Training Training thread - news and live reports

[TennisPlayerAndy]

No, really, who?

Multitude is a cop-out, name names.

Petrie last season for one. Dal was coasting. Cunners and Goldy were clearly restricted.

Jed Anderson played half a season and clearly isn't up to it yet.

Swallow was below average for most of the season.

Jacobs was getting games when not tagging and was a liability in previous seasons.

It took Thomas to cry on the field before he was dropped.

Black was played through a shoulder injury which destroyed his confidence.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Petrie last season for one. Dal was coasting. Cunners and Goldy were clearly restricted.

Jed Anderson played half a season and clearly isn't up to it yet.

Swallow was below average for most of the season.

Jacobs was getting games when not tagging and was a liability in previous seasons.

It took Thomas to cry on the field before he was dropped.

Black was played through a shoulder injury which destroyed his confidence.

Perhaps some incorrect selection decisions there - mainly playing injured players, which is clearly different from the concept of favourites.

But yeah, let's perpetuate Big Footy Myths #1 : Scott has favourites.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Perhaps some incorrect selection decisions there - mainly playing injured players, which is clearly different from the concept of favourites.

But yeah, let's perpetuate Big Footy Myths #1 : Scott has favourites.

If you're playing them when they're injured over players that aren't that indicates to me you prefer them in the team.

 

[Gasometer]

Injuries...poor depth...and blind faith in thinking we could recapture form saved most of the 2016 named above.

But sheesh ..Swallow and Petrie were obviously candidates.

 

[roos_fanatic08]

Scott said it himself that if Petrie, Dal, Spud and Boomer were still on the list next year that he would back them in to be in the 22. Petrie, dal and spud were past it, that suggests to me he has favourites.

 

[kangaspurs]

Scott said it himself that if Petrie, Dal, Spud and Boomer were still on the list next year that he would back them in to be in the 22. Petrie, dal and spud were past it, that suggests to me he has favourites.

I was just about to post exactly this, but with links to the article.

That quote alone was enough to indicate favouritism and it probably applies to Swallow this season, even if he's averaging sub 20 possies a game and selected ahead of Dumont and Clarke.

 

[Massive Unit]

I was just about to post exactly this, but with links to the article.

That quote alone was enough to indicate favouritism and it probably applies to Swallow this season, even if he's averaging sub 20 possies a game and selected ahead of Dumont and Clarke.

As a manager, sometimes you make statements to sweeten or soften the blow. A little bit of sugar helps the medicine go down!

This is how I took Brad's comment as opposed to literally.

Did Brad have favourites? Who knows other than him?
Did he play proven performers who were impeded over untested youth? Undoubtedly.

I concede that we should have played more youth, but the statement of him playing favourites as fact is a convenient argument that could be levelled at 17 other coaches I suspect.

 

[Istanbul Roo]

I was just about to post exactly this, but with links to the article.

That quote alone was enough to indicate favouritism and it probably applies to Swallow this season, even if he's averaging sub 20 possies a game and selected ahead of Dumont and Clarke.

Clarke was played last year until he ran out of puff. Swallow probably played better than Dumont.
That quote was to make more palatable their delisting. Scott graciously said, I love those players, they've been great servants of the club, if only things could go for ever but they can't.
Honestly I can't think of a favourite who Scott player over a clearly better alternative. Dal Santo for example wasn't as good in his third year with us as he was in his first, but he still good enough. And he was probably better than Clarke, Mountford, Wagner, and MacKenzie (who were other possibilities for his position).
That's why I reckon it is a myth.

 

[tales129]

Every coach has their favourites, unfortunately for us brad has about 10-15.

Understandably when it's on you to build your side and you back them in you will continue to back them in but brad is pretty headstrong/lacks flexibility from what I gather.


Hopefully him being away more this preseason is a blessing in disguise, that allows a bit more of an open mind and we get some accountability at the selection table

 

[LuvtheKangas]

If you're playing them when they're injured over players that aren't that indicates to me you prefer them in the team.

Exactly. Selectors need to decide which players they prefer in a team. It's happened for over a century.

Injuries...poor depth...and blind faith in thinking we could recapture form saved most of the 2016 named above.

But sheesh ..Swallow and Petrie were obviously candidates.

If you need to nominate these two, you really don't have an argument. Swallow was captain. Sure, he struggled, but he was captain and if you don't favour your captain then you have a crap culture. When was the last time a club captain was dropped for lack of form? 18 clubs will continue to pick their captain, yet our coach gets criticised for it. Go figure.

And yes, we all agreed that Petrie was cooked last year and should have been dropped. But a 300 gamer is sort of a special case, in the sense that we all know what he can bring to the table and we were hoping he could bring it back. He didn't, but he deserved the chances he was given.

Scott said it himself that if Petrie, Dal, Spud and Boomer were still on the list next year that he would back them in to be in the 22. Petrie, dal and spud were past it, that suggests to me he has favourites.

The argument re Petrie above applies equally to Dal. Spud played well enough to hold his spot, especially given there was no suitable replacement languishing in the VFL.

And Brad delisted them.

Every coach has their favourites, unfortunately for us brad has about 10-15.

Understandably when it's on you to build your side and you back them in you will continue to back them in but brad is pretty headstrong/lacks flexibility from what I gather.

Hopefully him being away more this preseason is a blessing in disguise, that allows a bit more of an open mind and we get some accountability at the selection table

For most clubs, the 10-15 that are near automatic selections are known as the core group, or some similar description. These are the players that form the basis of your team, the ones that you need in the team to maximise your chances of winning.

I think we are the only club whose supporters can turn this into a negative.


We all have our opinions on selection, and I often think there have been mistakes made at the selection table. Of course, the players I wouldn't pick are the ones that others go in to bat for. And the Aaron Blacks of the world deserve to stay in the VFL, IMO, but others are upset at his 'treatment'. But that's the nature of supporting.

I'm just harping on this because the tired cliche of Brad and his favourites has been rolled out yet again. Personally, I think it's garbage.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Exactly. Selectors need to decide which players they prefer in a team. It's happened for over a century.



If you need to nominate these two, you really don't have an argument. Swallow was captain. Sure, he struggled, but he was captain and if you don't favour your captain then you have a crap culture. When was the last time a club captain was dropped for lack of form? 18 clubs will continue to pick their captain, yet our coach gets criticised for it. Go figure.

And yes, we all agreed that Petrie was cooked last year and should have been dropped. But a 300 gamer is sort of a special case, in the sense that we all know what he can bring to the table and we were hoping he could bring it back. He didn't, but he deserved the chances he was given.



The argument re Petrie above applies equally to Dal. Spud played well enough to hold his spot, especially given there was no suitable replacement languishing in the VFL.

And Brad delisted them.



For most clubs, the 10-15 that are near automatic selections are known as the core group, or some similar description. These are the players that form the basis of your team, the ones that you need in the team to maximise your chances of winning.

I think we are the only club whose supporters can turn this into a negative.


We all have our opinions on selection, and I often think there have been mistakes made at the selection table. Of course, the players I wouldn't pick are the ones that others go in to bat for. And the Aaron Blacks of the world deserve to stay in the VFL, IMO, but others are upset at his 'treatment'. But that's the nature of supporting.

I'm just harping on this because the tired cliche of Brad and his favourites has been rolled out yet again. Personally, I think it's garbage.

They sure do.

And when it's to the detriment of the team, it's called favouritism.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

They sure do.

And when it's to the detriment of the team, it's called favouritism.

No worries, you keep telling yourself (and us) that.

An alternative but equally valid interpretation is that the selection committee (which Brad doesn't control) weighs up a number of factors and then decides who to select based on these factors. Sure, this is not a neat, dismissive sound bite like "favoritism", but it just might represent what goes on.

FWIW, I agree with you on a number of players (Jacobs brought nothing pre-tagging, LT needed a spell earlier than it was given, Jed wasn't up to it and the experiment should have been stopped earlier, Petrie was cooked), but I'm not prepared to accept it's as simplistic as mindless favouritism bias at the selection table. If anything, it's misplaced faith in players that the selectors believe are or will be best 22 contributors.

Anyway, I expect Brad and the team to become harder at selection this year, with players being dropped if they lose form.

 

[Gasometer]

Exactly. Selectors need to decide which players they prefer in a team. It's happened for over a century.



If you need to nominate these two, you really don't have an argument. Swallow was captain. Sure, he struggled, but he was captain and if you don't favour your captain then you have a crap culture. When was the last time a club captain was dropped for lack of form? 18 clubs will continue to pick their captain, yet our coach gets criticised for it. Go figure.

And yes, we all agreed that Petrie was cooked last year and should have been dropped. But a 300 gamer is sort of a special case, in the sense that we all know what he can bring to the table and we were hoping he could bring it back. He didn't, but he deserved the chances he was given.



The argument re Petrie above applies equally to Dal. Spud played well enough to hold his spot, especially given there was no suitable replacement languishing in the VFL.

And Brad delisted them.



For most clubs, the 10-15 that are near automatic selections are known as the core group, or some similar description. These are the players that form the basis of your team, the ones that you need in the team to maximise your chances of winning.

I think we are the only club whose supporters can turn this into a negative.


We all have our opinions on selection, and I often think there have been mistakes made at the selection table. Of course, the players I wouldn't pick are the ones that others go in to bat for. And the Aaron Blacks of the world deserve to stay in the VFL, IMO, but others are upset at his 'treatment'. But that's the nature of supporting.

I'm just harping on this because the tired cliche of Brad and his favourites has been rolled out yet again. Personally, I think it's garbage.

You drop the Captain when he sucks the life out of a come back v HAWKS by fumbling and bumbling as we look like taking the lead....after several weeks of below par performances.

But that's okay...keep playing him on because the symbolism out weighed the fact that he was out of form.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

No worries, you keep telling yourself (and us) that.

An alternative but equally valid interpretation is that the selection committee (which Brad doesn't control) weighs up a number of factors and then decides who to select based on these factors. Sure, this is not a neat, dismissive sound bite like "favoritism", but it just might represent what goes on.

FWIW, I agree with you on a number of players (Jacobs brought nothing pre-tagging, LT needed a spell earlier than it was given, Jed wasn't up to it and the experiment should have been stopped earlier, Petrie was cooked), but I'm not prepared to accept it's as simplistic as mindless favouritism bias at the selection table. If anything, it's misplaced faith in players that the selectors believe are or will be best 22 contributors.

Anyway, I expect Brad and the team to become harder at selection this year, with players being dropped if they lose form.

To me, misplaced faith is just as bad if not worse.

Players have not been held to high enough standard and team selection has shown that up to this point.

Here's hoping 2017 is different.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

You drop the Captain when he sucks the life out of a come back v HAWKS by fumbling and bumbling as we look like taking the lead....after several weeks of below par performances.

But that's okay...keep playing him on because the symbolism out weighed the fact that he was out of form.

So, a couple of mistakes at a bad time in a game along with of a run of below average form, and we must drop the captain? Make no mistake, at the time it annoyed me as well, but it's a stretch to say he wasn't dropped after this purely due to favouritism. I'd actually be surprised if anyone truly believed that.

It's not symbolism to keep playing your captain. I ask again, when was the last time an AFL captain was dropped for bad form? When/if it happens next, this would be the symbolic move, not keeping him in the team like every other team every year. No-one else does it, so why criticise our coach for not doing it?

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

So, a couple of mistakes at a bad time in a game along with of a run of below average form, and we must drop the captain? Make no mistake, at the time it annoyed me as well, but it's a stretch to say he wasn't dropped after this purely due to favouritism. I'd actually be surprised if anyone truly believed that.

It's not symbolism to keep playing your captain. I ask again, when was the last time an AFL captain was dropped for bad form? When/if it happens next, this would be the symbolic move, not keeping him in the team like every other team every year. No-one else does it, so why criticise our coach for not doing it?

Has the captain of any other top 8 side had such a run of poor form which warranted them bein dropped?

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Has the captain of any other top 8 side had such a run of poor form which warranted them bein dropped?

I can't remember the last time one was dropped. I suspect it was many years ago and on that basis, it's highly likely that there were worse runs of form by a captain in that period. You have to back them to come good.

Or take the captaincy from them at the end of the year to facilitate dropping them if they have a similar run of form again ...

I hope Spitta recaptures his 3x Syd winning form, but I'm not optimistic. I don't think he'll be saved by "favourite" status if he plays the same way this year.

 

[boneofshin]

I can't remember the last time one was dropped. I suspect it was many years ago and on that basis, it's highly likely that there were worse runs of form by a captain in that period. You have to back them to come good.

Or take the captaincy from them at the end of the year to facilitate dropping them if they have a similar run of form again ...

I hope Spitta recaptures his 3x Syd winning form, but I'm not optimistic. I don't think he'll be saved by "favourite" status if he plays the same way this year.

Pretty sure the bloke who is currently coaching our backline was dropped while he was captain. Or, at the very least, he was made to play as the sub.

 

[Gasometer]

So, a couple of mistakes at a bad time in a game along with of a run of below average form, and we must drop the captain? Make no mistake, at the time it annoyed me as well, but it's a stretch to say he wasn't dropped after this purely due to favouritism. I'd actually be surprised if anyone truly believed that.

It's not symbolism to keep playing your captain. I ask again, when was the last time an AFL captain was dropped for bad form? When/if it happens next, this would be the symbolic move, not keeping him in the team like every other team every year. No-one else does it, so why criticise our coach for not doing it?

You are defending the indefensible.

He had his worst year in the AFL and based on form should have been dropped.

DYK that he did not kick one goal as a midfielder in 2016?

0.

I hope he returns to pre achilles injury form this year more than anyone but last year was abysmal and I will agree to disagree on this one.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

You are defending the indefensible.

He had his worst year in the AFL and based on form should have been dropped.

DYK that he did not kick one goal as a midfielder in 2016?

0.

I hope he returns to pre achilles injury form this year more than anyone but last year was abysmal and I will agree to disagree on this one.

Don't be ridiculous, what's indefensible about pointing out it is extremely unusual for a captain to be dropped?

Yes, Spitta had a crap year, and you only have to participate in this forum to realise he kicked no goals, yeah, 0. I knew it. Thanks anyway.

But he was not dropped because he was captain and it takes a hell of a lot before one is dropped (yes, I now recall that Brad Green started as sub when he was horrid for weeks), so the "favourites" call is rubbish. So, even given his crap form, it's not a stretch at all to understand why he wasn't dropped. Not an indefensible position on any subjective assessment.

I started posting on this topic because I agreed, and continue to agree, with the poster who called it a Myth when you trotted out the tired old cliche about expecting Brad to play favourites this year, as usual.

 

[Gasometer]

Don't be ridiculous, what's indefensible about pointing out it is extremely unusual for a captain to be dropped?

Yes, Spitta had a crap year, and you only have to participate in this forum to realise he kicked no goals, yeah, 0. I knew it. Thanks anyway.

But he was not dropped because he was captain and it takes a hell of a lot before one is dropped (yes, I now recall that Brad Green started as sub when he was horrid for weeks), so the "favourites" call is rubbish. So, even given his crap form, it's not a stretch at all to understand why he wasn't dropped. Not an indefensible position on any subjective assessment.

I started posting on this topic because I agreed, and continue to agree, with the poster who called it a Myth when you trotted out the tired old cliche about expecting Brad to play favourites this year, as usual.

So shall we move onto Petrie next, and his year of downhill skiing...oh sorry...that ripper in the Saints game was the aberration. What's your reasoning on that one?

When we have done him let's move onto Dal. Yep that year of half arsed chases. What's your reasoning for that one?

Give it a rest. Scott kept playing them hoping to play them all into form when the data was telling the opposite.

But when it was all said and done he didnt drop them....whether it was playing faves or not their form was awful and did nothing but frustrate the greater majority of supporters who saw the most disappointing end of seasons in recent years.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

So, a coach plays club champions in the hope that they recapture form? Sack Scotts, that's inexcusable.

Hindsight shows it didn't work, so we should attribute it to a cliche about favourites.

Mate, take your own advice and give it a rest.

 

[dus]

Did he drop them, no.

He delisted them instead.

At the time whilst gunning for a flag he had no other choice to play them. It didn't work, so we got rid of them.

Personally I would have 'rested' them during the year. But I can see the reasoning for playing them.

There is no right answer here.

 

[Kimbo]

There is no right answer here.

What?!

 

[czero]

You don't drop your captain, ever. Even if you have picked one just for on field performance reasons, the club would need to take it on the chin and make a decision about captaincy at the end of the year. Same will go for Jack, he is untouchable this year. Captains have a different kind of pressure to normal position players - I think dropping them might be the single worst thing you could do for them - the shame would ruin them.

Petrie should of been dropped. Brad (and the rest of the selection committee) continued to make the club look like fools, his claim at the end of the season just put the icing on the crazycake.