Preview Changes vs Port

[Golden_6]

Blaming the last two weeks losses on structure is like blaming the first two weeks losses on efficiency.

The structure is certainly wrong. Do you believe having an additional inexperienced tall on the bench is assisting the side? Is it the only reason why we’ve lost the last two weeks? Of course not.

In saying that, it’s a completely controllable aspect of the game that can be decided before the ball has even been bounced.

 

[Bald]

The structure is certainly wrong. Do you believe having an additional inexperienced tall on the bench is assisting the side? Is it the only reason why we’ve lost the last two weeks? Of course not.

In saying that, it’s a completely controllable aspect of the game that can be decided before the ball has even been bounced.

Life is filled with what ifs. No game is perfect and can always be improved but O’Donnell being in or out is largely irrelevant. There isn’t a fit player on our list that can do a job on Tom Stewart, and O’Donnell has had nothing to do with our kicking woes

 

[doggies ftw]

Blaming the last two weeks losses on structure is like blaming the first two weeks losses on efficiency.

So you think the structure helped us?

I’m seeing this a lot where people are getting hounded down for critiquing the structure or selections because hey we missed some easy goals so should have won anyway.

It’s really not that black and white.

There’s 10000 variables that go into winning or losing a game of footy right, down to the luck of the bounce of an oval shaped ball. Of course you will never get all of these in your favour, sometimes you may play well and convert poorly and lose, sometimes you may play poorly and convert well and win. All that’s expected is we give ourselves the best chance of as many of those thousands of variables going our way over the oppositions way.

Team selection and the structure of the side isn’t the be all and end all of winning or losing - no one is claiming that. But it’s one of the few variables you can significantly control and it absolutely is a contributing factor if you get it wrong and it means you have to make up for that somewhere else, poor team selection & structure (these two go hand in hand in regards to the previous two weeks) absolutely contributed to us losing both games, more so the GC game.

100% they were one factor in the loss, could we have won anyway if we kicked a bit better absolutely but that’s irrelevant, we still didn’t give ourselves the best opportunity to win because we shot ourselves in the foot on Thursday night.

The reason a lot of people are now pissed off is because it’s an all too common occurrence, this isn’t a once off. Yes we still have great wins, and do a lot of things really well under Bevo, but we’re making it difficult for ourselves when we get the fundamentals so very wrong so often before the ball is bounced.

So often you hear on here it’s “oh one player doesn’t change the result” “doesn’t matter if our worst player is Hannan or McComb” “doesn’t matter if we’re too tall, 1-2 players don’t make a difference” etc and sure, individually, that may be true. But when it’s compounded with other issues throughout a game ie converting poorly, more turnovers than usual, the luck of the bounce of the ball ffs it could be an issue.

Maybe if 1-2 of those things that went against us, went our way, we would have won? Maybe not

But at least controlling what we can control and getting team selection/structure right, that’s then not an issue that will compound on other issues throughout the game.

 

[Bald]

So you think the structure helped us?

I’m seeing this a lot where people are getting hounded down for critiquing the structure or selections because hey we missed some easy goals so should have won anyway.

It’s really not that black and white.

There’s 10000 variables that go into winning or losing a game of footy right, down to the luck of the bounce of an oval shaped ball. Of course you will never get all of these in your favour, sometimes you may play well and convert poorly and lose, sometimes you may play poorly and convert well and win. All that’s expected is we give ourselves the best chance of as many of those thousands of variables going our way over the oppositions way.

Team selection and the structure of the side isn’t the be all and end all of winning or losing - no one is claiming that. But it’s one of the few variables you can significantly control and it absolutely is a contributing factor if you get it wrong and it means you have to make up for that somewhere else, poor team selection & structure (these two go hand in hand in regards to the previous two weeks) absolutely contributed to us losing both games, more so the GC game.

100% they were one factor in the loss, could we have won anyway if we kicked a bit better absolutely but that’s irrelevant, we still didn’t give ourselves the best opportunity to win because we shot ourselves in the foot on Thursday night.

The reason a lot of people are now pissed off is because it’s an all too common occurrence, this isn’t a once off. Yes we still have great wins, and do a lot of things really well under Bevo, but we’re making it difficult for ourselves when we get the fundamentals so very wrong so often before the ball is bounced.

So often you hear on here it’s “oh one player doesn’t change the result” “doesn’t matter if our worst player is Hannan or McComb” “doesn’t matter if we’re too tall, 1-2 players don’t make a difference” etc and sure, individually, that may be true. But when it’s compounded with other issues throughout a game ie converting poorly, more turnovers than usual, the luck of the bounce of the ball ffs it could be an issue.

Maybe if 1-2 of those things that went against us, went our way, we would have won? Maybe not

But at least controlling what we can control and getting team selection/structure right, that’s then not an issue that will compound on other issues throughout the game.

I will read this in full later. I don’t have the time now.

I do think it’s important to remember that the reason we’ve lost the last two weeks is because of efficiency, not structure. You can always improve both and of course I’m not saying our structure is perfect, but I’d rather the focus be on what’s actually cost us games.

 

[dogwatch]

No issue with taking the punt occasionally. Biggs was a good example - only with us a few years and only a certain selection in 2016, but it was enough.

Problem is the number of players we’ve accumulated with no more upside. Think we will have a clean out. Generally I prefer looking to the lower leagues. Doesn’t always bear fruit but Dickson, Picko, Morris, Boyd etc were critical to the flag.

There was also Hamling who came good and no doubt a few more if we think long enough about it.

I don't mind us trying them out but as there is likely to be a high failure rate (maybe 50% or more) the sensible approach would be to recruit them on minimum term contracts whatever that might be - 6 months (MSD), 12 months or 24 months. They should be made to understand that as mature age picks they have to perform sooner rather than later.

The philosophy for these late picks should be to have high turnover and a rapid discard rate if they don't produce. My impression is we hang on to these low ceiling types for too long, hoping they might come good. Haven't gone back over the last 5-6 years to see if that's true but it certainly feels like it.

 

[hammo24]

Feels like we played Port about 2 weeks ago

we haven’t even played Gold Coast freo Geelong gws Carlton yet, weird from the AFL.

 

[pappy]

If you're Luke Cleary and overlooked for VDM tonight, you would have to be wondering what you have to do. I'm nervous with VDM at half back, no experience there, panicky with the ball....very lucky boy to be in tonight. a classic Bevo selection. Hope he does well but you would think he is in for a few weeks at least to test him out.

 

[HK_Bulldog]

I really liked Cleary’s ball use when he played last year. Wish he was in the side. Bruce or JOD should be out. I’d even drop Lobb if Bruce is fit enough to 2nd ruck.

 

[BEaston]

1 in 6 for speculative young players with some sort of upside is fine, 1 in 6 for mature aged 25yos from the state leagues is absolutely not okay.

If it was why would we bother? You don’t keep going back to mature aged battlers from the VFL to get one player with the very very low ceiling of a Scott. I’d suggest with these sort of picks your hit rate would have to be closer to 3 or even 4 out of every 5 becoming at least a competent depth role player. Otherwise don’t bother.

Which other club has that hit rate? None, id suggest.

Scott's "very low ceiling" is a best 22 player. Doesn't really make sense. You need these types of players, you can't just have superstars and project players.

 

[BEaston]

Scott is most definitely not a best 22 lock. He’s been adequate but is still two bad games away from being dropped (assuming there was someone to bring in). Last week he was as bad as anyone.

When was he last dropped? Agree to disagree. He's a lock when fit and has been for 2 years now.

 

[doggies ftw]

Which other club has that hit rate? None, id suggest.

Scott's "very low ceiling" is a best 22 player. Doesn't really make sense. You need these types of players, you can't just have superstars and project players.

Which other club has drafted 6 mature age 25yos from the VFL over about 3 seasons? None id suspect.

Again if you’re taking s**t campaigners from state leagues and going at 1 in 6 becoming a serviceable role player or even serviceable depth - you’re doing something wrong.

 

[Lee]

Scott been decent so fair I thought, especially as a winger going forward but he seemed to play off half back alot last night