2nds Casey Thread 2013

[Gysberts2Bate]

Neeld didn't like certain players and let them know by leaving them in the reserves.

Blease and Fitz are both good AFL players who played the season in the VFL.

Gotta love a coach who selects players based on his own personal vendettas and desire for vengeance. How did he last so long?

 

[Yoda_]

I would have come and said hello Captain Jack

Pretty god damn cold breeze that notherly hey? just a few little notes I'll add

The umpiring was terrible. That 'in the back' against Hogan even had the Essendon bench in a gaze, clearly holding the ball..
I thought Spencer took the points against Hille in the ruck duels, but Hille broke even around the ground and may have just gone ahead with the aid of the maggots (that 'throw' was clearly not one, it was a tap, right in front of us on the bench).
I like the kid Taggert. Showed a bit more than the last time I saw him (admittedly in the VFL reserves coming off a limited pre season).
Magner and Couch are the barometers for you guys. Elliot Kavanagh was assigned the tough task to quell Magner, was praised by coach Hayden Skipworth "was given a role today and done it very well") and named in our 'bests'.
I can see why the kid Hogan is being hailed 'the messiah' by your lot. A big physical presence who leads strong and hard. Steinberg did really well, but today was clearly not a day for KPF (see Joe 1.4, Gumby 0.0).
James Sellar has no position in the VFL. Sat in front of Joe and Gumbleton all day and didm;'t win any of his own ball allllll day.. disappointing really.

 

[stretcharmstrong]

Neeld didn't like certain players and let them know by leaving them in the reserves.

Blease and Fitz are both good AFL players who played the season in the VFL.

Okay, SSF, going to have to pull you up here.

Firstly, Blease and Fitz are not both good AFL players - neither of them are. They've both shown a lot if promise, Fitz more recently than Blease. But we have not seen nearly enough of either of them to be labeling them both good afl players. FTR, I like both and want both in our 22 every week.

Secondly, is that your perception/opinion regards Neeld and favorites? Or is there something solid behind it? As bad as Neeld turned out, there has been a lot of unchecked and unfounded BS being slung around since his sacking and it's not right. Nor is it even helpful to a discussion. If its your opinion, that's fine - there's quite a bit of hearsay and circumstantial evidence to back such an opinion - but don't write/say it like its a fact.

I flat out refuse to believe that a senior coach would knowingly, willingly select a weaker side because of personal differences he had with players. Especially a coach who's team was getting belted from pillar to post every week!

 

[Tulip]

Okay, SSF, going to have to pull you up here.

Firstly, Blease and Fitz are not both good AFL players - neither of them are. They've both shown a lot if promise, Fitz more recently than Blease. But we have not seen nearly enough of either of them to be labeling them both good afl players. FTR, I like both and want both in our 22 every week.

Secondly, is that your perception/opinion regards Neeld and favorites? Or is there something solid behind it? As bad as Neeld turned out, there has been a lot of unchecked and unfounded BS being slung around since his sacking and it's not right. Nor is it even helpful to a discussion. If its your opinion, that's fine - there's quite a bit of hearsay and circumstantial evidence to back such an opinion - but don't write/say it like its a fact.

I flat out refuse to believe that a senior coach would knowingly, willingly select a weaker side because of personal differences he had with players. Especially a coach who's team was getting belted from pillar to post every week!

Something very, very solid behind it.

I found it hard to believe as well until I heard it from such a reliable source.

I'm saying it like it's fact, because it is fact.

When we talk about not liking players, I'm referring to these players having personality differences and not having the attitude that Neeld necessarily wanted. This resulted in these guys getting less of a go, being treated differently in training and even being told that they weren't in his plans despite being contracted.

Neeld was a dud. A control freak who believed that he knew everything that there was to know because he was endorsed by the most bitter man in football - Mick Malthouse.

Neeld didn't not select these players because he hated them, he just couldn't differentiate between his own feelings and the benefit of the team. If you got along with Neeld and bought into his multi-faceted ethos, you were more likely to get a game. Neeld thought that his attitude made players better.

 

[Captain Jack]

Casey v Essendon

Well, bloody hell it was cold. My feet were almost numb by the time I left.

Final scores were Essendon 9.15.69 def Casey 9.4.58 by 11 points. It probably should have been a 3-4 goal loss but the Dons were inaccurate when kicking with the wind obviously. Scores were level with 15 minutes left but Casey couldn't get the ball up their end. Essendon just did enough to win in the end.

The wind made for a very scrappy game. Skills were generally poor, there was a lot of congestion and players had most success moving it forward via run and carry.

There was some form of breast cancer fundraiser on the day so Casey were wearing some pretty average pink strip. Did not enjoy. Anyway.

Special mention to the umpires, as Yoda_ says they were pretty terrible. Heaps of soft free kicks, especially in front of goal, and a couple of soft 50s too. Just let the boys play! The tackle that Hogan laid was technically perfect and awesomely aggressive, but was somehow paid in-the-back. Go figure. Anyway.

Crimson Azure you are spot on re: the make of Casey's team, if they were playing this sort of team all year they would not get close to second position. There have been injuries of late, but they looked pretty poor overall today. Again, the wind doesn't help, but you could tell from the start that Essendon were a class above.

Before I go on I will add the caveat that I didn't see much of the Casey defence until the last quarter, so take some of these player reports with a grain of salt.

Melbourne listed players (in order of appearance in the Record):

Hogan:
Tough day for him. Casey's skills going forward were terrible, and the forward line was generally too congested. I don't think he touched the pill until the third quarter, and he finished with one goal in the last. However I enjoyed his aggression at the ball and the man, and his hard leading out to the wings from kick outs was a highlight. Steinberg did a very good job on him on a day not meant for key forwards. On a related note, Daniher took a few good marks but was inaccurate. Those two along with the likes of Cameron, Patton and Boyd could make for a golden era of key forwards, 90s style.

Strauss:
Took the kickouts all day (tough gig) and had very limited impact apart from that. Played across half back. Time is running out for James, which is a shame as I thought he could be a decent player for us until a month or two ago. Not pushing for selection at this stage.

Davis:
Played forward, then back, then forward again. Seemed to have a good pair of hands on him, hard to comment on his disposal due to the wind but it wasn't terrible. Not exactly banging down the door but he could get a game soon. Not sure why he's playing forward, it's not his position.

Gillies:
Forgot he was playing until he did something stupid. Played tall back. Generally looks pretty lost and confused out there. At one point in the third he drifted forward with his man (possibly Gumbleton) but didn't have the presence to play in front as the kick came in from Tapscott, who was kicking straight into the wind. THE BALL IS GOING TO FALL SHORT TOM, STOP CALLING FOR IT OVER THE TOP FFS. Delist pls.

Jetta:
Played a bit everywhere. Started forward and kicked the first, later sighted at a centre bounce and at half back. Looks pretty classy when he has it, and as we know he has good agility and evasive skills, but he just doesn't get the pill enough. Making up numbers at this stage.

Couch:
Listed in the book, didn't play though. Would have been good to have him in the middle as there was plenty of in-tight stuff.

Nicholson:
Didn't see him much early, worked into the game later on and tried to break lines a handful of times in the last, with mixed success. Disposal typically questionable.

Tynan:
Another who I didn't see much of. Played half back and tried to take the game on a bit, but I don't think he really did too much.

Magner:
Hard to gauge his impact as he works in close mostly. He started well but Kavanagh probably had his measure later on. Still one of our better players. Surely worth another crack at AFL level, what do we have to lose?

Pedersen:
Didn't play, although he may have and I just didn't notice him.

McKenzie:
Started slowly but another who worked into the game more later on I think. Effectiveness was limited.

Tapscott:
One of our best. Played with intent and agression, laying a lot of strong tackles and winning a decent amount of ball. Kicked two good goals. Every chance he comes in for Kent this week. Also every chance of being traded at year's end, I think a change of scenery could be good for him. Not giving up yet though.

Barry:
As I said earlier, did some nice things. Very much an outside player, operates well in space on the wing. Good kick. Looks to have put on some size but still plenty of work to be done on that front, his tackling was not great when required. Could get a sneaky game this year but I would be inclined to wait until our midfield can protect him a bit before he plays AFL - let's not throw him to the wolves. JackAttack7 he is definitely the sort of player who will look much better at AFL level.

Taggert:
Played half forward and did some good things there. Kicked a good running goal in the third. Couple more strong games and he will be in the frame for a late AFL game I reckon, may as well have a look at him.

Sellar:
Played back, variously on Gumbleton or loose in front of him. I thought he was pretty solid and positioned himself well, but offensively he didn't do much as a loose man. Candidate no. 1 to come in for Garland I think, he has always looked best in the backline IMO.

Macdonald:
Don't think he played, was listed as jumper #80 but McKenzie wore that.

Spencer:
Probably held his own in the ruck but was towelled up something huge around the ground by Hille, who is a very good player of course. I hope for his sake he ends up elsewhere this year, still has a bit to offer at AFL level I reckon. Spencer seemed confused by the effect of the wind on the ball during ball ups, but maybe that's just his oafish demeanour. Likely to come in for Gawn I imagine, but can we tell him to just tag Goldstein around the ground to limit his influence?


Panozza, the Captain, was very good for Casey. Nicholls (#6) was also lively in the middle.

 

[Tulip]

Panozza seems like a good defender and leader.

http://www.caseyweeklycranbourne.com.au/story/1396041/vfl-scorpion-evan-panozza-still-dreams-of-afl/

 

[Demon 16]

Okay, SSF, going to have to pull you up here.

Firstly, Blease and Fitz are not both good AFL players - neither of them are. They've both shown a lot if promise, Fitz more recently than Blease. But we have not seen nearly enough of either of them to be labeling them both good afl players. FTR, I like both and want both in our 22 every week.

Secondly, is that your perception/opinion regards Neeld and favorites? Or is there something solid behind it? As bad as Neeld turned out, there has been a lot of unchecked and unfounded BS being slung around since his sacking and it's not right. Nor is it even helpful to a discussion. If its your opinion, that's fine - there's quite a bit of hearsay and circumstantial evidence to back such an opinion - but don't write/say it like its a fact.

I flat out refuse to believe that a senior coach would knowingly, willingly select a weaker side because of personal differences he had with players. Especially a coach who's team was getting belted from pillar to post every week!

Fair play stretch, but I have it (from a player), that the playing group did feel that Neeld played favourites.

I found it hard to believe as well, but it seems he was quite poor at building good relationships.

 

[stretcharmstrong]

Something very, very solid behind it.

I found it hard to believe as well until I heard it from such a reliable source.

I'm saying it like it's fact, because it is fact.

When we talk about not liking players, I'm referring to these players having personality differences and not having the attitude that Neeld necessarily wanted. This resulted in these guys getting less of a go, being treated differently in training and even being told that they weren't in his plans despite being contracted.

Neeld was a dud. A control freak who believed that he knew everything that there was to know because he was endorsed by the most bitter man in football - Mick Malthouse.

Neeld didn't not select these players because he hated them, he just couldn't differentiate between his own feelings and the benefit of the team. If you got along with Neeld and bought into his multi-faceted ethos, you were more likely to get a game. Neeld thought that his attitude made players better.

Alright, I'll certainly take you at your word then mate.

 

[Meds]

It looks to me like there is a fine line between only playing those players that "walk the company line" and play within the team's principles and values, and only playing those players that you get along with.

Word on the breeze is that Neeld was probably on the wrong side of this line, but I actually don't blame him for trying, just the method he used was clearly ineffectual. You can't tell me that Roos (for example) would allow players that go outside the team ethos to play each week, it just seems to me that his skills in managing those players are far greater. You gain nothing by telling a player he is not in your plans when they're contracted beyond that year. You gain everything by working with him to ensure he becomes part of your plan.

 

[stretcharmstrong]

Very fair post there meds.

 

[stretcharmstrong]

Fair play stretch, but I have it (from a player), that the playing group did feel that Neeld played favourites.

I found it hard to believe as well, but it seems he was quite poor at building good relationships.

Yeah - certainly does seem that way. Just hope that these handful of players that you guys have spoken too aren't the players with shit attitudes that might now begin to rub off on the others!

 

[Tulip]

It looks to me like there is a fine line between only playing those players that "walk the company line" and play within the team's principles and values, and only playing those players that you get along with.

Word on the breeze is that Neeld was probably on the wrong side of this line, but I actually don't blame him for trying, just the method he used was clearly ineffectual. You can't tell me that Roos (for example) would allow players that go outside the team ethos to play each week, it just seems to me that his skills in managing those players are far greater. You gain nothing by telling a player he is not in your plans when they're contracted beyond that year. You gain everything by working with him to ensure he becomes part of your plan.

Neeld's team ethos was wrong, Roos wouldn't develop such a terrible 'my way or the high way' set of values. He would work with the team to determine what they stood for.

 

[CTHORANGE]

Good write up Captain Jack. Clearly Tapscott has talent, but we can't seem to find a position for him where he can get some fluency. Under Bailey he was used as a small defender, and under Neeld as a half forward flanker. I'm not really sure where his best position is, but he did seem to play his best footy as a small defender who could make some nice 50m passes on the rebound. Wouldnt mind seeing him tried back under Craig.

Strauss has been disapointing this year, was really hoping he would kick on now that he was fully over his injuries, but he simply hasn't. Firming to be delisted, Terlich and Clisby have gone well past him.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Great stuff Captain Jack.

Regarding players like Strauss, whilst I acknowledge that I'm an admittedly biased fan I feel like it would be wrong to delist him without giving him a run under Neil Craig. Feel like all of our players went backwards under Neeld.

Good to hear about Tapscott, deserves to come in this week I reckon. North have a tough inside midfield so we should throw him in there. Excited to see players like Barry and Taggert. I'm a big fan of Davis as well, but I honestly reckon his marking and disposal is pretty quality, from the little I've seen. Can play on small forwards despite being 192cm which is something we need I reckon. Have been cut to pieces by a few this year (Breust, Brandon Jack, Green on Saturday). Or he could even be a defensive forward for us, is lightning quick. If indeed Garland can't play this week he should come in.

 

[Crimson Azure]

Neeld's team ethos was wrong, Roos wouldn't develop such a terrible 'my way or the high way' set of values. He would work with the team to determine what they stood for.

I hope not, I hate that crap.

In sport there is only one rule: 'Winning is everything'.

I hope they stand for that.

Anyway this is the Casey thread so I should probably talk about this in the coaches thread.

 

[Captain Jack]

Re Strauss, I would be all for giving him a crack under Craig but having seen him do bugger all yesterday it's fair to say he should be much more advanced than where he is now, even given the broken leg and the disaster that was Neeld. Is that fair? Maybe not, but at the end of the day he just hasn't shown enough and seems to lack the killer instinct to make it at the highest level.

 

[Captain Jack]

Damn, it seems Casey are playing on Saturday this weekend. I would have got down to Vic Park if it was on the Sunday.

 

[Dory_77]

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-07-23/round-14-vfl-player-review
Casey review from last week. Not much to write home about it seems. Davis was praised a bit, so would be in with a decent shot to debut. Taggert had a good game too it seems so should hopefully get a chance to play AFL before the year ends.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

I'm getting really sick of this Strauss stuff, the bloke had another 21 touches in shit conditions and 'he can't find the ball' and is a 'prime delist candidate' (despite being contracted for next year I might add).

Deserves an actual crack in a stable system.

 

[Tulip]

I'm getting really sick of this Strauss stuff, the bloke had another 21 touches in shit conditions and 'he can't find the ball' and is a 'prime delist candidate' (despite being contracted for next year I might add).

Deserves an actual crack in a stable system.

Mate, he's averaging 9 touches this season at AFL level. In my opinion, he just doesn't have any impact on the contest and isn't worth a spot on the list.

 

[Captain Jack]

I'm getting really sick of this Strauss stuff, the bloke had another 21 touches in shit conditions and 'he can't find the ball' and is a 'prime delist candidate' (despite being contracted for next year I might add).

Deserves an actual crack in a stable system.

I was very much on your side of the argument re: Strauss up until a month or two ago. Lucky for him that he's contracted for next year, because if he wasn't he would be odds on to be delisted. It's a damn shame that he hasn't shown much because he has plenty of talent and had shown enough as a defender to warrant optimism, but mate at some stage you have to face the fact that he's in his fifth season and hasn't really got close to making a spot his own. As I said above, there are of course extenuating circumstances, but his broken leg was a while ago now and is certainly not the reason why he's not getting games ahead of Clisby at the moment.

 

[SFebey]

Re: Strauss. I'd be keen to see everybody get a fresh shot at it now that Neeld has gone. It has obviously helped players in the Dees side so providing they're knocking on the door then lets see what a change in coaches can do for them in the AFL.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

I thought his defensive game was really coming along before shit face dropped him. I've still got a bit of belief in him.

 

[Blackas87]

Mate, he's averaging 9 touches this season at AFL level. In my opinion, he just doesn't have any impact on the contest and isn't worth a spot on the list.

There is a long list of players that have struggled under Neeld, numbers have been down for Sylvia, Trengove, Strauss any many more, we know these players have talent, would like to see how they perform under a new system.

 

[Demon 16]

I do think we need to find out about Strauss ASAP though. We should play him.

He'll turn 24 next year so if he can't put a good AFL game in, ditch him.