Preview Changes: R10 vs Melbourne - Crows drop Hamill but keep Mackay

[Jarman3]

Bryce Gibbs is still officially on the list, isn't he? Won't surprise me if he gets a call up soon.

 

[jackster83]

Funny how those who defended Mackay getting another contract claimed it was only so he could help the first year players in the SANFL.

Now he's keeping McPherson and Hamill out of the side.

Classic Crows.

 

[Bazz_27]

You have set a very low bar if you reckon Nicks has improved our selection. Just this season he has

• Playing a clearly injured and hampered Tom Lynch
• Playing a clearly injured and hampered McAdam
• NOT selected a second tall defender for the last month
• Selecting a clearly injured and not ready Lynch as the medical sub
• Moving Seed forward to accommodate MacKay
• Not rotating the youngsters out for a spell to freshen them up
• The continual selection of Frampton - he is not a youngster he is 24 and is in his 7th year on an AFL list
• The delayed selection of RT, zero reason not to bring him in earlier. Stubborn AFC conservative bullshit selection.

Some of these moves you might do if your in your window pushing for finals, zero reason to when rebuilding.

But but but he has played the kids - HE HAD NO CHOICE.

List management cut the old deadwood - Nicks has selected the oldest team available each and every week - let that sink in and we're meant to be in a rebuild.

Intriguing that you think he is solely responsible for selection and has no involvement with list management.

Not selecting a 2nd KPD- you realise that none of our options are really AFL quality right? We probably should have put an extra in last week, they realised that and did it this week. Doubt it will be the end of our defensive problems, the midfields lack of pressure is also not helping them.

Seed wasn't moved forward to accommodate mackay, he was moved forward because we had no forward options. Which youngsters do we rotate out? Cause you weren't happy with Thilthorpe being left out early... Hamill out this week but everyone loses it about that.

Frampton & Himmelberg are not up to it but they are part of the structure we play and have been kept in to protect Thilthorpe who people wanted rested last week, this week he will be rucking against the best ruck in the business.

On Lynch & Mcadam, if they and the medicos said they were right to play then he takes it on it's merit, they have since both missed games so...

Go have a cold shower

 

[skam85]

Don't you just love the one-and-done road trip to Perth for O'Connor?

There ya go mate, debut against a team we rarely beat away and then fu** right off back to the SANFL

Ben Davis likes this

 

[Murray2503]

You have set a very low bar if you reckon Nicks has improved our selection. Just this season he has

• Playing a clearly injured and hampered Tom Lynch
• Playing a clearly injured and hampered McAdam
• NOT selected a second tall defender for the last month
• Selecting a clearly injured and not ready Lynch as the medical sub
• Moving Seed forward to accommodate MacKay
• Not rotating the youngsters out for a spell to freshen them up
• The continual selection of Frampton - he is not a youngster he is 24 and is in his 7th year on an AFL list
• The delayed selection of RT, zero reason not to bring him in earlier. Stubborn AFC conservative bullshit selection.

Some of these moves you might do if your in your window pushing for finals, zero reason to when rebuilding.

But but but he has played the kids - HE HAD NO CHOICE.

List management cut the old deadwood - Nicks has selected the oldest team available each and every week - let that sink in and we're meant to be in a rebuild.

I would say he cares more about keeping his job than rebuilding. I think he has no confidence that the board will keep him on long term and this has resulted in minimizing defeat margin as his chief priority. Playing younger players doesn't fit in line with this goal. Unfortunately the longer he prolongs getting games into more kids the longer our rebuild will take. He is looking like a bad choice for a rebuilding side unfortunately.

My major concern is that some of the keys in our list for improvement will leave due to lack of opportunities further setting us back. Worrell and O'Connor most likely to look for opportunities elsewhere imo. What they are doing to Doedee is also wrong and although he seems committed he still hasn't signed yet.

 

[Scorpus]

You have set a very low bar if you reckon Nicks has improved our selection. Just this season he has

• Playing a clearly injured and hampered Tom Lynch
• Playing a clearly injured and hampered McAdam
• NOT selected a second tall defender for the last month
• Selecting a clearly injured and not ready Lynch as the medical sub
• Moving Seed forward to accommodate MacKay
• Not rotating the youngsters out for a spell to freshen them up
• The continual selection of Frampton - he is not a youngster he is 24 and is in his 7th year on an AFL list
• The delayed selection of RT, zero reason not to bring him in earlier. Stubborn AFC conservative bullshit selection.

Some of these moves you might do if your in your window pushing for finals, zero reason to when rebuilding.

But but but he has played the kids - HE HAD NO CHOICE.

List management cut the old deadwood - Nicks has selected the oldest team available each and every week - let that sink in and we're meant to be in a rebuild.

The coaches were justifying the selection of O'Connor, McAdam and Frampton last week on the basis they were all from WA and the game was played in WA

That is not a legitimate reason to select players

 

[CrowBloke]

Your post is almost as bad as the Crows selection policy

Your post is based on the assumption that they have a "selection policy" .
I reckon they've been using bits of paper/names/a hat.

 

[arsene wenger1]

Funny how those who defended Mackay getting another contract claimed it was only so he could help the first year players in the SANFL.

Now he's keeping McPherson and Hamill out of the side.

Classic Crows.

The more I think about it the more baffled I am.

How can we holt our rebuild and not play one of McPherson or Hamil instead of Mackay. Even Worrell for that matter

If he was a better player than the other 2 youngsters then I could understand

But he’s not even better than either of them at this stage of their careers

 

[Murray2503]

Your post is based on the assumption that they have a "selection policy" .
I reckon they've been using bits of paper/names/a hat.

The team is likely selected by those above Nick's and texted to him the day of selection.

 

[WeedsMullet84]

Funny how those who defended Mackay getting another contract claimed it was only so he could help the first year players in the SANFL.

Now he's keeping McPherson and Hamill out of the side.

Classic Crows.

It could be argued that they're both keeping themselves out of the side.

Both Hamill & McPherson have regressed this year.

 

[RoweyThePainter]

Is this the first time Lever has played against the Crows in Adelaide with a crowd?

Don't worry, we will be too busy booing our own players and coaches to worry about giving it to Jake.

 

[HarryCrow]

It could be argued that they're both keeping themselves out of the side.

Both Hamill & McPherson have regressed this year.

McPherson certainly shouldn't be in this conversation as hard done by not to be selected. He's been actively awful at times. I was a fan last year but he needs to recapture the class he showed.

 

[WeedsMullet84]

McPherson certainly shouldn't be in this conversation as hard done by not to be selected. He's been actively awful at times. I was a fan last year but he needs to recapture the class he showed.

Absolutely. It's a fine balance between getting games into emerging players, but you run the risk of rewarding them for consistently poor performances by simply picking them for the sake of it. Both McPherson and Hamill have gone backwards in their development. They've already been played for consecutive games whilst they've been under-performing, McKay being selected is not a reflection that he's playing astronomically better, it's that Hamill/McPherson are just playing SO bad as to not justify selection.

 

[Scorpus]

It's interesting how the standard of being "bad" and "going backwards" is applied differently to different players

 

[skam85]

View attachment 1132676

Numbnuts isn't even smart enough to delete his old post

 

[Anzacpaul]

 

[maxlilly]

T

I saw a guy with a BLK jumper number 14 on the back at a game once.



Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

ued
That's lucky, he is normally usight through the match

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Do we think that young players need to be good every single week in order to stay in the side?

 

[WeedsMullet84]

It's interesting how the standard of being "bad" and "going backwards" is applied differently to different players

Examples?

 

[WeedsMullet84]

Do we think that young players need to be good every single week in order to stay in the side?

Not every week, but consistently poor performances can't be rewarded. As mentioned above, it's a fine balance.

 

[Scorpus]

Examples?

The last 3.5 years of:

Tom Lynch
Rory Sloane
Taylor Walker

 

[HarryCrow]

Do we think that young players need to be good every single week in order to stay in the side?

Not 'good' maybe. I would class Hamill recently as 'not good' and i would probably have him ahead of Mackay but MacPherson has ventured into actively bad for weeks in a row and has not had the opportunity to go back (i would not have him as sub as it just continued his poor form with worse preparation).

 

[Bearded Clam]

Funny how those who defended Mackay getting another contract claimed it was only so he could help the first year players in the SANFL.

Now he's keeping McPherson and Hamill out of the side.

Classic Crows.

yep.. they gave us every excuse in the book as to why it would be ok for mookay to remain on the list..

”he’ll only play sanfl” was at the top of their list of their pathetic excuses.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Not every week, but consistently poor performances can't be rewarded. As mentioned above, it's a fine balance.

Agreed

If a young player puts in a 5-6 week stretch of poor performances that moves away from being just poor form and part of the normal ups and downs of being a young player to....

Maybe he's actually not that good and doesn't deserve a spot.

Dropping them in that case is fine.

The trouble is that we often give our young players 1-2 weeks tops. Or zero weeks in O'Connor's case.

Do we have the balls to back a young player in and ride out their teething problems?

I don't think we do and our approach will lead to us spinning our wheels rather than rebuilding.

 

[ltdamn]

Don't you just love the one-and-done road trip to Perth for O'Connor?

There ya go mate, debut against a team we rarely beat away and then fu** right off back to the SANFL

The best bit was in the video they put up where Nicks tells him he is going to debut he actually says to him 'consistency is what we want from you, just keep being consistent'

What ROC didn't realise is that or the AFC the definition of consistency means dropping players after 1 game and selecting David Mackay