Changes for round 14

[malpaso]

Having Schammer run around in the WAFL instead of JVB baffles me! Not saying Schammer is best 22 but he's better than JVB on gameday.

 

[prattsta]

Having Schammer run around in the WAFL instead of JVB baffles me! Not saying Schammer is best 22 but he's better than JVB on gameday.

There is a lot of hypocrisy in our gameday selections at present.

I wish the club would just be honest with supporters regarding the situation with Palmer. If it's a disciplinary thing to do with attitude, fine, but poor discipline or not he could help the side at present. Why is it okay to let Crichton, Clarke, JVB, Hill, Hinkley and others develop/improve at AFL level, but not Palmer?

Why did the club carry Michael Johnson for 11 weeks, whereas Palmer has been in and out of the side? i.e. If injuries are a good enough reason to keep MJ in the side, why not Palmer?

If Palmer is actually off to GWS what harm would being honest do?

"We're a young side, at present we would rather give development opportunities to players that are a part of the clubs long term future. As such, Rhys Palmer will no longer receive games at the senior level."

 

[Clay Davis]

Surely part of development is not giving a free ride to under performing players?

Palmer might be off (or not). Just because he is doesn't mean a player clearly not yet ready for AFL should be getting a game. Some of the stuff served up by a number of players this year has been nothing short of diabolical, yet they get selected.

I can't see how this builds accountability. Players should have to work their way into the team.

 

[prattsta]

Surely part of development is not giving a free ride to under performing players?

Palmer might be off (or not). Just because he is doesn't mean a player clearly not yet ready for AFL should be getting a game. Some of the stuff served up by a number of players this year has been nothing short of diabolical, yet they get selected.

I can't see how this builds accountability. Players should have to work their way into the team.

Which is why not saying anything about Palmer is so annoying.

If he's in the team for the medium to long term, then he should be playing in the side right now. He's not a first choice midfielder, but our first choice midfield isn't exactly available.

If he's not going to be around after this season then the club should say so, otherwise they continue to look like an inconsistent bunch of hypocrites every Thursday when the teams come out.

 

[PapaJ]

As a fan of Crichton, I'm finding it pretty hard to defend his game yesterday. Unforced errors (8 turnovers including 3 critical errors according to Pro-Stats) are just so costly when you're playing in defense.

JVB...I just don't understand what Harvey sees in him. I know we're light on for small/medium sized defenders that actually defend, but he really offers us nothing. Upgrading JVB instead of Pearce still baffles me. Having Palmer run around in the WAFL whilst JVB runs around in purple and white amazes me.

Injuries to Bradley, Sandilands and Silvagni will probably see the Clarke experiment in action for another week. With so many question marks regarding our young midfielders I'd rather we invested the time in Pitt, Mellington, Crichton and...well that's pretty much it given injuries.

Agree with Crichton there on both counts, like bits of what he's shown and think he's got some potential - but his use of the ball yesterday was about as bad as I've seen in a long time. Can't see him staying in the team this week. Pitt would be better option right now even though I don't think he's ready for AFL - but our choices are limited to say the least.

As for JVB, I think Harvs likes his defensive game and his ability to hold to team rules and structures. The problem is that he's playing s**t footy. He can't be compared to Palmer or many others because he is a defensive player first, but he's not even doing that well. He's got it in him, he's had some good games over his short journey, but he's not coming up with them now when we need our depth the most ... if Crowley doesn't' pull up, then I can't see him being dropped though, I just can't see who would come in and do his role.

 

[Lach72]

IN: Roberton, Schammer, Mellington

OUT: Grover (inj), Crowley (inj), Chrichton

There is no way Van Berlo can keep his spot.

 

[malpaso]

There is no way Van Berlo can keep his spot.

True. Bring Palmer in for JVB.

 

[strobe00]

I say the chances of having a good forward structure now and into the future were thrown out when we decided to skip on Darling.
The match commitee obviously don't place a great emphasis on it, as long as we have players with excellent foot skills delivering it into the forward line, we should be fine

We've got a good forward.

For some godforsaken reason he is continuing to be played in the midfield.

B*gger it if Palmer is going to GWS, or isn't working hard enough on the defensive aspects of his game. Neither Mundy nor Pav work particularly hard on defense either.

Bring Palmer in. Leave him in the midfield all day. Leave Pav in the forward 50. Bring in Mellington and stop constructing a forward line of part-timers and midfielders.

Oh, and leave Zac out of the midfield. He's a ruckman or 2nd/3rd tall in the forward 50.

 

[prattsta]

As for JVB, I think Harvs likes his defensive game and his ability to hold to team rules and structures. The problem is that he's playing s***t footy. He can't be compared to Palmer or many others because he is a defensive player first, but he's not even doing that well. He's got it in him, he's had some good games over his short journey, but he's not coming up with them now when we need our depth the most ... if Crowley doesn't' pull up, then I can't see him being dropped though, I just can't see who would come in and do his role.

A better question would be, who couldn't come in a do JVB's role?

The follow up question would be, against Brisbane, do we actually need anyone doing JVB's role?

 

[Lach72]

To be fair to Brisbane, they have a red hot dip.

They might be under manned (Merret etc) but their smalls are pretty good.

Merret out should mean Pav at CHF. Please.

 

[prattsta]

Merret out should mean Pav at CHF. Please.

LOL. Good one Lach.

 

[Kozivan]

Hey guys, what are the chances of Pav playing?
Was his injury bad?

 

[apuchar]

Having Schammer run around in the WAFL instead of JVB baffles me! Not saying Schammer is best 22 but he's better than JVB on gameday.

I agree. Schammer is not in the team suposedly because of his disposal. you can't tell me the JVB's disposal is any better. Schammer is a lot better footballer than Jay.

 

[GordonGecko]

In : Schammer, Palmer, Hayden, Roberton, Pitt

Out : Hill, Crichton, Crowley, Grover, JVB

Im sorry, I cannot excuse Stephen Hill any longer.

He should have been dropped after his round one non effort which resulted in a Banfield goal.

He has continually taken the soft road in a number of games.

Back then I championed the idea that it would set an example of what is acceptable and what is not.

Clearly, Hill still believes one handed efforts at the ball when traffic is coming is acceptable. It isnt, it's soft and sets the tone for our attack at the contest.

Again on the weekend when Hill had the option of going in low and hard to meet Mckenzie for a contested ball he blinked and attempted to paddle the ball into space with one hand.

He lost the contest, outright, Mckenzie gain possession and Melbourne goaled from Hill's non effort.

Couldnt care less how good he looks getting a handball receive and dashing into space, we all know he can do that.

What remains to be seen is whether he has the belly to cop a hit and halve a contest.

On the evidence thus far, it would appear not.

A lesson needs to be taught.

Duffield also on notice.

 

[DCFCFAN84]

Out: Crichton, JVB, Grover, Clarke

In: Palmer, Mellington, Ballantyne, Bradley

 

[believe_it]

In : Schammer, Palmer, Hayden, Roberton, Pitt

Out : Hill, Crichton, Crowley, Grover, JVB

Im sorry, I cannot excuse Stephen Hill any longer.

He should have been dropped after his round one non effort which resulted in a Banfield goal.

He has continually taken the soft road in a number of games.

Back then I championed the idea that it would set an example of what is acceptable and what is not.

Clearly, Hill still believes one handed efforts at the ball when traffic is coming is acceptable. It isnt, it's soft and sets the tone for our attack at the contest.

Again on the weekend when Hill had the option of going in low and hard to meet Mckenzie for a contested ball he blinked and attempted to paddle the ball into space with one hand.

He lost the contest, outright, Mckenzie gain possession and Melbourne goaled from Hill's non effort.

Couldnt care less how good he looks getting a handball receive and dashing into space, we all know he can do that.

What remains to be seen is whether he has the belly to cop a hit and halve a contest.

On the evidence thus far, it would appear not.

A lesson needs to be taught.

Duffield also on notice.

Whilst there may be an issue here to work through, to drop him (Hill) would be the height of stupidity due to our current circumstances.

The trouble with the Palmer non-selection I believe is probably due to our defensive issues. We need utilities that can provide defensive match-up. If we get Hayden , Suban and Silvagni back over the next month or so he will be more likely to vie for selection. At the moment he is competing against Hill,Fyfe,Mzungu ,Hinkley and possibly Crichton(wouldn't expect a Palmer/Crichton swap without other changes).From last weeks team only Hinkley could go for Palmer as far a I can see.

 

[esquilax]

Why did the club carry Michael Johnson for 11 weeks, whereas Palmer has been in and out of the side?

Because people are trying to over think it.

Let's say Palmer (and Walters) have 30 minutes bike this afternoon and they do it for 25 minutes half-arsed, complaining that they shouldn't have to do it. The rest of the team is professional just suffering in silence because it's not about individuals.

Can that be tolerated?? I say NO, and I think the coaching group has said NO.

IF, this is the reason, then I support the club 100%. Rewarding bad behaviour in professional sport is the opposite culture of that which hopefully Freo are aiming for.

 

[esquilax]

Early and possibly very depressing I know, but we're now going to have to win every game to be lucky to finish 6th*, or 5th at a pinch (with a couple of shock losses from those above).

I expect the club would think that is a failure given the promising signs of last year.

That said, I don't expect the club will be keen to take too many risks with 211 and/or Ballas. So I can't see them being rushed back, possibly hoping that we can flop over the line against Brisbane this week and next against GC17. The bye follows, with maybe many more coming back after that.

EDIT: * with loss to Collingwood Rnd 24.

 

[prattsta]

Rewarding bad behaviour in professional sport is the opposite culture of that which hopefully Freo are aiming for.

I understand that, but what about bad performances on the field? MJ played poorly for 11 games. Earlier in the season when we had options (McPhee as an example) nothing was done, until finally all the replacements were unavailable and the coaches just had to suck it in and play him no matter his performances.

Do game day performances just not matter? Can players only be dropped if they slack off at training and/or in their preparation? There just seem to be a lot of double standards shown towards those players inside and those players outside Harvey's ideal 22.

 

[esquilax]

Do game day performances just not matter? Can players only be dropped if they slack off at training and/or in their preparation? There just seem to be a lot of double standards shown towards those players inside and those players outside Harvey's ideal 22.

I understand your point, but I don't think there is a double standard. The standard starts with the players following their program at training, diet etc. You don't get a game unless you do.

It's a stance that may hurt the on field performance, but the club would never admit it because it is reinforcement to the poor performer, but you can't allow anything other than the full commitment off field too.

It's definitely a tough one. If the individual is a recalcitrant, then rock meets immovable object.

 

[prattsta]

I understand your point, but I don't think there is a double standard.

I see the following as the double standard-

If you don't put in at training, you will be dropped and/or not selected. If you don't put in on game day, whatevs, just make sure you stretch before next week.

EDIT: Just to make it clear, if Palmer, Walters and any others aren't doing the right thing at training, then I agree they shouldn't be playing. Effort, performance, output on game day should play its part as well though.

 

[BeinPurplenGreen]

Because people are trying to over think it.

Let's say Palmer (and Walters) have 30 minutes bike this afternoon and they do it for 25 minutes half-arsed, complaining that they shouldn't have to do it. The rest of the team is professional just suffering in silence because it's not about individuals.

Can that be tolerated?? I say NO, and I think the coaching group has said NO.

IF, this is the reason, then I support the club 100%. Rewarding bad behaviour in professional sport is the opposite culture of that which hopefully Freo are aiming for.

Agree with all of this. The point is though, if he is guilty of such lack of effort, failure to stick to a plan (be it diet/training/gameday rules/heck even a failure to turn up to or participate in team charity events) then he absolutely should not be selected to play. BUT what has so many of us so puzzled, and is frankly hard to defend if he is actually failing to do the required assigned things or if he has such poor character, is why he keep getting named in the 25 but then not selected. If he is disobeying the rules and yet still selected in the 25 then it sends a pretty ordinary message to those that aren't picked in the 25 but do follow the rules.

I understand your point, but I don't think there is a double standard. The standard starts with the players following their program at training, diet etc. You don't get a game unless you do.

It's a stance that may hurt the on field performance, but the club would never admit it because it is reinforcement to the poor performer, but you can't allow anything other than the full commitment off field too.

It's definitely a tough one. If the individual is a recalcitrant, then rock meets immovable object.

Yes, exactly, so why pick him in the 25?? If the allegations are true (I don't think they are, by the way), cite the reasons and declare him as not available for selection (as GC have done with Nathan Krak, and Port did with several players, and even Collingwood and Geelong have done in the last two years). Or, at the least, if you don't want to publicly disclose a player's failure to stick to rules, simply leave him out of the 25 and pick in his place players who do follow the rules.

The way it is at the moment, he's being brought into the 25 as if he is doing all the right things to play, and then being left out in favour of Crichton, JVB and Hinkley. One might suggest that such a deliberate lifting of hopes and then being denied was actually a public punishment?

I see the following as the double standard-

If you don't put in at training, you will be dropped and/or not selected. If you don't put in on game day, whatevs, just make sure you stretch before next week.

EDIT: Just to make it clear, if Palmer, Walters and any others aren't doing the right thing at training, then I agree they shouldn't be playing. Effort, performance, output on game day should play its part as well though.

The other problem with having players in the naughty boy corner for non-selection based on "failure to do what is required" is caused by the nature of the yardsticks used, the evenness with which they are applied to all players in the squad, and most of all how they are communicated to players. As soon as only some players are subject to the rules, or only some players are sanctioned by dropping/non-selection, the coaches look hypocritical and the credibility of the whole thing comes apart.

Similarly, if there isn't a clear consistent explanation of what is required, it is hard to pin responsibility down. Most of all, I think the type of "naughty corner" approach that seems to be being used for Palmer and Walters should only be used where there is a clear, obvious breach of team rules (ie MJ last year in the laneway, or being late to training, or being on the booze during the season, or not following the diet, etc etc). Proven breaches should result in sanctions - simply failing to execute instructions perfectly shouldn't be of itself a killer.

 

[esquilax]

Yes, exactly, so why pick him in the 25?? If the allegations are true (I don't think they are, by the way), cite the reasons and declare him as not available for selection (as GC have done with Nathan Krak, and Port did with several players, and even Collingwood and Geelong have done in the last two years). Or, at the least, if you don't want to publicly disclose a player's failure to stick to rules, simply leave him out of the 25 and pick in his place players who do follow the rules.

I don't have a good answer to this. I can only suspect the club don't want it to turn into a circus, but now it seems to be backfiring. Has a public flogging ever been helpful for a club trying to achieve something with their players?

Either-way, the club can't back down; he does the work their way, or he doesn't play.

 

[BeinPurplenGreen]

I don't have a good answer to this. I can only suspect the club don't want it to turn into a circus, but now it seems to be backfiring. Has a public flogging ever been helpful for a club trying to achieve something with their players?

Either-way, the club can't back down; he does the work their way, or he doesn't play.

I'd change that last sentence to be"Either-way, the club can't back down; he does the work their way, or he doesn't get named in the 25 for round 14."

If it is really true that he is breaching team rules, then not picking him in the 25 would make sense, not this garabge of naming him in the 25 but not selecting him.

 

[esquilax]

not this garabge of naming him in the 25 but not selecting him.

But it happens every second week; we name 25 and (usually) only one of the three travels, so two of those "namings" are pointless. Are you saying it messes with their heads to? I think it tells them that they're close to the right stuff, keep going.