Positives from Round 1 ?

[Mad Dog]

My theory there is Macleod has to get back to being the ball hunter not the ball receiver - much more difficult to tag a hunter.

and this is where I start to question Maccas committment and the way he is being used....

I agree 100% with asking him to hunt the ball instead of receiving.

The reason Voss, Buckley, Judd, and Macca of old break tags is because they run run run all day instead of trying to finness on the attackiing side of a stoppage..........I think it could solve a few problems

- it gets him back on the ball instead of standing at HF swapping manly stories with Stinger all day.....

- it opens a spot at HF for Stiff's boy Ladhams

- Shirley is not required as the designated tagger

If that fails Iwould put him head to head with their ball winner.......I know that causes a bit of a dance with players trying to get on to others.....but hell - it's got to be better than 11 possies from a flank....

 

[WaynesWorld19]

No doubt and one of the main reasons NC is not picking him is because his defensive pressure especially playing a a forward is not up to it.

I don't know what other solution we have for a crumber. Its painful watching ball hit the ground and there is no one there for the crumbs. This is Ladhams' bread and butter.

Your namesake?

 

[WaynesWorld19]

and this is where I start to question Maccas committment and the way he is being used....

I agree 100% with asking him to hunt the ball instead of receiving.

The reason Voss, Buckley, Judd, and Macca of old break tags is because they run run run all day instead of trying to finness on the attackiing side of a stoppage..........I think it could solve a few problems

- it gets him back on the ball instead of standing at HF swapping manly stories with Stinger all day.....

- it opens a spot at HF for Stiff's boy Ladhams

- Shirley is not required as the designated tagger

If that fails Iwould put him head to head with their ball winner.......I know that causes a bit of a dance with players trying to get on to others.....but hell - it's got to be better than 11 possies from a flank....

Can't disagree with that rationale

 

[Mad Dog]

All the positives have been mentioned.

As far as addressing one of the weaknesses, I know there are a lot of us who are ********ed off with this bloke but our crumbing in the forward line MUST improve. I think we have a good crumber in Ladhams and I think we are so desperate that he should be considered. Surely he would be better than Skipworth in this role

Amen to that

I'd have a word in Ladhams' ear and say...I'll bring you in for 10 weeks - guaranteed.......after that if it's not working......we're moving on as a club...

I think he understands that sort of ultimatum

 

[Stiffy_18]

Your namesake?

Too inconsistent and I would love to see him settle in one position for once in his career. He has been used as Mr fix it for too long now. Settle him at HB and let him play out the year in that position. Sure throw him up forward from time to time when needed but not asa regualr forward crumber. Johncock plays his best footy on a HBF.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Amen to that

I'd have a word in Ladhams' ear and say...I'll bring you in for 10 weeks - guaranteed.......after that if it's not working......we're moving on as a club...

I think he understands that sort of ultimatum

I like it .

Tough and straight to the point. Ladhams would know where he stands and it will be entirely up to him and there is no mixed signals what so ever.

Somehow I don't see it happening.

 

[jo172]

Too inconsistent and I would love to see him settle in one position for once in his career. He has been used as Mr fix it for too long now. Settle him at HB and let him play out the year in that position. Sure throw him up forward from time to time when needed but not asa regualr forward crumber. Johncock plays his best footy on a HBF.

I am in 2 minds about this. Yes Longcock should play in defence where he often plays his best football and which will better develop him for a future on ball role however after watching Sunday's match we desparately need a crumber and he has been our only decent consistant crumber since the days of Bond and Vardy. Unless we plan to bring in a Ladhams or let a Bode play as a crumber we cannot just leave this gap in our forward line. If Ladhams does not get a game next week which he doesn't deserve than let Stiffy play in a forward pocket.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I am in 2 minds about this. Yes Longcock should play in defence where he often plays his best football and which will better develop him for a future on ball role however after watching Sunday's match we desparately need a crumber and he has been our only decent consistant crumber since the days of Bond and Vardy. Unless we plan to bring in a Ladhams or let a Bode play as a crumber we cannot just leave this gap in our forward line. If Ladhams does not get a game next week which he doesn't deserve than let Stiffy play in a forward pocket.

Look at the big picture. We want to get Johncock to become a midfielder fown the track. Whats holding him back is his aerobic capacity. The only way you can improve that is if you are running long distances on a regualr basis. If he is played as a forward flanker or a FP he is not going to cover anywhere near enough ground to improve his aerobic capacity. There is so much improvement you can do in a pre-season.

IMHO, Johncock needs to play on HBF for the entire game so he can improve his aerobic capacity a little bit. Couple that with another hard pre-season and he just could get the bloody thing to a level where he is fit enough to be a midfielder. We need to develop players with a clear view of the big picture not for the sake of short term gain.

 

[jo172]

Look at the big picture. We want to get Johncock to become a midfielder fown the track. Whats holding him back is his aerobic capacity. The only way you can improve that is if you are running long distances on a regualr basis. If he is played as a forward flanker or a FP he is not going to cover anywhere near enough ground to improve his aerobic capacity. There is so much improvement you can do in a pre-season.

IMHO, Johncock needs to play on HBF for the entire game so he can improve his aerobic capacity a little bit. Couple that with another hard pre-season and he just could get the bloody thing to a level where he is fit enough to be a midfielder. We need to develop players with a clear view of the big picture not for the sake of short term gain.

I completely agree with you Stiffy. My main point was that my blood pressure can't handle another week of seeing the ball drop to the bottom of the pack and than being cleared again. So lets think next week, who? IMHO it has to be Edwards and Mcleod changing and than we can let Thompson and Goodwin spend prolonged amounts of time in the midfield.

 

[johnnypanther]

ATM Watts, Meeson and Van Berlo do not deserve games over the players selected on Sunday - yes you could put a strong case for VB over Skippy, but you have to be very very careful of maintaining a culture of reward for performance which is evenly applied to all - no problems VB will get his turn but does he get a game because he's young and has showed some promise.

Failure to reward performance can create a cancer in a club.

we already have a cancer in the club:
- we have rewarded non-performance

and we're still trying to build a team around a mediocre group of 3rd tiers

(By the way i dont disagree with your arguments, i'm just frustrated that we have got into the position where for another year we are perhaps "forced" into persisting with mediocrity at the expense of giving youngsters some experience) - for example, you say above that Van Berlo,Meesen & Watts do not deserve games over the players selected on Sunday - well yes thats possibly correct, however, our point is that some of those selected players no longer deserved to be selected in the first place neither in the team nor on the playing list so i would rather look to the future and give valuable game time to the juniors who arent ready yet

 

[Rave Slave]

Positives from Round 1:

Port lost

Colingwood lost

 

[johnnypanther]

WE have IMO a lot of what most clubs would call depth players, very important to any successful team to have around their star players and cover for injuries during a long season. What we have lost is the absolute core talent (star quality) that we have lost in recent seasons - hopefully some astute recruiting will change that, but lets not expect our depth players to be more than what they are..

once again - although i do not disagree with your statement regarding the necessity for depth players - IMO our problem is that our club's "depth" players are out of their depth - instead of a 2nd tier (or backbone or whatever NC wants to call them), all we have is a mediocre 3rd tier and furthermore they've been rewarded with another year or 2 on our list due to the poor list management we've had since 1997.

 

[Crowz Gal]

Well we were winning for 85% of the game,
We have players to come back,
We lost by less then Port!!!!!
We lost to potentially a top 2 side (and finalist in Wizard cup)

 

[Crow-mosone]

I think I am in the minority here, although Mad Dog has expressed similar views on this player. Shirley held Judd to 12 possessions, but only picked up 5 himself - and didn't lay a single tackle. Stenglein on the other hand kept McLeod down to 11, but still had 14 himself. Shirley needs to work on his offensive side and position himself better so that he can make the most of being around a ball magnet such as Judd. I don't care what anyone says, Shirley is not in our best-22, he is not an AFL standard player and the sooner we develop Van Berlo into a midfield tagger, the better. Harsh call, I know.

crap. utter ****

if you said before the game, we'll both play one man short. you take Judd off your team, and we'll leave out Shirley.

who wouldn't take that deal?

 

[Mad Dog]

crap. utter ****

if you said before the game, we'll both play one man short. you take Judd off your team, and we'll leave out Shirley.

who wouldn't take that deal?

sorting out our future is not about yesterday's game....

 

[almost_04]

scott welsh in the first quater and marty mattner looked good from what i saw.

 

[Crow-mosone]

sorting out our future is not about yesterday's game....

keeping an honest, realistic perspective, short of personal bias is.

mindless assessments, without due reference to performance is not helping our future.

credit where credit is due.

 

[mymansyd]

crap. utter ****

if you said before the game, we'll both play one man short. you take Judd off your team, and we'll leave out Shirley.

who wouldn't take that deal?

Fair enough CM. Shirley DID have a good defensive game on Judd...just wish he would present himself in the play more. Still don't think he is in our best-22, sorry.

Call me back when he has had two 15-possession games in the AFL in a row. Something he hasn't been able to do in his 52 games so far.

 

[macca23]

Amen to that

I'd have a word in Ladhams' ear and say...I'll bring you in for 10 weeks - guaranteed.......after that if it's not working......we're moving on as a club...

I think he understands that sort of ultimatum

Chris McDermott was saying yesterday morning that even though Ladhams is a talented crumber who can kick goals and Adelaide are desperate for exactly that, he would be about the 38th, 39th or 40th player that Craig would consider for selection.

He went on to say that he doesn't expect him to get much opportunity, if any, this year and will be very lucky not to be delisted at year end.

There's a bit more than laziness to this IMO, as he would be invaluable around goal.

I've heard certain lifestyle rumours. Has anybody got anything concrete to add here?

 

[Crow-mosone]

Fair enough CM. Shirley DID have a good defensive game on Judd...just wish he would present himself in the play more. Still don't think he is in our best-22, sorry.

Call me back when he has had two 15-possession games in the AFL in a row. Something he hasn't been able to do in his 52 games so far.

straight over you head. he is in a defensive role, who gives 2 flying **** how much of the ball he got. he took Judd out of the game, that is a massive result for us, and you're not happy with that.

would you be happier if he stood off judd, got 15 touches himself and Judd had 30?

if he can do that every week, he'll not only be in our best 22, he'll go close to AA as the best defensive player in the comp.
Now I am not saying he can or will, but how ludicrous is it to have a go at a guy after one of his most decisive efforts.

people talk about Stinger towelling McLeod, but you're not happy because he only shut out the reigning brownlow medallist?????????????

 

[mymansyd]

straight over you head. he is in a defensive role, who gives 2 flying **** how much of the ball he got. he took Judd out of the game, that is a massive result for us, and you're not happy with that.

would you be happier if he stood off judd, got 15 touches himself and Judd had 30?

if he can do that every week, he'll not only be in our best 22, he'll go close to AA as the best defensive player in the comp.
Now I am not saying he can or will, but how ludicrous is it to have a go at a guy after one of his most decisive efforts.

people talk about Stinger towelling McLeod, but you're not happy because he only shut out the reigning brownlow medallist?????????????

Credit where credit is due, you've made your point ferociously.

Let's hope Shirley can raise the bar on his AFL career and contribute "decisive efforts" on a more regular basis...I'd be the first to congratulate him.

 

[tribey]

he is in a defensive role, who gives 2 flying **** how much of the ball he got. he took Judd out of the game, that is a massive result for us, and you're not happy with that.

mymansyd, I have to agree 110% with this assessment put forth by crow-mo.

As I said just the other week in another thread, I'm repeatedly amazed that Shirley is still on our list considering the calibre of players we have delisted/traded in the past - but - Craig handed Shirley the Judd-dossier and our man did everything short of terminating his target with extreme prejudice. The reigning Brownlow Medallist had such a quiet game the commentators were wondering if he was injured. Mission accomplished and a massive notch on the bedhead for Rob "I have come to clean ze pool" Shirley - any touches he got of his own were purely a bonus.

 

[tinman]

Too inconsistent and I would love to see him settle in one position for once in his career. He has been used as Mr fix it for too long now. Settle him at HB and let him play out the year in that position. Sure throw him up forward from time to time when needed but not asa regualr forward crumber. Johncock plays his best footy on a HBF.

Yes but so does Torney, Reilly, Hentschel, Begley, Doughty, Van Berlo, possibly Goodwin and probably a few more...........

We can cover the half back flanks easily. We are light on for crumbing, goalkicking half forwards with pace. If Ladhams isn't ready to come back for whatever reason, and maybe he never will be back - Johncock is our best option.

Perhaps with two midfielders likely to come in next week we will see Reilly go back and Johncock forward? Once Torney is right he will certainly head to half back and give us a couple more options for the midfield rotation and HFF(barring further injuries).

Ladhams can play but I am not in favor of playing him until he can demonstrate he has addressed those areas the coach has asked him to. Sometimes the problem with players with great natural ability is that they rely on it too much and don't put in the hard work necessary. Once (or if) Ladhams realises this he will be a valuable part of the team.

 

[- PC -]

When assessing a team you look at the one player who will hurt you. How many times do you hear supporters and coaches say ''shut down .......'' and half the game is won.

Shut down Buckley and give him 8 possessions..you have to take that!!!

Shut down Judd and give him 12 possessions....you have to take that!!!


Shut down Roo and give him 12 possessions.....a coach would take that.

Shut down Black at Brisbane and give him 10 possessions...you take that

At Wingfield we gave a player who had 2 touches our best on ground award in a GF..because his opponent got 4 possessions...if he had gotten anything over 10 he would have kicked 8 goals...assessing a team means you dont care how many your man gets as long as the man opposite gets less than an accepted standard.And thats why Shirleys effort was fantastico

 

[noddy]

straight over you head. he is in a defensive role, who gives 2 flying **** how much of the ball he got. he took Judd out of the game, that is a massive result for us, and you're not happy with that.

would you be happier if he stood off judd, got 15 touches himself and Judd had 30?

if he can do that every week, he'll not only be in our best 22, he'll go close to AA as the best defensive player in the comp.
Now I am not saying he can or will, but how ludicrous is it to have a go at a guy after one of his most decisive efforts.

people talk about Stinger towelling McLeod, but you're not happy because he only shut out the reigning brownlow medallist?????????????