Autopsy Freo defeated by Sydney by less than 100!

[Scham]

It's going to be tough to make it in this league and not have kicking as part of your skill set.

But that aside, don't entirely disagree with you. Like I said, I'd have him in. But would he really have helped? I don't think so. He may have even hindered. If he took Mundy out of the middle at times it may have been a net loss because, and contrary to your implication, Mundy was probably the only midfielder who won his own ball and delivered with precision and purpose - not always of course, but by far more than any other player on the day.

I know everybody likes that new car smell of a young player that's showing heaps. I love Blakely to bits and think he should play as much as possible while looking after his development etc., but I'm with Ross in terms of that particular question.

Of course, we're dealing with complete hypothetical, so there's no definitive right answer, I accept that. But from where I see it Blakely would have made little overall difference to the real and numerous problems on the day.

He was replaced by De Boer though. Do you think De Boer was more effective than Connor would have been? Hypothetical I know but at least Mundy wouldn't have had to play such a lone hand in the middle and whilst Blakely's kicking isn't precise, nor is De Boers and at least Blakely has penetration on his kicking

 

[freoextra]

We started giving young guys ago when it was clear our season was already gone. We played the oldest team in the comp in the NAB comp. I remember quite clearly that a lot of people were bemoaning our extremely conservative team selection for round 1, which was basically last year's prelim team minus the injured players.

Gu and Clancee both played round 1, for example. Gu was dropped round 2 but came back in round 3 (along with De Boer) when Clancee did his hammy. Up to that point, only Weller and Langdon had gotten a game this season, and Taberner had already been dropped.

So those saying that we've been playing the kids this season are forgetting that we only started to do it when we started racking up losses and injuries and it was clear that the season was a write-off.

Your right, Lyon is very conservative with new players and prefers to bank on players that are well drilled in their role. I think he is fundamentally correct that a well drilled team is more likely to win than a team that is giving young players a go, but I hope this year will remind him that he should be a bit more open to young players being given a go for longer periods than he has in the past. It is a balancing act of course.

 

[PapaJ]

He was replaced by De Boer though. Do you think De Boer was more effective than Connor would have been? Hypothetical I know but at least Mundy wouldn't have had to play such a lone hand in the middle and whilst Blakely's kicking isn't precise, nor is De Boers and at least Blakely has penetration on his kicking

Yes. I did think that just after I posted. I thought DeBoer around the contest was OK in parts, in the first half particularly. I also saw that he wasn't used enough when he was there - perhaps just not used to his presence on the field or something. Players didn't seem to go to him when he would have been able to clear.

But to answer your question. Yeah, it's not hard to see how Blakely may have given us a bit more drive from the middle ahead of DeBoer.

 

[WilloTree]

He's a senior assistant so I'd say so

Thanks. I was kind of looking forward to Hale doing some work with Griff/Clarke/Hannath. He use to get up and down the ground well, and mark the ball in dangerous spots. Doesn't seem like a lot of that has rubbed off yet. Maybe early days, but our forward line has the structure of an Esher painting.

 

[PapaJ]

Thanks. I was kind of looking forward to Hale doing some work with Griff/Clarke/Hannath. He use to get up and down the ground well, and mark the ball in dangerous spots. Doesn't seem like a lot of that has rubbed off yet. Maybe early days, but our forward like has the structure of an Esher painting.

I get you entirely. I thought the same thing.

Hale was nothing special as a footballer. I mean he was solid, but he wasn't overly athletic (something much desired these days), he wasn't freaky big like Sandi, his skills were good, but not great ... but he really knew how find space on the field and how to be a dangerous player fwd of centre. He was always good for a goal or two in a big game because he'd put himself in the right spot at the right time.

I was really hoping (almost assuming) he'd impart some of that ability. Hasn't been the case unfortunately.

 

[Proud SJW]

Their list is worse than ours and they've played better than us all year. No one even the staunchest Carlton supporters would've predicted any more than 4 wins for them this season. All of the wooden spoon talk was a toss up between Essn, Bris and Carlton.

They've lost their last 3 games against Sydney, Hawthorn and WCE by a total of 28 pts across the 3 games. We just lost to Sydney on our home ground in Pavs 350th by 90 pts! The difference is they're playing to a plan and structure.

You said a new game plan can't be adopted in one preseason but the fact remains that Carlton ARE playing to a totally new game plan and they were from round 1.

I don't get why some people have trouble admitting they're wrong.

I never said a team couldn't adopt a completely new game plan in one preseason, I merely said it was difficult and no one really expected a team to be able to do it successfully. Very few teams have.

Your example of a team that has is Carlton, who are currently sitting at number 15 on a ladder of 18. Apparently Carlton are a valid example because they've had several close losses to top teams and are currently playing better than we are, even if they do have the advantage of having a significantly less injured team than we do. Which was, you know, a fair bit of the original conversation - which you're now completely ignoring because it doesn't suit your point.

On the strength of all this, being Carlton playing with close to a full squad and having succesfully adapted to a new gameplan, the two things combined of which have resulted in them sitting, and I repeat myself here, at number 15 on a ladder of 18 teams (which, to be fair, they've achieved including a couple of close and honourable losses to top teams), you accuse me of not wanting to admit I'm wrong.

If the best you can do to refute me is a near full strength Carlton achieving 6 wins so far this season,
It's a bit difficult to know what to say, really.

I suppose it's good to see you've at least apparently given up on the idea that we're only playing the kids because of injuries, and have found something new to argue about.

 

[Scham]

Thanks. I was kind of looking forward to Hale doing some work with Griff/Clarke/Hannath. He use to get up and down the ground well, and mark the ball in dangerous spots. Doesn't seem like a lot of that has rubbed off yet. Maybe early days, but our forward line has the structure of an Esher painting.

Yeah, agreed. From what I've seen, heard and read, Hale and Guerra have been very much eased into their roles at the club especially Hale who hasn't coached before at this level.

Here's hoping they each get a bigger role next year. From my limited knowledge of them, I'd go something like;

Defence: Guerra
Midfield/Stoppage: Rock and Stone
Ruck/Forward: Eastaugh and Hale

Webb gets demoted back to either a development role or Peel coach.

Prior takes the Claremont job.

Sumich and Hayden stay as is.

 

[armpit]

That game. You were brave to get down and nut it out. It was testament to the quality of the great man though.

 

[Scham]

I never said a team couldn't adopt a completely new game plan in one preseason, I merely said it was difficult and no one really expected a team to be able to do it successfully. Very few teams have.

Your example of a team that has is Carlton, who are currently sitting at number 15 on a ladder of 18. Apparently Carlton are a valid example because they've had several close losses to top teams and are currently playing better than we are, even if they do have the advantage of having a significantly less injured team than we do. Which was, you know, a fair bit of the original conversation - which you're now completely ignoring because it doesn't suit your point.

On the strength of all this, being Carlton playing with close to a full squad and having succesfully adapted to a new gameplan, the two things combined of which have resulted in them sitting, and I repeat myself here, at number 15 on a ladder of 18 teams (which, to be fair, they've achieved including a couple of close and honourable losses to top teams), you accuse me of not wanting to admit I'm wrong.

If the best you can do to refute me is a near full strength Carlton achieving 6 wins so far this season,
It's a bit difficult to know what to say, really.

I suppose it's good to see you've at least apparently given up on the idea that we're only playing the kids because of injuries, and have found something new to argue about.

You need to watch more footy fella. Carltons list is a complete rabble. Even with all of our injuries our list is on a par with theirs and you scoff at their 6 wins but apparently our 3 is ok? And we're the reigning minor premiers! And 90 point floggings are ok to you because we had to alter our game plan and you didn't expect that to be possible.

On the weekend we still had A graders Mundy, Neale, Walters and maybe Pav (maybe not). Carlton is playing with 2 maybe 3. Cripps, Kruezer and maybe Gibbs. Even at full strength they've got 4 and that's stretching it. We've played most of the season with many more and we got taken to the cleaners in the early rounds with a near full strength team. So injuries and game plan changes are no excuse.

And btw, when have I argued about us only playing the kids because of injuries?

 

[ydraw]

Not true. Go to AFL.com.au and have a look at the team selections by week.

I have, and it is true. Take a look at our selections for the first 4 rounds and tell me we were playing the kids.

 

[Proud SJW]

I have, and it is true. Take a look at our selections for the first 4 rounds and tell me we were playing the kids.

How about you take a look at the entire season instead of just a small sample that suits you?

 

[Proud SJW]

You need to watch more footy fella. Carltons list is a complete rabble.

Dude... seriously. You were the one who brought up Carlton, as an example of a team which has adapted to a completely new gameplan. Post #164, Scham.
Try all you like, you are not going to convince me that Carlton is a team which has adapted to a completely new gameplan, and now you're just making it worse by telling me they only have 6 wins because their list is crap.
Well... duh.

I didn't say 90 point floggings were ok, I didn't say our 3 wins are ok, I was scoffing at Carltons 6 wins (like most people)... Basically, I haven't said half the crap you're claiming I have.
So if you're going to come back, come back with something I've actually said, as opposed to your political speech writer bullshit, and have your bloody dictionary handy so you can check word meanings and wotnot before you dive in blind.

Oh, and by the way... you were one of the ones last year arguing that we didn't deserve to be top of the table because we were playing like crap. So, you know... you're going to have to come down on that one one way or the other, instead of just claiming we were either good or bad in 2015 to suit whatever argument you're trying to make.

 

[ydraw]

How about you take a look at the entire season instead of just a small sample that suits you?

Because the rest of the season was when we'd already conceded that this season was a writeoff and the injuries to our senior players and our 0-4 start meant we had no chance of making the finals.

Something I made abundantly clear in my original post.

 

[Lach72]

I get you entirely. I thought the same thing.

Hale was nothing special as a footballer. I mean he was solid, but he wasn't overly athletic (something much desired these days), he wasn't freaky big like Sandi, his skills were good, but not great ... but he really knew how find space on the field and how to be a dangerous player fwd of centre. He was always good for a goal or two in a big game because he'd put himself in the right spot at the right time.

I was really hoping (almost assuming) he'd impart some of that ability. Hasn't been the case unfortunately.

Perhaps its the players.

Quite noticeable that Yarran has the ability to do all of that

 

[couldhavebeen]

WTF. Scott left years ago. 2012 up until this season we have had one of the best midfields running around. You don't get to multiple top 4 finishes and a GF getting smashed in centre clearances. Losing our prime movers through injury and Kirk as the mid coach would be the reason. Scott leaving has nothing to do with it.

Sorry Salim but we have consistently lost the midfield clearances since Scott left . Fyfe covered a lot of holes and we have seen how big these holes are without him in the team.
Suban, De Boer,D Pearce ,Neale ,Barlow,Hill ,Walter's Blakley Griffin ,Hannath , Clarke and Ballas have all been played there but none could be considered A grade .Fyfe and Mundy have been up until this year but the rest are B grade or even C grade at best.
Scott put together our best group and our best structures .Kirk was a very good mentor but not as a mid field tactician

 

[salim malik]

Sorry Salim but we have consistently lost the midfield clearances since Scott left . Fyfe covered a lot of holes and we have seen how big these holes are without him in the team.
Suban, De Boer,D Pearce ,Neale ,Barlow,Hill ,Walter's Blakley Griffin ,Hannath , Clarke and Ballas have all been played there but none could be considered A grade .Fyfe and Mundy have been up until this year but the rest are B grade or even C grade at best.
Scott put together our best group and our best structures .Kirk was a very good mentor but not as a mid field tactician

Sorry mate Scott is yesterdays news at Freo. He was at Freo 5 years ago. Scott's tactics did not get us into prelims or GF'S. That was Kirk and Stone. We miss Kirk and Stone needs to get back to what he does best.

 

[Proud SJW]

Because the rest of the season was when we'd already conceded that this season was a writeoff and the injuries to our senior players and our 0-4 start meant we had no chance of making the finals.

Something I made abundantly clear in my original post.

Well, that's the theory anyway.
Of course, it completely ignores the fact that it was mostly the young kids who were injured anyway up until that point (and many of them still are), that it wasn't until round five that Fyfe and Johnson went down, that they weren't replaced by the usual suspects, and we'd already been playing Weller, Taberner, Langdon and A Pearce in the first four rounds, and that the only time you can really say that the usual suspects were brought in to replace anyone was in round three - where De Boer had his first game, Mzungu his second, and who did they replace? Oh, Right. Clancee. and Mundy.
Incidentally, both De Boer and Gu were ommitted in round four and have hardly been seen since, and neither has Clancee, who'd only played two games up until round 5.

What's clear to me is that the young players were being played in rotation right from the start, and De Boer, Gu, and C Pearce were only playing one game in three, on average. That's a fairly normal rotation of new players that you'd see at any club, especially given the injuries to Yarran, Bennell, Morabito and Apeness (etc) prior to round one, who were the logical players you'd expect to see more of in a new season.

We got screwed before the first ball was bounced in round one.
I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt and say Freo had every intention of making come wholesale changes at the start of the season, but we got fairly screwed before the first bounce and had to make adjustments - "The best-laid schemes o' mice and men", and all that, and that it's your rather defeatist theory in play rather than reality. My bet that if it hadn't been for those four above going down before the season even started, we'd hardly have seen anything of the usual suspects at all.

 

[Purpletown]

Yeah, agreed. From what I've seen, heard and read, Hale and Guerra have been very much eased into their roles at the club especially Hale who hasn't coached before at this level.


Defence: Guerra
Midfield/Stoppage: Rock and Stone
Ruck/Forward: Eastaugh and Hale

Webb gets demoted back to either a development role or Peel coach.

Prior takes the Claremont job.

Sumich and Hayden stay as is.

Had to have a laugh when I realised this pair work together. All set in stone or caught between a rock and a hard place might be the problem.

 

[Fred Ziffel]

Had to have a laugh when I realised this pair work together. All set in stone or caught between a rock and a hard place might be the problem.

Well spotted Mark Anthony.

 

[couldhavebeen]

Sorry mate Scott is yesterdays news at Freo. He was at Freo 5 years ago. Scott's tactics did not get us into prelims or GF'S. That was Kirk and Stone. We miss Kirk and Stone needs to get back to what he does best.

It was Scott that put the midfield of giants together and he also drew up the midfield tactics that started us on the ladder climb . The midfield has not improved since he left it's gone backwards

 

[salim malik]

It was Scott that put the midfield of giants together and he also drew up the midfield tactics that started us on the ladder climb . The midfield has not improved since he left it's gone backwards

Rubbish,the prime movers are out injured.

 

[Mudd]

I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt and say Freo had every intention of making come wholesale changes at the start of the season, but we got fairly screwed before the first bounce and had to make adjustments - "The best-laid schemes o' mice and men", and all that, and that it's your rather defeatist theory in play rather than reality. My bet that if it hadn't been for those four above going down before the season even started, we'd hardly have seen anything of the usual suspects at all.

It's a nice narrative and one that I could go along with if we pretended that pre season didn't exist.

Mzungu and Clancee played every single NAB game, how can you keep a straight face when suggesting that they were always going to be "one game in three" players this season for us?

We got screwed before the first ball was bounced in round one.

Agreed, but it wasn't by injuries.

 

[Proud SJW]

It's a nice narrative and one that I could go along with if we pretended that pre season didn't exist.

I pretty much do every year. At the very least, I don't take it very seriously, and use it as insight into opposition teams even less.

Mzungu and Clancee played every single NAB game, how can you keep a straight face when suggesting that they were always going to be "one game in three" players this season for us?

Because that's pretty much whats happened, even with all of our injuries, from round one. Including the injuries to the young players who were probably originally planned to become stalwarts this season, whom they haven't replaced.

In fact, games played this year:
Tendai Mzungu
2016 - 5 (1, 3, 8, 17 & 18)
Clancee Pearce
2016 - 4 (1, 2, 8 & 9)
Nick Suban
2016 - 15 games (incl rounds 1-4)
Matt De Boer
2016 - 3 (3, 10, 19)

None of them other than Suban played round five, which is where we lost Fyfe and Johnson.

So basically, if we only count the first four rounds, which is your argument - they've played a combined total of 9 out of a possible 16 among all four of them.
Remove Suban from the equation, and we get 5 out of a possible 12 games played from 3 players.
IOW, they're averaging playing every 2.5 games or thereabouts. From rounds one to four.
So yeah, you keep rabbiting on about the NAB cup then, if you like.

Suban is the outlier who makes it look like they're playing more. And on that point, I can't see any reason for that either - unless you count availability... or possibly even this:
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-08-...es-as-likely-trade-target-for-victorian-clubs

So, I'm terribly sorry mate, but your assertions just aren't stacking up.

Anyway, aren't you doing exactly the same thing, except in reverse? Saying with complete certainty that our youth is only being played this season due to injuries is not only assumption, its arguably also demonstrably false. At best, you can argue that some of them have had more opportunity than they would have otherwise, which is... well, yeah, and?
I mean s**t man, I've got my doubts about things as much as nearly everyone else - for all you know, I might be just playing devils advocate to your constant negative crybaby bullshit. Or I might not.
But I'm certainly not going to buy into bullshit when there's enough in the way of real issues to be worried about.

Thing is, if both of us can make an outright statement and neither one can back it up in all certainty, then only one aspect remains - you're doing so from the negative side, and I'm doing it from the (sort of) positive.
It's been a pretty rough season. I only wonder exactly what it is you think you're trying to do. You're certainly not making anyone feel any better, and your version of the truth is as much (if not more) speculation as anyone else's. Given that, the logical conclusion is that you're just a troll, really.

Agreed, but it wasn't by injuries.

Well, we really don't know that, do we. I believe we would have seen Bennell and Yarran from the beginning, possibly Apeness too. But we aren't going to know now, so you're free to ... speculate.

 

[Proud SJW]

But to answer your question. Yeah, it's not hard to see how Blakely may have given us a bit more drive from the middle ahead of DeBoer.

Blakely's played every game from round 6 onwards bar round 15.
It could be something as simple as the kid needing a rest in his first (near) full season of football. Weller's been looking a bit thin lately too.
There are times when the simple answer is often the correct one, you know.

Also, you could look at it this way:

2014 - De Boer plays nearly every game, Blakely... who?
2015 - De Boer plays nearly every game, Blakely is given a run every now and then.
2016 - Blakely plays nearly every game, De Boer is given a run every now and then.

Perspective, man.

 

[Mudd]

Anyway, aren't you doing exactly the same thing, except in reverse? Saying with complete certainty that our youth is only being played this season due to injuries is not only assumption, its arguably also demonstrably false. At best, you can argue that some of them have had more opportunity than they would have otherwise, which is... well, yeah, and?
I mean s**t man, I've got my doubts about things as much as nearly everyone else - for all you know, I might be just playing devils advocate to your constant negative crybaby bullshit. Or I might not.
But I'm certainly not going to buy into bullshit when there's enough in the way of real issues to be worried about.

Thing is, if both of us can make an outright statement and neither one can back it up in all certainty, then only one aspect remains - you're doing so from the negative side, and I'm doing it from the (sort of) positive.
It's been a pretty rough season. I only wonder exactly what it is you think you're trying to do. You're certainly not making anyone feel any better, and your version of the truth is as much (if not more) speculation as anyone else's. Given that, the logical conclusion is that you're just a troll, really.

I'm not sure why you have felt the need to start slinging personal attacks, if you can't discuss these types of topics without losing your cool it's probably best to leave them alone.

I've backed up my opinion with facts, I don't think there's much more point in discussing this as we aren't getting anywhere.