Changes for Round 4 vs North Melbourne

[Wozzie81]

Assuming Polec is fit and a decision to elevate Bartlett is delayed/not pursued, only one change for mine...

In: Docherty
Out: Yeo

 

[Viceregal]

We all pretty much agreed with the round 1 team and many of us have called for more stability in structure / decent runs of games for the new guys who *do* get a look in ... we are not going to the GF this year but we do need to make progress towards a more settled group which won't be happening if we do mass changes every week.

 

[3KZ is Football]

We all pretty much agreed with the round 1 team and many of us have called for more stability in structure / decent runs of games for the new guys who *do* get a look in ... we are not going to the GF this year but we do need to make progress towards a more settled group which won't be happening if we do mass changes every week.

I know hindsight is a wonderful thing, but in retrospect, leaving Raines out of the Round One side was a significant error of judgement.

Apart from that, I really agree with the idea that those younger players we select should get a decent crack at it. I think we really need to invest games in young players players like Yeo and Mayes, while also encouraging the development of players like Golby, Polec, Karnezis and McKeever by making a commitment to keeping them in the side, while acknowledging that they are still developing and cutting them some slack by persisting with them after a bad performance. Golby, in particular has been fantastic this year and while he has still only played 24 games, he is really showing that he is going to be a significant long term proposition for the Lions. So far this season, only Hanley, Rockliff and Moloney have had more disposals than Golby, which puts him ahead of Rich, Redden, Adcock and many more fancied and experienced players when it comes to getting his hands on the ball.

Rotating the "kids" on the chopping block, while arguing, as some have done that "experienced' players should be selected on reputation rather than form, is a recipe for disaster for a club that really is still in a rebuilding phase. Great credit needs to go to Voss and the football department for the list they have put together, but unfortunately, I don't think they deserve as much credit when it comes to the way the list is utilised when it comes to team selection. While I don't think we should simply "play the kids" and not worry about results, there appears to be a bit of short term-ism in selection, where an out of form "experienced" player like McGrath (ranked 25th for disposals), who really has had a shocking start to the year is retained in the side because he might come good and we know when he is good, he is bloody great, no disputing that. The question is, how long do you wait? I won't mention Polkinghorne (ranked 24th for disposals) in detail, because his selection has been over discussed as an issue, but the same considerations will eventually apply to Patfull (ranked 21st for disposals) if he continues to struggle for form, which he has done so far this season.

Traditionally what coaches have done is to wait until the season is "shot to pieces" and then they give some of the younger players a run, but I suggest that if your season is already heading south, rather than crossing your fingers and hoping the players who are letting you down will come good, it is better to take some risks with selection and perhaps turn it around. Voss could take a leaf out of Kevin Sheedy's book when he was in his heyday in this respect, because he was a coach who was always working to try and make something happen. He might not have always got it right, but when he did it was spectacular.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

I thought Ash showed a big form improvement against the Suns over previous weeks. Not sure dropping him now sends the right message when he is on the improve.

Just my opinion.

Would have thought he'd be one of the options to play on Thomas in the coaches eyes...

 

[BuntonRules]

3KZ, that deserves more than a like.

 

[chopperduck]

Like wise 3 games in, how quickly do you ditch a best 22 player for a kid who hasn't played much senior footy and has played 2 or 3 good games in the ressies. I'd much rather players outside the 22 be made to prove themselves with a decent run of form before getting a shot, 6-8 weeks of good solid footy.

 

[3KZ is Football]

Like wise 3 games in, how quickly do you ditch a best 22 player for a kid who hasn't played much senior footy and has played 2 or 3 good games in the ressies. I'd much rather players outside the 22 be made to prove themselves with a decent run of form before getting a shot, 6-8 weeks of good solid footy.

If the player in question is completely out of form and using the McGrath example, ranked 25th on average disposals and only capable of laying 4 tackles in 3 games of football, perhaps it is false thinking to suggest they are a "best 22 player." His form and that of other players I have mentioned would suggest not. I think it is equally important that experienced / senior players also prove themselves with a decent run of form in order to hold their spot in the senior side. Even more so, because younger players, coaches and supporters look to them to provide leadership. Team selection has to be balanced, but at the end of the day it has to be about "real time" / "current season form."

To be honest, I hope that every player selected next weekend plays a blinder and completely vindicates the decision to select him. We all want to see the best side selected each week, but equally we also must recognise that team selection is also about laying the foundations for the future and in that respect an investment in a younger player seems a better bet than continued faith in an older one.

 

[Haggis McHaggis]

Nothing like selectively picking stats to support ones argument.

 

[Haso]

Nothing like selectively picking stats to support ones argument.

Oh Haggis, you say that at least 80% of the time*. Get some new material dood.






*That people use stats selectively.

 

[blynd_freddie]

Great post KZ and as BR has alluded to, worthy of more than a like – it deserves a decent written response – I’ll give it a try but others may have to assist…

I see Voss fighting for the opportunity to prove he has the makings to build a “period of success”, like Sheeds was in his “heyday” – I wholeheartedly agree with the taking a leaf from… and I’m darn sure Vossy is working as hard as hell to make things happen – Sheeds got to his pinnacle by having faith in his ‘baby bombers’ and in a way Voss with the 7th youngest 2013 AFL list – could do similar… BUT does he have the faith and gonads to select based on solely on youth for round 4 or does he stick with the ‘commonsense-ical’ selection of James and Ash for their size/age/experience/versatility - with both showing? signs of improvement last week versus GCS?

Changes for the Nth Game.
OUT: Polec[ankle], Martin [ankle?]
IN: Karnezis, Longer

B: Patfull, Merrett, Yeo
HB: Adcock, Mckeever, Golby
C: Karnezis, Rockliff, Hanley
HF: Bewick, Brown, Green
F: McGrath, Longer, Zorko
Foll: Leuenberger, Brent Moloney, Daniel Rich

Int: Mayes, Raines, Redden, Polkinghorne
Emg from: Paparone, Lester*, Crisp

*Edit - Poor Ryan Lester, apparently has an abductor issue.

 

[Haggis McHaggis]

Oh Haggis, you say that at least 80% of the time*. Get some new material dood.






*That people use stats selectively.

Only in the 50% of cases where it suits me to point out that it suits the other side to do so. In the other 100% of cases it's because I'm too lazy to say anything else, and the other 47% is down to not wanting to belt my head against a wall. This makes me 212% right, and overwhelmingly proves the moratorium on GM must be reinstated.


I rest my case.

 

[Caiphus]

Only in the 50% of cases where it suits me to point out that it suits the other side to do so. In the other 100% of cases it's because I'm too lazy to say anything else, and the other 47% is down to not wanting to belt my head against a wall. This makes me 212% right, and overwhelmingly proves the moratorium on GM must be reinstated.


I rest my case.

/derail

Canola farmers only started their war against GM when the research came out that using canola oil for cooking was carcinogenic (as is the same with any polyunsaturated fat once it goes over 80 degrees) They used a FUD campaign against GM to down out the science in regards to health risks about their product.

The moral of the story is to stop giving your money to big canola (what ever happened to that ETA woman anyway, did she just float off in her balloon?) And cook with animal fats or mono- unsaturated oils like regular olive oil (270 degrees before it turns carcinogenic)

/derail

And that is why Ash McGrath should play against the roos.

 

[dlanod]

What I took from that post:

Ash McGrath causes cancer!

 

[chopperduck]

If the player in question is completely out of form and using the McGrath example, ranked 25th on average disposals and only capable of laying 4 tackles in 3 games of football, perhaps it is false thinking to suggest they are a "best 22 player." His form and that of other players I have mentioned would suggest not. I think it is equally important that experienced / senior players also prove themselves with a decent run of form in order to hold their spot in the senior side. Even more so, because younger players, coaches and supporters look to them to provide leadership. Team selection has to be balanced, but at the end of the day it has to be about "real time" / "current season form."

To be honest, I hope that every player selected next weekend plays a blinder and completely vindicates the decision to select him. We all want to see the best side selected each week, but equally we also must recognise that team selection is also about laying the foundations for the future and in that respect an investment in a younger player seems a better bet than continued faith in an older one.

So we should just simply pick the players ranked 1-22 on a few stats and be done with it ? Whilst playing young players with an eye to the future is important, going too far only opens you up to a smashing. Too many people have this notion that it's as simple as giving players games and they improve. It's not an EA sports game, playing a player for x amount of games doesn't let you spend skill points and upgrade them, by 50 games they will be an 80+ rated player. We have plenty of young players in the team as it is. We need to keep some experience on the field or we will go backwards. Players coming to the end like Ash, or players who are falling down the depth chart like Polka will eventually be pushed out of the team, but it will happen when the young players are ready to come in, play 22 games and fit into the team. The vast majority of our young players are not ready to do this.

We've done so so well with our developing of players over the past few years, we've slowly turned over our playing list, removing the clutter and bringing in some great natural talent. We don't need to fast track this. I think with GWS and GC coming into the comp it's made everyone think that kids are a lot better than they are, and the excitement of seeing the young players play makes people want to see them in the senior team even more. Let's not forget Melbourne, a team who played all kids, and has recently purged senior talent from their team. See what difference it makes when your not gifted the best talent over several drafts compared to the expansion teams. Whilst i back a lot of the kids we've drafted, they still need development and parts of their game rounded out, and senior footy isn't the place to do it. Not unless we are happy watching our team get put to the sword like the Suns were back in their first season.

 

[Ceebee]

Great post KZ and as BR has alluded to, worthy of more than a like – it deserves a decent written response – I’ll give it a try but others may have to assist…

I see Voss fighting for the opportunity to prove he has the makings to build a “period of success”, like Sheeds was in his “heyday” – I wholeheartedly agree with the taking a leaf from… and I’m darn sure Vossy is working as hard as hell to make things happen – Sheeds got to his pinnacle by having faith in his ‘baby bombers’ and in a way Voss with the 7th youngest 2013 AFL list – could do similar… BUT does he have the faith and gonads to select based on solely on youth for round 4 or does he stick with the ‘commonsense-ical’ selection of James and Ash for their size/age/experience/versatility - with both showing? signs of improvement last week versus GCS?

Changes for the Nth Game.
OUT: Polec[ankle], Martin [ankle?]
IN: Karnezis, Longer

B: Patfull, Merrett, Yeo
HB: Adcock, Mckeever, Golby
C: Karnezis, Rockliff, Hanley
HF: Bewick, Brown, Green
F: McGrath, Longer, Zorko
Foll: Leuenberger, Brent Moloney, Daniel Rich

Int: Mayes, Raines, Redden, Polkinghorne
Emg from: Paparone, Lester, Crisp

I will never choose players I think should play after my effort last week, but I like this team.
We should be play Billy as much as we can imo..
I would still like Harwood in as soon as possible too.
Oh dear, I think I have done it again.

 

[LIONHART]

there appears to be a bit of short term-ism in selection, where an out of form "experienced" player like McGrath (ranked 25th for disposals), who really has had a shocking start to the year is retained in the side because he might come good and we know when he is good, he is bloody great, no disputing that. The question is, how long do you wait? I won't mention Polkinghorne (ranked 24th for disposals) in detail, because his selection has been over discussed as an issue, but the same considerations will eventually apply to Patfull (ranked 21st for disposals) if he continues to struggle for form, which he has done so far this season.

I agree with with this summary ... it has frustrated me to various degrees for some time. It is something that has gone on to various degrees for some time. I remember talk of Banfield last year, when he lost form completely and had next to no possessions for week after week, yet kept getting selected (in the end he lost his place because he got injured, I remember everyone sighing a collective sigh of relief that he was finally out of the side). The issue is that the same degree of 'patience' is not shown to other players (the most glaring example is Cornelius) particularly middle tier players, where one average game & he's gone. We can bracket Lester, Karnesis & other young bucks in that category as well.
The message has to be given that the team is picked on form not reputation, established players need to know that they have to keep performing, their position in the team is not sacrasant. Conversely good form in the seconds needs to be rewarded with senior selection, those playing seconds need to have that incentive to keep playing well. This makes for a healthy playing envoiroment, where everyone knows that good performance is duly rewarded, whilst their are consequences for sustained poor performance.

 

[freq]

In: Karnezis, Longer.
Out: Polec, Martin (assuming both injured)

 

[blynd_freddie]

I will never choose players I think should play after my effort last week, but I like this team.
We should be play Billy as much as we can imo..
I would still like Harwood in as soon as possible too.
Oh dear, I think I have done it again.

No need to be strong... I assure you I will not post a Britney youbube of "Oops! I did it again". [Cannot speak for Mr Ripper though ]

 

[BigBadBrisbaneBears]

I'm relatively new here (how long can I use that excuse for?), but I'm not really understanding the suggestion to bring in Longer for Martin.

Surely Lisle is the logical replacement given:

• It's a like-for-like swap
• Form in 2's has been pretty good (12 goals over 3 games)
• At some stage we need to know if he's a keeper or a list-clogger
• Billy will be a star for us one day, but his time is not now

Am I reading things incorrectly?

 

[3KZ is Football]

I agree with with this summary ... it has frustrated me to various degrees for some time. It is something that has gone on to various degrees for some time. I remember talk of Banfield last year, when he lost form completely and had next to no possessions for week after week, yet kept getting selected (in the end he lost his place because he got injured, I remember everyone sighing a collective sigh of relief that he was finally out of the side). The issue is that the same degree of 'patience' is not shown to other players (the most glaring example is Cornelius) particularly middle tier players, where one average game & he's gone. We can bracket Lester, Karnesis & other young bucks in that category as well.
The message has to be given that the team is picked on form not reputation, established players need to know that they have to keep performing, their position in the team is not sacrasant. Conversely good form in the seconds needs to be rewarded with senior selection, those playing seconds need to have that incentive to keep playing well. This makes for a healthy playing envoiroment, where everyone knows that good performance is duly rewarded, whilst their are consequences for sustained poor performance.

Great post Lionhart!

 

[blynd_freddie]

I'm relatively new here (how long can I use that excuse for?), but I'm not really understanding the suggestion to bring in Longer for Martin.

Surely Lisle is the logical replacement given:

• It's a like-for-like swap
• Form in 2's has been pretty good (12 goals over 3 games)
• At some stage we need to know if he's a keeper or a list-clogger
• Billy will be a star for us one day, but his time is not now

Am I reading things incorrectly?

Welcome BBBB,

Yeah tough call but my reasoning is not just a like for like - but knowing Billy can be a crash and bash forward target.

I personally feel both Lisle and Ace although in form, lack this hardness at the ball - the North backman are known to dish it out and I would prefer someone who will stand up for smalls [Green, Zorks] in the forward area, we know Browny always will and also happy for McGrath to help out in this area on Sunday.

 

[POBT]

I can only guess but the difference between some players and others in terms of the patience shown at the selection table has got to be to do with effort and how well they keep to the structure. Not all the players' KPIs are measured in terms of kicks, handballs, goals etc.

We also don't see the training form. If said player is carving it up on the training track, chances are that he'll get a longer run than someone who is going badly at training and on game day.

But I also think there is this misconception that football clubs are egalitarian. They aren't. What might be described as playing favourites by some has more to do with having the coach's faith. If the coach believes in you, he's naturally going to give you greater opportunity than someone who he doesn't believe in. Having said that, it is worth remembering that no coach is so stupid as to pick blokes purely based on their personal relationship - the crap that gets sprouted about mowing the coach's lawn detracts from the fact that the coach forms his views on players based on thousands of hours of observations, feedback from other players and coaches etc. It isn't blind faith - it is reasoned faith based on their assessment of the player.

We aren't special in that regard. Every club is the same. And every coach has players who he is willing to give a greater go to, compared to others.

Should we then accept the coach's faith in certain players? No, of course not. We are entitled to question it. But we should do so with the thought that,while we think the coach is wrong, he has reasons for showing faith in certain players and not in others....and you can be sure that they won't be completely illogical reasons. That doesn't mean that he is infallible though. He could well be wrong - but so could we.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

But I also think there is this misconception that football clubs are egalitarian. They aren't. What might be described as playing favourites by some has more to do with having the coach's faith. If the coach believes in you, he's naturally going to give you greater opportunity than someone who he doesn't believe in. Having said that, it is worth remembering that no coach is so stupid as to pick blokes purely based on their personal relationship - the crap that gets sprouted about mowing the coach's lawn detracts from the fact that the coach forms his views on players based on thousands of hours of observations, feedback from other players and coaches etc. It isn't blind faith - it is reasoned faith based on their assessment of the player.

We aren't special in that regard. Every club is the same. And every coach has players who he is willing to give a greater go to, compared to others.

Should we then accept the coach's faith in certain players? No, of course not. We are entitled to question it. But we should do so with the thought that,while we think the coach is wrong, he has reasons for showing faith in certain players and not in others....and you can be sure that they won't be completely illogical reasons. That doesn't mean that he is infallible though. He could well be wrong - but so could we.

Stop making sense POBT.

It saddens me how many people can't accept that their opinions aren't fact and are intolerant of those who differ in their views, even if the other person has far more football experience than they. I thought John Worsfold's column on afl.com.au was very pertinent.

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

Oh Haggis, you say that at least 80% of the time*. Get some new material dood.






*That people use stats selectively.

Looks like a stat to me.

 

[POBT]

Stop making sense POBT.

It saddens me how many people can't accept that their opinions aren't fact and are intolerant of those who differ in their views, even if the other person has far more football experience than they.

They trumpet their superior knowledge when hindsight proves them right but are very quiet indeed when it turns out they were wrong.

Also the black and whiters. Things are very rarely 100% right or 100% wrong. Footy is more nuanced than that. Life is more nuanced than that.

eg: I had Lester in my best players against Adelaide. I also accept that he was beaten by his direct opponent who also played well. I don't think that is a completely contradictory position.

I thought John Worsfold's column on afl.com.au was very pertinent.

That is a top notch read. Highly recommend it to others. What it says to me is that cause and effect in footy is really hard to determine.

For example, everyone has been very quick to say that Matera's goals last weekend are Golby's fault. And perhaps they were, if Golby made a series of poor decisions that were inconsistent with the game plan.

But it is also possible that Golby did everything right and that there were other causes. It could be that the structure was wrong (ie coaching mistake) or that other players weren't covering when they were supposed to (player mistake or perhaps a communication mistake).

Or, it could be that it was a risk that the coaching staff were willing to take and that, on balance, the fact that Gold Coast really struggled to get the ball out of their half on most occasions more than made up for the occasional fast break goal. In other words, there were no mistakes - just a natural and expected consequence that was minimal compared to the benefit gained from the structural decisions.

But to simplify it absolutely to "Golby's opponent kicked goals - therefore, Golby must have been the cause" is way too simplistic and is the sort of thinking that belongs in the 1970s. Worsfold's comments about Glass and Rocca are a great example of how complex cause and effect is in footy.