Prediction Changes: Round 14 Vs Giants + prematch discussion

[apuchar]

Yes: timing. Until 2022, game time for young players was handed out on a silver platter coz we weren't good enough. Look at Liam Henry: he got 17 games in 2021 because a couple highlights a game at the time was enough for him to keep a spot coz potential. He's a better player now than he was in 2021, but game time is harder to come by because while he got a bit better, the team got much better. And that's for a dude competing for a spot on the wing, arguably our weakest position this season.

Sturt obviously would've got to 50 games if he stayed fit in 2020 and 2021 especially: in those 2 seasons he walks into the team on pure talent (plus in his few WAFL games in 2021 he killed it). But he didn't, and in that time Schultz, Freddy, Switta and Banfield all got better. (As a side note I also think the injuries have taken away some of that explosiveness that Sturt had).

We're currently not even fitting in a top 10 pick midfielder in 2021 who has played well in the WAFL and equipped himself well in his AFL games this season. Where do you think that leaves Sturt?

Good post. But it doesn't mean he isn't any good. We simply haven't given him enough opportunity to know one way or another. I don't think there is anything wrong with his pace. Body strength yes.

 

[FreoRicci]

Banfield sucks as the third tall


He just had his best form ever as a small with Amiss, Treacy and Dogga as the 3 talls

100%. Surely coaches realise this.
Can see Fyfe taking the third tall role, and Banfield does his thing.
Still think would’ve been an ideal chance for a debut for Reidy, Kuek or a full game for Corbett.

 

[Big Flappy]

It just really bothers me how Erasmus has been developed so far at the club. All last year too. Tossed around getting an odd game here and there or worse - being a regular sub. In for one game - drops for 3 then back in again.
How’s he meant to build consistency in his footy? If Sturt is indeed the sub that’s another weekend of footy gone for Ras.
Even if he is the sub - coming in 5 min before the end of Q3 isn’t ideal for an inexperienced 19 year old. A player like Brodie when he’s fit is an ideal sub, experienced and capable of making an impact immediately upon introduction in the midfield.

I want to see him ply 5-6 AFL games in a row, and rotate him between half forward and midfield. We heard Treacy this week speak (very well too) in an interview about how massive it has been for him to find the trust of the coaches and be backed in multiple weeks in a row, instead of constantly looking over his shoulder.

The fact is we NEED Neil Erasmus to become a high quality AFL player in order to win a flag in future. It’s as simple as that. We have a rubbish draft hand this year and limited scope to improve the list other than organic growth from within.

The flipside to such a small injury list

 

[Ysaye]

The flipside to such a small injury list

I think it is also:
(1) We have an overall young team and there is a concern not to have too many young players in it. This may have even contributed to Walters and Fyfe getting two year extensions just simply because even if they are on half a leg, their experience is valuable to the team. The flip side is that Fyfe in many ways is filling up a spot that would be Erasmus'.
(2) Another one is that they seem to have pegged Erasmus as first and foremost an inside midfielder with a bit of time forward of centre, which is amongst the group that we have the most people competing for only four spots - Serong and Brayshaw are shoe-ins, O'Meara and Fyfe bring experience, Johnson brings the size and skill balance that we need, which is also keeping Brodie out. I am surprised across the last two years they don't try Erasmus on a wing, because the modern day key requirements for a wing are endurance (for which Erasmus is Top 5 in the club) and positioning (again a strength of his) but I recognize he hasn't been training in that position which is a disadvantage. I am presuming they don't because they believe he WILL be a critical part of the inside midfield at some point soon.
(3) I think there is something else as well - I have heard Longmuir talk specifically about "managing" Erasmus' time (even before he was "dropped" this last time) - like what you would do with a player that is injured or is compromised in some way. I don't know what this about; he looks ready-ish to play and I don't think there are any questions on his endurance (maybe there is on his upper body strength).

Between (2) and (3) there seems to be seem very complex plan for his development.

 

[Alfonz]

I think it is also:
(1) We have an overall young team and there is a concern not to have too many young players in it. This may have even contributed to Walters and Fyfe getting two year extensions just simply because even if they are on half a leg, their experience is valuable to the team. The flip side is that Fyfe in many ways is filling up a spot that would be Erasmus'.
(2) Another one is that they seem to have pegged Erasmus as first and foremost an inside midfielder with a bit of time forward of centre, which is amongst the group that we have the most people competing for only four spots - Serong and Brayshaw are shoe-ins, O'Meara and Fyfe bring experience, Johnson brings the size and skill balance that we need, which is also keeping Brodie out. I am surprised across the last two years they don't try Erasmus on a wing, because the modern day key requirements for a wing are endurance (for which Erasmus is Top 5 in the club) and positioning (again a strength of his) but I recognize he hasn't been training in that position which is a disadvantage. I am presuming they don't because they believe he WILL be a critical part of the inside midfield at some point soon.
(3) I think there is something else as well - I have heard Longmuir talk specifically about "managing" Erasmus' time (even before he was "dropped" this last time) - like what you would do with a player that is injured or is compromised in some way. I don't know what this about; he looks ready-ish to play and I don't think there are any questions on his endurance (maybe there is on his upper body strength).

Between (2) and (3) there seems to be seem very complex plan for his development.

Erasmus was playing on a wing when he was in the side.

I think it is mostly #1. We have usually been the 2nd or 3rd least experienced team every week. I think it is clear they are hesitant to play Erasmus and Johnson in the same side at the moment.

 

[go_the_dockers]

This is the core issue with JL and the match committee that I have. They rarely go beyond the norm with player selections despite now being 6-6 with the majority of the team the same. There's no dare. Banfield does what exactly? Sturt show more promise. Henry? Get in someone who actually has desire.

I remember the crows a few years ago dropped players because they weren't the players to take them forward.

We offer those players 3 year deals.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I don't know what people are complaining about, we have no wing options atm. Worner has homework to do at Peel, Ras is not a winger and Stanley/Williams are not ready. I don't mind giving Henry another chance to build on his game. Also you are kidding yourselves if you thought Sturt wouldn't come out for Walters. If Sturt is made sub than my b22 for this round is 100% correct.

I still don't know where Henry should play?
If he is picked as a winger it makes a bit of sense.

 

[StingBitten]

Selections this year have been trash and are costing us games.

It was all said before re Erasmus and Sturt coming in, out, as emergencies (not playing at all).

At least Lyon stuck with Brayshaw every game for his last 2 years as coach. Consistent development is essential.

 

[SupermanCapes]

nah, I just think there's some people who hate him regardless

This is reductive and not a little offensive. Everyone who posts on here wants the team to win and have sustained success.

Banfield had two touches and was subbed out in a game we lost by a small margin and holds his spot because he played well over the past 4 weeks after being given 8 weeks of rope.

Sturt has never been given more than 2 games in a row of being mediocre. He was far from our worst forward against Richmond yet still immediately gets the boot.

If a run of games and not having to worry about your spot has allowed Banfield to flourish why wouldn't we try that with Sam too?

 

[arsesmart]

Selections this year have been trash and are costing us games.

It was all said before re Erasmus and Sturt coming in, out, as emergencies (not playing at all).

At least Lyon stuck with Brayshaw every game for his last 2 years as coach. Consistent development is essential.

If our win/loss is so volatile as to hinge on the selection/nonselection of fringe players, wouldn't that logically suggest that fringe selection decisions you don't agree with might then be winning us games?

 

[Footskill]

I think it is also:
(1) We have an overall young team and there is a concern not to have too many young players in it. This may have even contributed to Walters and Fyfe getting two year extensions just simply because even if they are on half a leg, their experience is valuable to the team. The flip side is that Fyfe in many ways is filling up a spot that would be Erasmus'.
(2) Another one is that they seem to have pegged Erasmus as first and foremost an inside midfielder with a bit of time forward of centre, which is amongst the group that we have the most people competing for only four spots - Serong and Brayshaw are shoe-ins, O'Meara and Fyfe bring experience, Johnson brings the size and skill balance that we need, which is also keeping Brodie out. I am surprised across the last two years they don't try Erasmus on a wing, because the modern day key requirements for a wing are endurance (for which Erasmus is Top 5 in the club) and positioning (again a strength of his) but I recognize he hasn't been training in that position which is a disadvantage. I am presuming they don't because they believe he WILL be a critical part of the inside midfield at some point soon.
(3) I think there is something else as well - I have heard Longmuir talk specifically about "managing" Erasmus' time (even before he was "dropped" this last time) - like what you would do with a player that is injured or is compromised in some way. I don't know what this about; he looks ready-ish to play and I don't think there are any questions on his endurance (maybe there is on his upper body strength).

Between (2) and (3) there seems to be seem very complex plan for his development.

Good post.

I think 'managing' the development of young players is important. In regards to Ras this may also be the way he plays is physical game in tackling and getting in and under, which may make him susceptible to injuries or burnout. Going against mature big bodies week in week out would take a toll

Most young players are chomping at the bits and if possible would play every game if it was up to them

 

[s_wd6]

Selections this year have been trash and are costing us games.

It was all said before re Erasmus and Sturt coming in, out, as emergencies (not playing at all).

At least Lyon stuck with Brayshaw every game for his last 2 years as coach. Consistent development is essential.

There is not a single loss this year that we would have won with Sturt in the side. Erasmus you could argue, because even when he’s not touching the ball he’s still impacting the contest.

Sturt has had five years in the system. He’s not the messiah

 

[arsesmart]

This is reductive and not a little offensive. Everyone who posts on here wants the team to win and have sustained success.

Banfield had two touches and was subbed out in a game we lost by a small margin and holds his spot because he played well over the past 4 weeks after being given 8 weeks of rope.

Sturt has never been given more than 2 games in a row of being mediocre. He was far from our worst forward against Richmond yet still immediately gets the boot.

If a run of games and not having to worry about your spot has allowed Banfield to flourish why wouldn't we try that with Sam too?

I think it's fair claim to make that some people have a set against Banfield (and have a set for player X) and will be more swayed by their feelings about it, rather than be open to alternative evidence. It's not at all reductive and not sure why it would be objectively offensive.

If they had been overly definitive and universal and said "everybody" and "all unfavourable opinions" say, that would be, I guess, somewhat reductive and definitely highly emotional in origin.

 

[Boppo]

Ras in is a good call. If we don’t win on the inside this will be a tough road trip.

 

[Footskill]

I think it's fair claim to make that some people have a set against Banfield (and have a set for player X) and will be more swayed by their feelings about it, rather than be open to alternative evidence. It's not at all reductive and not sure why it would be objectively offensive.

If they had been overly definitive and universal and said "everybody" and "all unfavourable opinions" say, that would be, I guess, somewhat reductive and definitely highly emotional in origin.

Agree. Not all, but some.

It's to do with thinking Banfield is the one taking Sturts position in the team. They think potential overrides anything else. That Sturt has skills whereas banners has zero except hard work. Guess consistently kicking those snap goals doesn't require skill. Look at Freddy, snapped on weekend and kicked it out on the full

You have posts throughout this season saying I hope we lose as they don't agree with the team selection, just so they can say I told you so.

Touch wood, we don't lose this week, but I told you so will come out lol

 

[FreoRicci]

Selections this year have been trash and are costing us games.

It was all said before re Erasmus and Sturt coming in, out, as emergencies (not playing at all).

At least Lyon stuck with Brayshaw every game for his last 2 years as coach. Consistent development is essential.

The depth was thin.
De Boer, Suban, Barlow, Blakely was considered scrap heap.
Brayshaw was gifted the midfield spot.
First two picks inside top 5 in years.
Of course Brayshaw got games.
Erasmus is different.
Really think it’s a choice between him and Johnson.
What’s really annoying is Henry is chosen because he has been in the system a year or so longer. That’s crap. Erasmus should at least be in line or ahead of him on current form.

 

[FreoRicci]

This is reductive and not a little offensive. Everyone who posts on here wants the team to win and have sustained success.

Banfield had two touches and was subbed out in a game we lost by a small margin and holds his spot because he played well over the past 4 weeks after being given 8 weeks of rope.

Sturt has never been given more than 2 games in a row of being mediocre. He was far from our worst forward against Richmond yet still immediately gets the boot.

If a run of games and not having to worry about your spot has allowed Banfield to flourish why wouldn't we try that with Sam too?

Banfield went from being a medium foward in a three tall foward line to being the third forward himself.
He sucks in that position. It’s a different role altogether.
The sooner Darcy gets back the better. Jackson come back into that forward line.

 

[SupermanCapes]

I think it's fair claim to make that some people have a set against Banfield (and have a set for player X) and will be more swayed by their feelings about it, rather than be open to alternative evidence. It's not at all reductive and not sure why it would be objectively offensive.

If they had been overly definitive and universal and said "everybody" and "all unfavourable opinions" say, that would be, I guess, somewhat reductive and definitely highly emotional in origin.

I think the post works to effectively reduce the variety of positions and arguments that have been made in the past for Banfield not holding his spot to "they hate him" and so is the definition of reductive. It was also directly in response to someone providing a reasonable suggestion as to why some posters have argued for Banfield to be dropped, or even just for Sturt to hold his spot.

It's offensive because it creates the impression that anyone who mentions dropping Bailey Banfield just mindlessly hates the kid.

Side note too, but offence isn't an objective standard.

 

[SupermanCapes]

Banfield went from being a medium foward in a three tall foward line to being the third forward himself.
He sucks in that position. It’s a different role altogether.
The sooner Darcy gets back the better. Jackson come back into that forward line.

So I suppose the question then is why we would play Bailey in a position we know he's bad at? It's a bit like if we continued to play Henry on the HFF and were then surprised when he has no impact on the game.

 

[FreoRicci]

So I suppose the question then is why we would play Bailey in a position we know he's bad at? It's a bit like if we continued to play Henry on the HFF and were then surprised when he has no impact on the game.

The coaches think he can cope or adapt. Fyfe ended up being the third by the second quarter, who I thought struggled as well in that role.
There’s players to choose from- Kuek, Corbett, Reidy- for structure for a game or two.

 

[SiempreFreo]

I think it is also:
(1) We have an overall young team and there is a concern not to have too many young players in it. This may have even contributed to Walters and Fyfe getting two year extensions just simply because even if they are on half a leg, their experience is valuable to the team. The flip side is that Fyfe in many ways is filling up a spot that would be Erasmus'.
(2) Another one is that they seem to have pegged Erasmus as first and foremost an inside midfielder with a bit of time forward of centre, which is amongst the group that we have the most people competing for only four spots - Serong and Brayshaw are shoe-ins, O'Meara and Fyfe bring experience, Johnson brings the size and skill balance that we need, which is also keeping Brodie out. I am surprised across the last two years they don't try Erasmus on a wing, because the modern day key requirements for a wing are endurance (for which Erasmus is Top 5 in the club) and positioning (again a strength of his) but I recognize he hasn't been training in that position which is a disadvantage. I am presuming they don't because they believe he WILL be a critical part of the inside midfield at some point soon.
(3) I think there is something else as well - I have heard Longmuir talk specifically about "managing" Erasmus' time (even before he was "dropped" this last time) - like what you would do with a player that is injured or is compromised in some way. I don't know what this about; he looks ready-ish to play and I don't think there are any questions on his endurance (maybe there is on his upper body strength).

Between (2) and (3) there seems to be seem very complex plan for his development.

Like your analysis (not least for nailing ‘shoe-in’ ) - & would seem to support recent JL comments that Ras was someone ‘recruited straight from Hale’. Maybe there are developmental concerns based on other younguns’ experience - maybe the cautions of Merriman?

 

[rgauci]

J

The coaches think he can cope or adapt. Fyfe ended up being the third by the second quarter, who I thought struggled as well in that role.
There’s players to choose from- Kuek, Corbett, Reidy- for structure for a game or two.

Absolutely spot on.

Jackson, Jye, Treacy - elite

Treacy, Jye, Fyfe / Banfield / Sturt - not elite

Unfortunately

Treacy, Jye, Sturt / Kuek / Reidy - probably not elite either.

Banfield - 4th tall / pressure mid sized forward - very good.
Banfield - 3rd tall, not very good.

Fyfe - inside mid, average, forward - poor.

We are really really missing Sean Darcy and to a lesser extent Lloyd Meek who would have filled in really really nicely for this stretch of games. We should have taken Sam Naismith in the mid season draft.

 

[Footskill]

So I suppose the question then is why we would play Bailey in a position we know he's bad at? It's a bit like if we continued to play Henry on the HFF and were then surprised when he has no impact on the game.

Probably because that's not his preferred role, but still offers that flexibility he can if needed, like when missing the triple J structure that has served us well

It would also assume that Fyfe would also rotate in there, and with jom out last week he was perhaps playing more minutes in the middle

Also if opp have three quality tall defenders we will struggle. If not, we may get by

Not sure Fyfe wants be crashing packs in forward line too much with his injuries

 

[rgauci]

I also forgot Taberner. Either Tabs or Meek would be very handy for times that any of JJJ and D are injured. Sucks right now.

 

[Footskill]

I also forgot Taberner. Either Tabs or Meek would be very handy for times that any of JJJ and D are injured. Sucks right now.

Hmm but you think tabs be good. I can see people reverting back to the argument that tabs in the team will get in the way of amiss lol