Arrogance at the Selection Table

[Ben the Gooner]

We're a really good team. Tonight does not change that. We have an effective gameplan, and a playing list which has bought into that gameplan. That is why, before tonight, we were the only team not to have been flogged. Even when we were crucified with injuries, we had depth players stepping up and filling the void. The reason for that is simple. We have 22 well-defined roles and each week we pick the best players for those roles. That is our team. That is why guys like Dyson, Dell'Olio and Lonergan have been dropped after playing well; they were no longer the best option for their position. If you go back through our changes, it is easy to see how this works. Every out is matched up to an equivalent in, either directly or with players like Myers and Dempsey shuffling around.

Tonight's selection was the first time we moved away from that. We did not think "Davey is back for Dell'Olio. Who is to replace Crameri?". Instead we thought "Crameri is out. Who is our 23rd player?". We brought in a midfielder (Lovett-Murray) for a full forward. Because of this, we changed our structures, and we changed our gameplan. Melksham spent a lot more time forward than usual, and was matched up on Fisher. Therefore, we could not move the ball directly with long penetrating kicking into the forward line. We moved away from a gameplan which has served us well all year, even in losses, because we thought we did not need to stick to our successful structures. We thought we could beat an average St Kilda team (and they are very average) with a half arsed gameplan built around the 22 picked. We should have picked our 22 around the gameplan. That means we needed another tall forward. I wanted Gumbleton in, and he should be the first picked next week. If he wasnt ready, then we had Bellchambers. If we didn't want the three rucks, we could have picked Steinberg. If he wasn't good enough we could have swung Carlisle forward and played Pears, or Myers at full back.

We might have lost anyway. But we didn't give ourselves a chance with arrogant selection and planning. We're a good side for a reason, and I tell you what, there better be two bloody talls on the ins column come Thursday night, because if this isn't a wake up call to the selection committee, I don't know what is.

 

[Jade]

We're a really good team. Tonight does not change that. We have an effective gameplan, and a playing list which has bought into that gameplan. That is why, before tonight, we were the only team not to have been flogged. Even when we were crucified with injuries, we had depth players stepping up and filling the void. The reason for that is simple. We have 22 well-defined roles and each week we pick the best players for those roles. That is our team. That is why guys like Dyson, Dell'Olio and Lonergan have been dropped after playing well; they were no longer the best option for their position. If you go back through our changes, it is easy to see how this works. Every out is matched up to an equivalent in, either directly or with players like Myers and Dempsey shuffling around.

Tonight's selection was the first time we moved away from that. We did not think "Davey is back for Dell'Olio. Who is to replace Crameri?". Instead we thought "Crameri is out. Who is our 23rd player?". We brought in a midfielder (Lovett-Murray) for a full forward. Because of this, we changed our structures, and we changed our gameplan. Melksham spent a lot more time forward than usual, and was matched up on Fisher. Therefore, we could not move the ball directly with long penetrating kicking into the forward line. We moved away from a gameplan which has served us well all year, even in losses, because we thought we did not need to stick to our successful structures. We thought we could beat an average St Kilda team (and they are very average) with a half arsed gameplan built around the 22 picked. We should have picked our 22 around the gameplan. That means we needed another tall forward. I wanted Gumbleton in, and he should be the first picked next week. If he wasnt ready, then we had Bellchambers. If we didn't want the three rucks, we could have picked Steinberg. If he wasn't good enough we could have swung Carlisle forward and played Pears, or Myers at full back.

We might have lost anyway. But we didn't give ourselves a chance with arrogant selection and planning. We're a good side for a reason, and I tell you what, there better be two bloody talls on the ins column come Thursday night, because if this isn't a wake up call to the selection committee, I don't know what is.

I have just the thread for you.......

 

[Phone]

I'm not sure if it was arrogance, but the way Lonergan and Dyson have come back in reeks of picking players the coaches, well, know. Instead of say, a Kav or even Browne. (Not saying they would have played, just examples of players they don't know). I think that's misguided

 

[The Prosecutor]

If he wasn't good enough we could have swung Carlisle forward and played Pears, or Myers at full back.

Why the hell would you play Myers at full back when his role is a midfield extractor?

It was decisions like that which shot us in the foot from the start.

 

[Kong]

Good post, but to be fair, I'm pretty sure they did play Carlisle forward with Myers back for the first three quarters or so.

At least that's what it looked like from the tele, and it stunk; Carlisle's far too useful down back right now, and Myers was in good form in the middle.

I would've gone with Bellchambers in, Hille permanently forward.

Agree with the premise, though, for sure.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Why the hell would you play Myers at full back when his role is a midfield extractor?

It was decisions like that which shot us in the foot from the start.

Because we need a tall forward. We had options, and we ignored them all. It's not like Myers is a permanent full back, but he's versatile, and sometimes we need to use that versatility.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Good post, but to be fair, I'm pretty sure they did play Carlisle forward with Myers back for the first three quarters or so.

At least that's what it looked like from the tele.

Carlisle swung forward at times, but was never there with any regularity.

 

[Chambo]

Similar arrogance at the selection table as the Melbourne game!

Your call of Myers to full back is clearly misjudged...we have all seen he is a midfielder!

 

[Fatessendonman]

Somewhat agree

Howlett, NLM, Myers, Lonergan, Watson, Hocking

that is a very very heaving midfield

 

[Phone]

Good post, but to be fair, I'm pretty sure they did play Carlisle forward with Myers back for the first three quarters or so.

At least that's what it looked like from the tele.

Carlisle drifted forward at times, but it didn't really change things

 

[Duckworth]

Structures changed further when Hurley went down.

 

[The Prosecutor]

Because we need a tall forward. We had options, and we ignored them all. It's not like Myers is a permanent full back, but he's versatile, and sometimes we need to use that versatility.

He's a horrible full back though.

I agree, if we weren't going to bring in Gumby that Carlisle should've been our CHF but Pears should've been brought in instead of Dyson.

To be honest, the coaches need to decide who out of Lonergan or Myers will be in our team as a midfielder. There isn't room for both of them currently (there might be with Hocking suspended). I would comfortably lean towards keeping Myers.

 

[Kong]

I edited my post above, FWIW.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

He's a horrible full back though.

I agree, if we weren't going to bring in Gumby that Carlisle should've been our CHF but Pears should've been brought in instead of Dyson.

To be honest, the coaches need to decide who out of Lonergan or Myers will be in our team as a midfielder. There isn't room for both of them currently (there might be with Hocking suspended). I would comfortably lean towards keeping Myers.

I don't think he's horrible when he plays there properly. When he's moved back from the midfield like he was tonight or in Rd 2 then he struggles a bit.

I do agree with the rest of your post though. My preferences in order would have been Gumby, Bellchambers or Pears.

 

[Super Gusto]

Great post Ben. It's more over confidence that arrogance though.

It will be interesting to see how we rebound from this. Hopefully it will go down as the thrashing we needed.

 

[lemon chicken]

This was obvious at 6:30 Thursday night. And people thought it was a stupid idea to play Gumby, at least he would be a target to kick to. Ruckman goals are bonus goals, you cant go into a match expecting to get 3-4 goals out a ruckman resting up fwd.

 

[Summer Nights]

OP is fair. Saints outplayed us and many of our players had poor nights, but part of the failure lies with the selection committee. Just like the playing group, the selection committee has improved enormously post Matthew Knights, however their recent performances suggest further improvement is required in their decision making.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Myers as a backman?? Please no.

If it's about Gumby then I can barely think of a player in the game who needs to be treated with a more cautious approach.

I think "arrogance" is the wrong word. They got it wrong maybe, but don't think it's arrogance.

Ultimately Hurley went down which had a big impact.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

Despite him giving best service in the midfield, is there a really good reason why Myers couldn't be tried forward? I'd rather Carlisle stay back permanently - I've never seen him work as well forward as he does down back.

 

[beev]

I'd rather Carlisle stay back permanently - I've never seen him work as well forward as he does down back.

Yep, apart from against Brisbane in 2010 I can't think of another game were Carlisle had a really good game as a forward. I wan't to see him play key back every week as his confidence in defence is growing every game which has showed in his recent performances.

 

[yodellinhank]

The game was lost at the selection table, and the guernseys didn't help either. Gumbleton isn't/wasn't ready for senior football, perhaps the same to be said for Pears, which leads to the Bellchambers selection being the obvious decision.

Either the coaches are trying to send a message to Bellchambers or didn't want to upset Paddy's rhythm. But it cost us not selecting another tall up forward. They chose to gamble on Hurley and his good form being able to carry it alone, and it backfired big time.

Raises something I've been thinking about with the "Gold" setup... it's good to have a competitive 2's side, but is having both Maddern and Little in the side stifling our ability to develop our own forwards? Is Steinberg being played in defence for suitability, development or to accomodate the Gold?

 

[raskolnikov]

We're a really good team.

I disagree. I don't think we are. I think we are an average team. Good teams don't lose to Melbourne. We may be on the rise but until we can develop some consistency we cannot consider ourselves a good team. Our relatively easy draw made us look better than we really are. We will scrape into seventh or eighth.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

No way we lost at selection IMO... St Kilda were far more urgent around the contests and when we had the ball... pressured us into mistakes. A lot better than us when the ball hit the deck which would have been worse if we had a bigger lineup.

Not convinced another big forward would has done any good... We couldn't get that many clean kicks into the forward line anyway.

 

[Darealrath]

No way we lost at selection IMO... St Kilda were far more urgent around the contests and when we had the ball... pressured us into mistakes. A lot better than us when the ball hit the deck which would have been worse if we had a bigger lineup.

Not convinced another big forward would has done any good... We couldn't get that many clean kicks into the forward line anyway.

Agree. St Kilda are a decent side and came in far better prepared and played like it was a must-win game. We didn't. If Crameri had played we still lose comfortably.

 

[BrunoV]

I basically completely agree with the ideas in the EP.

I don't know if I can settle on selection being the result of arrogance purely because all we are ever told is that intensity and commitment doesn't change regardless of the opponents (although having been stung by selecting sides that are too slow, to tall or not tall enough and not learning from it suggests there is a healthy dose of arrogance). If I was being fair to TRB I'd say that they probably want to reward a certain type of player as much as they possibly can and reward consistent performance at Bendigo. The issue is that they are prepared to do this at the expense of having the necessary KPP and other role players.

I think it is more stupidity or blind faith that has seen TRB select the side that took on St Kilda, especially since there had to be real questions about Hurley's fitness and TBell was an emergency on the night. They only seem to get it right when injuries force their hand. I thought that the selection of the side that went to Subi this year was a sign that TRB had turned the corner. It was the most perfectly balanced side we have selected for about a decade and it resulted in us breaking a dreadful run of results on the toughest road trip we go on. You'd have problems establishing causation but the selection of the side certainly ticked off one of the major variables that influence performance.