Opinion Cameron Guthrie

[Turbocat]

I think Corey has a role but IMO we need to make sure that role is well thought out and plays to his strengths.

From the AFL prospectus:

" (In 2012) Corey ranked 3rd at Geelong for contested possessions, clearances and center clearances. He attended the third most center bounces of any Geelong midfielder and the club won clearances 13% more often than the opposition when he was in attendance - the best differential of the top 50 center-bounce attendees in the AFL for 2012".

This reflects what's been discussed here recently and that is we should exclusively use Corey for center bounces. A specialist who perhaps plays a little less TOG but when he does he's asked to be a battering ram in the center of the pitch. He had an interrupted preseason last year, which didn't help, but I think we made a mistake using him too often on the wing (particularly early in the season) or in the back line. IMO he should only play out of the center. For instance round 1 against Hawthorn, with Kelly out, I absolutely would pick Corey ahead of Horlin-Smith or Caddy. Round 2, coming off a six day break and with Kelly returning, I'd lean towards one of the younger two. I think these are the sorts of decisions that will need to be made on a week by week basis.

I agree Corey's selection should not often be at the expense of the development of Horlin-Smith or Caddy. I think ideally Corey is used to protect these young players, maybe give them a mid season break or when we have a long injury list (particularly if one of Kelly and Selwood are out) but more often than not I'd go with Caddy or Horlin-Smith in the regular season. I do think though round 1 is one of those few exceptions when I'd be picking Corey over Caddy/Horlin-Smith. It's a strong team we're playing and Geelong are short one of our two best clearance players (Kelly). We need the extra inside work Corey provides.

Does this make him a good candidate for a sub during the season? Id imagine his clearance stats would improve being fresher than his opponents. Over all I agree we need him in the side V mature bodies , perhaps can be rested V the younger sides. Versus Hawthorn , a fit Corey plays!!

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Does this make him a good candidate for a sub during the season? Id imagine his clearance stats would improve being fresher than his opponents.

I don't see it. I reckon he's a grind-it-out type, whose endurance gets him past opponents at the end of games. I think he'd be wasted as the sub, where you really want someone who is a) versatile; and/or b) a burst player (preferably both). I love Corey, but he is neither.

 

[Turbocat]

I don't see it. I reckon he's a grind-it-out type, whose endurance gets him past opponents at the end of games. I think he'd be wasted as the sub, where you really want someone who is a) versatile; and/or b) a burst player (preferably both). I love Corey, but he is neither.

Not convinced either , but id like to see it happen.

 

[you pick one]

Corey won't be the sub,part of his value as a player is that he takes so much out of his opponent/opponents over the first 80 minutes,can't have that effect sitting on the pine with the red vest on.

 

[DanA]

I agree with the comment that subs need to be versatile players. They generally get the ball in space through extra gut running. The best subs have been those good for a goal with damaging disposal. From what I have seen Gaff, Duncan, Christenson, Bruest have all had big impact. Of course it probably helped that they are all very good players. Either way a guy who's kicking efficiency is in the 50's that kicked three for the season last year is not ideal.

 

[sarah.13]

I don't see it. I reckon he's a grind-it-out type, whose endurance gets him past opponents at the end of games. I think he'd be wasted as the sub, where you really want someone who is a) versatile; and/or b) a burst player (preferably both). I love Corey, but he is neither.

Motlop. Christiansen, Murdoch type players make perfect subs!

 

[sarah.13]

I don't see it. I reckon he's a grind-it-out type, whose endurance gets him past opponents at the end of games. I think he'd be wasted as the sub, where you really want someone who is a) versatile; and/or b) a burst player (preferably both). I love Corey, but he is neither.

Motlop. Christiansen, Murdoch type players make perfect subs!

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Motlop. Christiansen, Murdoch type players make perfect subs!

But then there's the question of whether you have a semi-permanent player in the role (like Lovett-Murray was for Essendon last year) or you mix it up every week (which is pretty much what we have done, in most cases, since the rule came in). It's one reason why I think Chapman could be a required player again in 2014 (seems to be a very good candidate as a specialist sub) and that even with his injury concerns in 2012, I think Adam Goodes still has a chance to get to 400 games (the prototype sub, once he starts to decline).

 

[Pivo]

Motlop. Christiansen, Murdoch type players make perfect subs!

This is an interesting one and I got to thinking about this a bit last night (which might suggest how sad my life is).

I had mentioned Christensen as a possible sub candidate for Rd 1 and had a few people disagree with me (fair play). Hopefully people will understand why I am using Christensen as the discussion point here.

The game regularly cited as a reason NOT to play Christensen as a sub was the Sydney game last year at the SCG that we lost by a goal after allowing the Swannies to jump us early.

Bundy was pretty huge that match picking up 12 disposals and, many feel, kick started our comeback.

Because of the impact he had many have said he was wasted as a sub.

I think Partridge (playing Devil's advocate) mentioned in the Hawthorn Rd1 thread that it could be argued that what Christensen did that night is what many coaches hope their subs can do when they come on.

Having fresh legs means you can get to contests quicker, you are fresher in the mind and can generally run away from tiring players who have been out there the whole match.

In contrast, against Sydney at Geelong in round 23 Bundy had 14 touches for the game.

Happy to be corrected but I don't recall him being the starting sub then or being subbed off...might be wrong.

So, after playing a full game (with associated rotations to the bench) he managed only 2 more touches.

If people want to use his stats and impact against Sydney first time around as evidence why he shouldn't be a sub ever again, it seems only fair to point out that him being a sub might have helped the impact he had that night (especially when compared to the 2nd encounter).

That Sydney match could be held up as a reason why he might actually be a good candidate as a sub rather than the other way around.

Over his career (which is trending upwards very nicely - and is probably a better example why he shouldn't be a sub) Christensen averages 19 disposals a game (only 7 more than he got the night he was subbed on).

Last year, he had 8 games (out of 17) which were around that 12 disposal sub game (9 being the lowest & 18 being the highest).

I suspect the coaches all look at the players and decide who makes a good candidate (I solely used Bundy as he was central to a discussion I was having in the other thread...it would be interesting to see the breakdown of the guys commonly associated with the green vest).

I think it is something that should be rotated through a group of players deemed suitable for that role rather than 1 specific player...but who knows, it could very well become a specialist position if a player manages to have a continual impact week in-week out like Christensen did that night.

 

[meto]

Pivo,
When the game is white hot I do like to have big body mids in there at the drop, as the game evolves after half time spaces open up and the likes of Christensen can get heaps of ball...I like it!

 

[Pivo]

^I think, if nothing else, it makes for an interesting discussion and is something the coaches have probably done over and over since this rule change.

I don't think being a sub should be seen negatively as I'm convinced a lot of sides select a player who they believe can impact immediately once activated. Christensen showed how many coaches want their sub to operate perfectly in that Sydney match.

We have also showed how it shouldn't be used - the day we selected Mitch Brown as the sub against Hawthorn last year. There just wasn't a right time to bring him in that game and the result was he was left to rot on the pine until late.

A tall just isn't suited to being a sub in the AFL.

I see some similarities to the "6th" man in basketball. That guy who ignites a side when he comes on.

It was interesting running it over in my mind last night so wanted to put it out there.

 

[Partridge]

Corey won't be the sub,part of his value as a player is that he takes so much out of his opponent/opponents over the first 80 minutes,can't have that effect sitting on the pine with the red vest on.

At his best yes, what if in the first 80 minutes his opponents thrash him because they're younger, quicker and aren't making the mistakes he now does?

Notice how last year we started a lot of games very badly (5 goals down v Fremantle, 7 goals down v Sydney, 7 goals down v North, 8 goals down v Adelaide...). What did they have in common? Corey started in the middle. As well as Chapman in some games (the North one in particular), we were simply too old and too slow on the ball in a few games. Failure to learn from that is a 100% guaranteed way to repeat it.

 

[David the Cat]

Corey will start in the middle against Hawthorn, just like he did last year.

To say we had bad starts because Corey started in the middle is piffle.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Corey will start in the middle against Hawthorn, just like he did last year.

To say we had bad starts because Corey started in the middle is piffle.

Not only piffle, it's grossly illogical because it ignores all the other common factors in those defeats.
Such as Sellwood starting in the middle.

 

[THE CAT WRANGLER]

Unfortunately we have seen the best of Joel I hope he can play some valued footy and keep his form up with the appropriate rest with an odd week off here and there to refresh

 

[Partridge]

Corey will start in the middle against Hawthorn, just like he did last year.

To say we had bad starts because Corey started in the middle is piffle.

So what was the reason? Let me guess - lack of a good ruckman? It couldn't possibly be that premiership players aren't what they used to be could it. We had both Corey and Chapman in there against North and were obliterated when the match was there to be won.

I never said it was the sole reason anyway. But our big weakness last year was our midfield, and one of our key midfielders had his worst year in a long time. It isn't unrelated.

 

[you pick one]

So what was the reason? Let me guess - lack of a good ruckman? It couldn't possibly be that premiership players aren't what they used to be could it. We had both Corey and Chapman in there against North and were obliterated when the match was there to be won.

I never said it was the sole reason anyway. But our big weakness last year was our midfield, and one of our key midfielders had his worst year in a long time. It isn't unrelated.

You make a lot of good points at times Partridge but you also tend to undo the good work by laying the blame on one player for our loses.
I put it to you that it was the game plan or more specifically a lack of plan B that had us blown away early in the games you quoted,sure we were off the pace early but there are ways of slowing the game down it's not pretty football but a couple of quarters of Ross Lyon to take the sting out of the game and stay in touch on the score board would have been more beneficial than dumping Corey.

 

[Partridge]

You make a lot of good points at times Partridge but you also tend to undo the good work by laying the blame on one player for our loses.
I put it to you that it was the game plan or more specifically a lack of plan B that had us blown away early in the games you quoted,sure we were off the pace early but there are ways of slowing the game down it's not pretty football but a couple of quarters of Ross Lyon to take the sting out of the game and stay in touch on the score board would have been more beneficial than dumping Corey.

Honestly - I think it was a combination of many things. A few senior players had poor or at the very least years below expectation. Corey was one, Bartel to a degree another. Early in the season Chapman was tried on the ball as usual, until it was realised he didn't have the speed for that anymore. There's 3 reasons. We had an inexperienced ruckman shouldering the load virtually solo all season, there's four. Through the quite correct injection of young players, there was always going to be a tough initiation, and they made mistakes. There's five. We had senior players getting reported and suspended all season long, from round 1 through to and including the Elimination Final. There's six. Plus missing Varcoe, Menzel and Vardy virtually all year. There's seven.

I certainly don't think one player's actions dictated our result. The point with Corey is, it's the one situation where we have to change it (if not right now definitely very soon), and we've got a couple of extremely promising youngsters ready right now to play senior football. The net result is a smooth transition. The more smooth transitions we have, the less likely we are to slip down the ladder until the next generation becomes established. That's entirely where I'm coming from. I don't doubt Corey's commitment, training and dedication. It's purely doubt on his body due to the work he has brilliantly done for over a decade. That's all.

If Corey plays, and plays well, and there's no room for say Horlin-Smith, then great. I stand corrected. I'm just very doubtful of that happening.

 

[you pick one]

Honestly - I think it was a combination of many things. A few senior players had poor or at the very least years below expectation. Corey was one, Bartel to a degree another. Early in the season Chapman was tried on the ball as usual, until it was realised he didn't have the speed for that anymore. There's 3 reasons. We had an inexperienced ruckman shouldering the load virtually solo all season, there's four. Through the quite correct injection of young players, there was always going to be a tough initiation, and they made mistakes. There's five. We had senior players getting reported and suspended all season long, from round 1 through to and including the Elimination Final. There's six. Plus missing Varcoe, Menzel and Vardy virtually all year. There's seven.

I certainly don't think one player's actions dictated our result. The point with Corey is, it's the one situation where we have to change it (if not right now definitely very soon), and we've got a couple of extremely promising youngsters ready right now to play senior football. The net result is a smooth transition. The more smooth transitions we have, the less likely we are to slip down the ladder until the next generation becomes established. That's entirely where I'm coming from. I don't doubt Corey's commitment, training and dedication. It's purely doubt on his body due to the work he has brilliantly done for over a decade. That's all.

If Corey plays, and plays well, and there's no room for say Horlin-Smith, then great. I stand corrected. I'm just very doubtful of that happening.

Yep that sums up the year,excellent post.

 

[meto]

So what was the reason? Let me guess - lack of a good ruckman? It couldn't possibly be that premiership players aren't what they used to be could it. We had both Corey and Chapman in there against North and were obliterated when the match was there to be won.

I never said it was the sole reason anyway. But our big weakness last year was our midfield, and one of our key midfielders had his worst year in a long time. It isn't unrelated.

Big weighty bodies like Ling, Ottens, that's what I think, we've recruited Caddy and Horlin has bulked up heaps so I think we're addressing that a little this year.

 

[sarah.13]

Not only piffle, it's grossly illogical because it ignores all the other common factors in those defeats.
Such as Sellwood starting in the middle.

 

[you pick one]

Big weighty bodies like Ling, Ottens, that's what I think, we've recruited Caddy and Horlin has bulked up heaps so I think we're addressing that a little this year.

Regardless of personal we put ourselves in the position last year where we had to extend our selves in the last third of the season even to make the 8, not the ideal preparation for an elimination final.
This year may be even tougher I expect there will be a good representation of Interstate sides in the top 6.
Tough flag to win this one.

 

[sarah.13]

People seem forgetful as to Corey's role is.
He's the big body that blocks both offensively and defence; he's the one in the middle of the pack getting possession and get the ball moving. A lot of his ineffectual handballs are a result of the spreading midfield not running onto to lose balls, it's a catch 22. But in our prime the runners would be there.
Kelly does it, Bartel does it , when the team gels we will be destroying sides ala 07-10...

 

[Partridge]

People seem forgetful as to Corey's role is.
He's the big body that blocks both offensively and defence; he's the one in the middle of the pack getting possession and get the ball moving. A lot of his ineffectual handballs are a result of the spreading midfield not running onto to lose balls, it's a catch 22. But in our prime the runners would be there.
Kelly does it, Bartel does it , when the team gels we will be destroying sides ala 07-10...

It's not 2007 though; and it's not 2010 either. It's 2013 and he's now 31. If you think he didn't clearly decline last year, let's say we'll agree to disagree. He may some horrible blunders - including in the Elimination Final. Those errors aren't going to magically go away because we ignore them.

 

[FoolCat]

Can someone help me? I seem to be lost. I would like to be pointed in the direction of the Cam Guthrie thread.