Jack Fitzpatrick

[bac]

Any Dees fans let us know if he is close to selection, thought he was ok in the last game season. What's his future at the club been there a while without playing much and if he can't get a game at the moment in a pretty ordinary side.

 

[Tulip]

Any Dees fans let us know if he is close to selection, thought he was ok in the last game season. What's his future at the club been there a while without playing much and if he can't get a game at the moment in a pretty ordinary side.

Kicked 8 in the VFL over the last two weeks.

Should be playing at AFL level, and would be under a more competent coach at the selection table (Sellar was chosen to play over him this week, Spencer last week).

Remember he's had CFT and Diabates in the last few years.

 

[Bluelegs]

Any Dees fans let us know if he is close to selection, thought he was ok in the last game season. What's his future at the club been there a while without playing much and if he can't get a game at the moment in a pretty ordinary side.

Lets just say our selection committee is something that frustrates a lot of us on the dees board.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

Kicked 8 in the VFL over the last two weeks.

Should be playing at AFL level, and would be under a more competent coach at the selection table (Sellar was chosen to play over him this week, Spencer last week).

Remember he's had CFT and Diabates in the last few years.

While I don't necessarily disagree, you're like a broken record HFF. Knew exactly what your post was going to be the moment I saw the thread.

 

[Tulip]

While I don't necessarily disagree, you're like a broken record HFF. Knew exactly what your post was going to be the moment I saw the thread.

Of course you did, but I believe I'm right. We might just say goodbye to Neeld tomorrow and you and I will be back on the same page.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

Of course you did, but I believe I'm right. We might just say goodbye to Neeld tomorrow and you and I will be back on the same page.

I certainly don't think Neeld is the messiah or can do no wrong, and I agree with everyone that selection this week baffles me a bit, it's more that you don't miss any chance, major or minor, to sink the boots in and remind us all of how much you dislike Neeld.

I still think he needs time. Might be a bad analogy here but when Sir Alex Ferguson started out at United things were a little bumpy and, in 1990, was on the cusp of being fired if he didn't get a result against Nottingham Forest in the FA Cup. Neeld is no Ferguson but my point is that not every plan starts out perfectly. He needs more time.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

How does selection this week baffle anybody? Neelds tactics against expansion sides have ALWAYS included a tall, strong forward line which has a had fair bit of success.

Sellar was in the squad as a versatile option in case Dixon played, Dixon didn't play so now he'll get his chance up forward.

 

[Tulip]

How does selection this week baffle anybody? Neelds tactics against expansion sides have ALWAYS included a tall, strong forward line which has a had fair bit of success.

Sellar was in the squad as a versatile option in case Dixon played, Dixon didn't play so now he'll get his chance up forward.

Nobody said they were baffled.

Fitzpatrick has been in much better form in the VFL than Sellar has, it's ridiculous that he's playing unless he sits at full back.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

How does selection this week baffle anybody? Neelds tactics against expansion sides have ALWAYS included a tall, strong forward line which has a had fair bit of success.

Sellar was in the squad as a versatile option in case Dixon played, Dixon didn't play so now he'll get his chance up forward.

Cheap argument for it though. If we are playing a tall then you go with one in form, which has been Fitzpatrick. He may not be as strong as Sellar but he can take a contested mark and can jag a few goals. This week he deserves a chance as he should well and truly be ahead of someone like Sellar.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

No - if you're playing a tall defender you take Sellar.

Every day of the week.

Sellar would have come in as a tall defender to take Dixon.

Dixon goes out, and Neeld decides to play an extra tall forward.

Maybe Fitzpatrick would be deserving of a spot as a forward over Sellar, but he wasn't in the squad of 25 so there's nothing that could be done shy of faking an injury - and I'm not that desperate for Fitzy to get a game personally.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

No - if you're playing a tall defender you take Sellar.

Every day of the week.

Sellar would have come in as a tall defender to take Dixon.

Dixon goes out, and Neeld decides to play an extra tall forward.

Maybe Fitzpatrick would be deserving of a spot as a forward over Sellar, but he wasn't in the squad of 25 so there's nothing that could be done shy of faking an injury - and I'm not that desperate for Fitzy to get a game personally.

Why in God's name so we need Sellar to take Dixon if he was playing? Can't Frawley or McDonald do it? We don't need 4 of them down there. No idea why Sellar needs to be down there for it.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Why in God's name so we need Sellar to take Dixon if he was playing? Can't Frawley or McDonald do it? We don't need 4 of them down there. No idea why Sellar needs to be down there for it.

They also have Lynch and May.

Both far to strong for Garland, hence the need for Sellar.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

They also have Lynch and May.

Both far to strong for Garland, hence the need for Sellar.

Frawley to Dixon, McDonald to Lynch and Garland to May. Easy. We don't need Sellar down there, makes us far too tall. Fitzpatrick deserved a run to reward his form.

 

[Cannon82]

Our talls: Spencer, Frawley, McDonald, Garland, Dawes, Gawn, Sellar
Their talls: Smith, May, Lynch, Thompson, Murphy, Day, (Dixon if we're of the opinion he needed to be matched up on before we realised he was out)

Frawley, McDonald and Garland are right but the others aren't too mobile. Lynch looks a bit ponderous but I think the rest of GC's timber move pretty well. I'd rather have seen Fitzpatrick or another runner like Rodan in the team. Shouldn't be going cm for cm with the opposition instead of focusing on our own game and trying to get our game plan going, if that is the reason for Sellar's inclusion.

If I was a coach in a potentially career-defining game, I wouldn't be putting my life in Sellar's clumsy hands. Gutsy from Neeld if nothing else.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Frawley to Dixon, McDonald to Lynch and Garland to May. Easy. We don't need Sellar down there, makes us far too tall. Fitzpatrick deserved a run to reward his form.

The 99kg Steven May on the 91kg Garland?

Garland plays his best footy on mediums or more athletic talls.

It's perfectly sound reasoning, Sellar would have taken Lynch or May.

Garland to Stanley/Brown or someone along those lines.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

The 99kg Steven May on the 91kg Garland?

I'm sure Colin can handle himself. He's done it before. You're clutching at straws to justify his selection.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

I'm sure Colin can handle himself. He's done it before. You're clutching at straws to justify his selection.

No, I'm not - you're disregarding clear match up faults trying to show why Sellar was not needed.

Am I happy Sellar is in? No.

Do I see why Neeld has done it? Definitely.

Do I agree with it? Not sure.

Neelds always favored size and strength against the expansion teams - always.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

No, I'm not - you're disregarding clear match up faults trying to show why Sellar was not needed.

Am I happy Sellar is in? No.

Do I see why Neeld has done it? Definitely.

Do I agree with it? Not sure.

Neelds always favored size and strength against the expansion teams - always.

I'm not disregarding clear match ups at all. How often this season has Neeld played McDonald or Frawley on the big resting ruckman? Why didn't Sellar play against the Lions so he could combat the size of Leuenberger? Or Bellchambers when we played the Dons? There is no need for him in the side, even had Dixon played. At the very least one of the other talls backs goes for him as we are clearly going in too tall.

I'll answer no to all 3 questions above as well.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

I'm not disregarding clear match ups at all. How often this season has Neeld played McDonald or Frawley on the big resting ruckman? Why didn't Sellar play against the Lions so he could combat the size of Leuenberger? Or Bellchambers when we played the Dons? There is no need for him in the side, even had Dixon played. At the very least one of the other talls backs goes for him as we are clearly going in too tall.

I'll answer no to all 3 questions above as well.

Because Neeld thinks we can bully the expansion teams with extra height and strength.

He always has.

It didn't surprise me he picked Sellar, purely because of that.

I'm sure if Watts was playing he would have still picked Sellar.

It would not surprise me one bit to see Sellar out of the team next week unless he has a standout game.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

Because Neeld thinks we can bully the expansion teams with extra height and strength.

He always has.

It didn't surprise me he picked Sellar, purely because of that.

I'm sure if Watts was playing he would have still picked Sellar.

It would not surprise me one bit to see Sellar out of the team next week unless he has a standout game.

I'm bored of this. We'll have to agree to disagree.

But Sellar wasn't picked to bully GWS, so your argument there is not exactly water tight.

 

[Supermercado]

Because Neeld thinks we can bully the expansion teams with extra height and strength.

He always has.

At least he's got something consistently right!

 

[Dez!]

The 99kg Steven May on the 91kg Garland?

Garland plays his best footy on mediums or more athletic talls.

It's perfectly sound reasoning, Sellar would have taken Lynch or May.

Garland to Stanley/Brown or someone along those lines.

Weight doesn't equal strength, Garland's Inspector Gadget body evens out some of size difference.

 

[fushy]

height doesn't equal strength, Garland's Inspector Gadget body evens out some of size difference.

Good to know I am not the only who hears the inspector gadget tune in my head when garland has the ball

 

[PureFooty]

Jack Fitzpatrick is like Jake Spencer, except slower and lighter.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

Jack Fitzpatrick is like Jake Spencer, except slower and lighter.

Um.... what? Fitzy is quick for his size. Jake Spencer would be one of the slowest players on our list.