any kind of premiership contention this year.

I know there's this pervasive argument about "they should have to earn their spot" but really its pretty clear that pumping games into youngsters can be really beneficial as long as they are physically ready. Last year we did it and benefited from it. Plus I remain to be convinced that we would have really suffered not having those guys I named out on the field.

At this stage despite strong form from Mutch and Begley it looks like we will only have 2 debutants this year (McGrath and McNiece played a couple of games). Not counting guys like Green and Stewart who were traded in and had some AFL experience. That number doesn't sit well with me. Our time is not 2017 its 2019-2021 range and I don't reckon we've done everything we could this year to maximise our premiership chances in the future.

I argued earlier in the year we perhaps hadn't learnt the lesson of last year when we were forced to play kids and it really accelerated them.

It's been a tough year to judge. It's really even with no standout team. We don't **** up a few quarters against Sydney, Brisbane and Carlton and we're probably top 4.

 

[BrunoV]

Very good article.

It's not a good article he's been wanking himself all year over the way the team is playing (particularly the small forwards) and is now reacting to the increased likelihood that we won't make finals and wondering why he has been watching Howlett and
Co playing.

Ro Co has always been horrible with his analysis of Essendon. Was saying that we lost against Adelaide at the selection table by not picking Hartley as well.

Edit: I do like Connolly and make a habit of listening to the SEN programs that he is on. When it comes to EFC on-field though he's generally ruled he his heart and not his head (or that's the impression that I get).

 

[Vindicater]

I have been happy with the selections to date.

You earn your place in the team.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

It's not a good article he's been wanking himself all year over the way the team is playing (particularly the small forwards) and is now reacting to the increased likelihood that we won't make finals and wondering why he has been watching Howlett and
Co playing.

Ro Co has always been horrible with his analysis of Essendon. Was saying that we lost against Adelaide at the selection table by not picking Hartley as well.

I don't particularly think he's that switched on but he's right here. Though Robert Shaw is and he agreed with it.

I'm not sure what his opinion on the smalls is but he's nuts if doesn't think it's working.

 

[calyam]

Backline is interesting.

I'm still not completely sold on Hurley / Ambrose, given both are on the small side for KPPs.

I like Hartley in for this reason.

Hurley / Hartley is a superior combination to Hurley / Ambrose. The latter combination is simply too small now that Hurley is playing a lot lighter than he was pre-suspension.

Playing all three is difficult given that Ambrose and Hartley are neither big ball winners or creative with their ball use. You could perhaps get away with it if Ambrose could transform into a negating small-medium defender and effectively take Baguley's place.

Both Hartley and Ambrose still have a lot to work on with regards to their offensive game. But if I had to choose just one the answer would be Hartley.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Hurley / Hartley is a superior combination to Hurley / Ambrose. The latter combination is simply too small now that Hurley is playing a lot lighter than he was pre-suspension.

Playing all three is difficult given that Ambrose and Hartley are neither big ball winners or creative with their ball use. You could perhaps get away with it if Ambrose could transform into a negating small-medium defender and effectively take Baguley's place.

Both Hartley and Ambrose still have a lot to work on with regards to their offensive game. But if I had to choose just one the answer would be Hartley.

I think next year our ideal setup would be Hurley, Hartley and Francis.

It's no slight on Ambrose but I think Hartley has those long arms to play on the genuinely big fellas. A bit more of a Carlisle replacement.

Ambrose and Hartley are of course interchangeable based on who we're playing.

 

[mike14]

I have been happy with the selections to date.

You earn your place in the team.

Trav Colyer likes this

 

[blitzer]

Hurley / Hartley is a superior combination to Hurley / Ambrose. The latter combination is simply too small now that Hurley is playing a lot lighter than he was pre-suspension.

Playing all three is difficult given that Ambrose and Hartley are neither big ball winners or creative with their ball use. You could perhaps get away with it if Ambrose could transform into a negating small-medium defender and effectively take Baguley's place.

Both Hartley and Ambrose still have a lot to work on with regards to their offensive game. But if I had to choose just one the answer would be Hartley.

I get the theory of it but honestly point to me the games where Ambrose has been badly exploited by taller opponents compared to Hartley just being straight up beaten. Ambrose is extremely good at sticking to his man so he's always in the contest and at putting body on them so they don't get free rein. He also doesn't give many free kicks away compared to Hartley who has a tendency to grab the jumper as soon as he feels nervous.

While its nice to say "we have a 200cm player to play on their 200cm forward" - I think the reality of Hartley is less impressive than the perception. Plus lots of defenses have been very effective with smaller key defenders eg Swans who are always undersized but get the job done. The likes of Grundy and Richards were always smaller than their opponents but still rarely got beaten.

I personally haven't ruled out the three of them together. If Hartley and Ambrose can continue to work on their rebounding (which they have been this year) then I think it can work. Hurley obviously supplies boatloads of rebound for a key defender so we probably can get away with 2 more negative key defenders - if it means Hurley gets the easier matchup and can play more offensive.

 

[TheGrizz]

As an interesting exercise, I though it would be interesting to pick a preferred lineup for r1 2018 using the players only on our list now and who we expect to stay (not taking into account draft and trades. Didnt know where else to put it.

B McKenna Ambrose Francis
HB Goddard Hurley Gleeson
C Zaharakis Heppell McGrath
HF Laverde Daniher Stewart
F: Fantasia Hooker Walla
Foll T-Bell Zerrett Parish
Int Green Langford Begley Myers

Emg Mutch Colyer Ridley

The players in bold have played under 50 games (however McGrath, Parish, Walla and Fanta sort of play like they have anyway).
I really like the look of this lineup, its quite well balanced and I like the midfield now with Parish and McGrath surely offering more than Watson and Howlett have this year (love em both though). Myers gets a shot to establish himself with year under his belt after a long layoff. Mutch is waiting eagerly for his shot.
Hartley, and Bird are unlucky, while Ridley and Mutch havent played at all yet so maybe not straight away. I have lost patience with Colyer.

Phased out /retired
Watson
Kelly
Baguley
Howlett

 

[eth-dog]

Strategically overall defensively I think we try to replicate Geelong during their period of dominance. Their back 7 was somewhat like:

Wojcinksi (McKenna) - Lonergan (Hartley) - Scarlett (Ambrose)
Mackie (Gleeson) - Taylor (Hurley) - Enright (McGrath)
Hunt (Francis)

 

[Lore]

As an interesting exercise, I though it would be interesting to pick a preferred lineup for r1 2018 using the players only on our list now and who we expect to stay (not taking into account draft and trades. Didnt know where else to put it).

Great idea, perfect place for it.

 

[Lore]

Strategically overall defensively I think we try to replicate Geelong during their period of dominance. Their back 7 was somewhat like:

Wojcinksi (McKenna) - Lonergan (Hartley) - Scarlett (Ambrose)
Mackie (Gleeson) - Taylor (Hurley) - Enright (McGrath)
Hunt (Francis)

If McGrath is in the midfield next year, do we have someone else for that spot?

 

[eth-dog]

If McGrath is in the midfield next year, do we have someone else for that spot?

Probably Dea, Baguley or I'd like us to take a punt on Redman for that spot

 

[Doss]

Probably Dea, Baguley or I'd like us to take a punt on Redman for that spot

Ridley might come into consideration for that spot?

 

[eth-dog]

Ridley might come into consideration for that spot?

He's another possibility, but only if his body up to the task for AFL football.

 

[yaco55]

Grizz is on the money with his selected time - I fully expect Mutch, Francis, Begley and Redman to play round 1 in 2018 - Francis' fitness is slowly getting to AFL standard, Mutch has shown enough in the VFL as has Begley, while Redman has been a slow burn in 2018 - I expect Begley and Mutch to debut this week.