Preview R12: Changes vs. Sydney Swans

[Tex Danger]

Tex for Taylor was always on the cards with Pedlar kicking two goals. Going to be a long way back for Zac now, though I'm a bit confused why we just haven't given this spot to Draper.

Laird for Smith... missed opportunity for Bond and to give Max a bit more offensive freedom for a week - which is likely the role that will turn Max into an elite defender - as well as Edwards to get a debut. Still, Smith had a big game when he was subbed in last time, so hopefully lightning strikes twice.

Taylor was mainly wing last week

Wouldn’t be opposed to Draper replacing him on the wing and Tex replaces pedlar who goes sub

 

[Tex Danger]

Do posters agree that if we beat Sydney away then we have definitively improved?

And if we lose to them we haven't?

In essence the future of mankind depends on the outcome of this game

Half agree

If we lose we haven’t improved enough

Win tells us less though

I mark this as one of those we just need to get the job done games to set us up fora fortnight where we can say if we win we’ve improved

 

[DJ75]

Some food for thought:
We sit 4th on the ladder and have been going pretty well. We still can't beat the top teams though.
So where should the improvement come from?

We still don't have an answer on the wings. Curtin is slowly developing and the signs are positive, but he isn't providing a lot of drive.
Cumming has been solid, without being great. I still think he's a better half back. Speaking of which...
Our two experienced half backs, who should be providing the offensive drive out of there, Milera and Laird, are in fact very poor at this. Their metres gained stat is awful and ranks them below mediocre.

Now imagine we figure out how to address these issues. Imagine if the wings were strengths and we had some real run and carry off half back. Would that be the difference between us being a week 1 of finals loser and perhaps going deep in finals?
I suspect it would.

So why the hell isn't Nicks trying options here? Why has he locked the team down thinking this is it? Is he that deluded?
Yes, I know the answer.

 

[SLOWNE]

In essence the future of mankind depends on the outcome of this game

Don't tell Matty, Sid and Curtin will be late outs for Smurph and somehow Sloaney.

 

[ftmch]

As always with our club, the truth is much simpler.

Nicks and co asked a single question, which was "which SANFL player makes us the most likely to win this week?" and decided that Smith was it.

There is no thought for the future, there is no thought about what a young player would gain from playing in the AFL, it's just straight up "which player offers the most right now, this week" with any ties broken by preferencing experience.

It's an interesting point, and I think you're probably right. But this year more than any other in Nicks' reign I'm OK with that. Pick the side that they think will win us the game. We're at that point of our evolution now.

Whether Brodie or Edwards is more likely to help us win this game then becomes the conversation (in my mind at least)

 

[feenix67]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There's no doubt that we have a finals capable list and a coach capable of getting us to finals. But inherent club philosophies on football strategy result in us needlessly limiting our ceiling. When the chips are down, we always favour the known mediocre or injured experienced players ahead of testing what we might have underneath our preferred 25. We don't manage our playing list properly, continuity is favoured ahead of maximising the wellness of the group heading into the finals period.

The last time we genuinely contended around the top 4 for multiple years we couldn't make the GF because our philisophies are ultimately limit us from being our best. We have spiked off bad years with the commensurate easier draw to reach a PF and GF, but then plummet following. This is where we are again now and it's no accident that we're playing the soon to retire Smith ahead of up and coming kids, we choose the average performer without a future ahead of taking a risk and unearthing something better.

Over 23 rounds Nicks and co can get us into the finals, even in the top 4 depending on fixture & injury. But this group will never win the 3 games against the hottest teams and coaching groups in the last month of the season. And the club has been comfortable with this since for more than a decade. Playing finals is the end game.

Preaching to the choir with me mate

 

[cmndstab]

It's an interesting point, and I think you're probably right. But this year more than any other in Nicks' reign I'm OK with that. Pick the side that they think will win us the game. We're at that point of our evolution now.

Whether Brodie or Edwards is more likely to help us win this game then becomes the conversation (in my mind at least)

I don't really agree. I think there always needs to be a balance between playing to win (or at least avoiding a "losing is acceptable" culture) and developing your list. Perhaps the amount of weight you place on each of those objectives shifts a little when you're contending, as opposed to rebuilding, but there should always be some weight placed on both. Perhaps if we were an absolute flag favourite, I could understand it, but if we're being honest with ourselves, we're streets behind the top three sides.

Playing Edwards in the AFL side will help to stimulate his development, and let him know there is a future for him here. Playing Smith will do nothing for our development. As such, there is an opportunity cost in development to playing Smith. The question that should be asked is, will Smith provide that much more than Edwards to make it worthwhile?

But I don't think the club is asking that question. Instead, they're just asking "which player makes us more likely to win?" and placing essentially no value on development.

 

[Betts are off]

bye round?

Yeah, 4 teams are on a bye round. Might have been clearer if I said 'bye rounds'

 

[Hell Boy6669]

Half agree

If we lose we haven’t improved enough

Win tells us less though

I mark this as one of those we just need to get the job done games to set us up fora fortnight where we can say if we win we’ve improved

I actually see this as a bigger test than Brisbane at home

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

It's an interesting point, and I think you're probably right. But this year more than any other in Nicks' reign I'm OK with that. Pick the side that they think will win us the game. We're at that point of our evolution now.

Whether Brodie or Edwards is more likely to help us win this game then becomes the conversation (in my mind at least)

For me it comes down to, is there anything worth going back to?

Looking at our last few years I'd say no. Failed options. Players have been dropped for a reason. Our results have been poor for a reason.

Why would our selectors go back to options that they themselves have decided are poor ones and not worth continuing?

 

[ftmch]

I don't really agree. I think there always needs to be a balance between playing to win (or at least avoiding a "losing is acceptable" culture) and developing your list. Perhaps the amount of weight you place on each of those objectives shifts a little when you're contending, as opposed to rebuilding, but there should always be some weight placed on both.

Generally I think that also, though in fairness we are already a pretty young list, and not carrying alot of 'older' players.

There's no doubt the importance of this week comes into it also - as alot of us have rightly identified, this is a massive game for us. So they can be forgiven for going all in on the team that the think is going to get us the win (again, whether Brodie or Edwards are more likely to give us that is definitely up for debate, but the I'm fine with Edwards not being chosen for developmental reasons this week).

 

[ftmch]

For me it comes down to, is there anything worth going back to?

Looking at our last few years I'd say no. Failed options. Players have been dropped for a reason. Our results have been poor for a reason.

Why would our selectors go back to options that they themselves have decided are poor ones and not worth continuing?

I suspect one of the main decisions behoind Brodie Smith not playing as many games this year compared to last is that they are trying to maximise the opportunities for young players. I think it's more about development opportunities and maintaining an age profile, as opposed to Brodies form (which I think has been consistently pretty good, compared to last year).

FWIW, I probably liked Brodie's game against Carlton's more than some others, by the sounds of it (I felt he positively contributed to the win on the day). He's also clearly a very popular team man, which in the context of an important road trip with a young team - maybe there's some additional weight / value they are putting on that.

 

[MRB37]

Some food for thought:
We sit 4th on the ladder and have been going pretty well. We still can't beat the top teams though.
So where should the improvement come from?

We still don't have an answer on the wings. Curtin is slowly developing and the signs are positive, but he isn't providing a lot of drive.
Cumming has been solid, without being great. I still think he's a better half back. Speaking of which...
Our two experienced half backs, who should be providing the offensive drive out of there, Milera and Laird, are in fact very poor at this. Their metres gained stat is awful and ranks them below mediocre.

Now imagine we figure out how to address these issues. Imagine if the wings were strengths and we had some real run and carry off half back. Would that be the difference between us being a week 1 of finals loser and perhaps going deep in finals?
I suspect it would.

So why the hell isn't Nicks trying options here? Why has he locked the team down thinking this is it? Is he that deluded?
Yes, I know the answer.

I don't necessarily think we have a game style that is currently catering to wings having an impact. We go so wide and boundary centric there's not really the space for our wings to do much as everything is a contest.

Our wings, especially ones like Curtin who are guarding space just die from starvation because we're not even trying to really use them offensively. Remember in 2022 or whenever it was when Nicks just used guys like Crouch and Hately as our wings because he wanted everything as a contest? I don't think he's really changed wanting that in our game.

 

[MRB37]

Bond and Zac Taylor travelling with the team too.

 

[DJ75]

I don't necessarily think we have a game style that is currently catering to wings having an impact. We go so wide and boundary centric there's not really the space for our wings to do much as everything is a contest.

Our wings, especially ones like Curtin who are guarding space just die from starvation because we're not even trying to really use them offensively. Remember in 2022 or whenever it was when Nicks just used guys like Crouch and Hately as our wings because he wanted everything as a contest? I don't think he's really changed wanting that in our game.

I just thought it was because he's an idiot...

 

[cleanhands]

I just thought it was because he's an idiot...

That to

 

[George CantStandYa]

I suspect one of the main decisions behoind Brodie Smith not playing as many games this year compared to last is that they are trying to maximise the opportunities for young players. I think it's more about development opportunities and maintaining an age profile, as opposed to Brodies form (which I think has been consistently pretty good, compared to last year).

FWIW, I probably liked Brodie's game against Carlton's more than some others, by the sounds of it (I felt he positively contributed to the win on the day). He's also clearly a very popular team man, which in the context of an important road trip with a young team - maybe there's some additional weight / value they are putting on that.

Which younger players have we prioritised over Smith in defence?

 

[1970crow]

Generally I think that also, though in fairness we are already a pretty young list, and not carrying alot of 'older' players.

There's no doubt the importance of this week comes into it also - as alot of us have rightly identified, this is a massive game for us. So they can be forgiven for going all in on the team that the think is going to get us the win (again, whether Brodie or Edwards are more likely to give us that is definitely up for debate, but the I'm fine with Edwards not being chosen for developmental reasons this week).

The importance of this week makes it even worse. Laird didn't all of a sudden become sore, in fact, he said on radio that he pulled up less sore this week than any of the past few. If he was nearing needing a rest, surely it's been on the table for a couple of weeks at least, it wouldn't just pop up out of nowhere. So why wouldn't he have rested in a home game against the current spoon favourite where there's a little more luxury available to bring in a younger player. Is our selection group not capable of considering more than half a week in advance?

 

[1970crow]

I suspect one of the main decisions behoind Brodie Smith not playing as many games this year compared to last is that they are trying to maximise the opportunities for young players. I think it's more about development opportunities and maintaining an age profile, as opposed to Brodies form (which I think has been consistently pretty good, compared to last year).

FWIW, I probably liked Brodie's game against Carlton's more than some others, by the sounds of it (I felt he positively contributed to the win on the day). He's also clearly a very popular team man, which in the context of an important road trip with a young team - maybe there's some additional weight / value they are putting on that.

"I suspect one of the main decisions behoind Brodie Smith not playing as many games this year compared to last is that they are trying to maximise the opportunities for young players" Well that's just absolute garbage, which younger players have been prioritised ahead of Brodie when an opportunity has presented itself? Our back 7 are Murray/Butts, Keane, Worrell, Laird, Milera, Michaelanny and Hinge. Only Max is a younger player and he doesn't play in favour of Brodie for any other reason than he's much better and is needed to actually defend an opposition player. When an opportunity has arisen for a younger player, ie Laird rested or Hinge suspended, we've played Brodie. It's the exact opposite of the sentence of yours that I bolded. I'm honestly not sure how you could have possibly formed that view.

 

[1970crow]

Which younger players have we prioritised over Smith in defence?

I too was astounded at that statement, surely can't be serious.

 

[Afcprophet]

Nicks love of Bond over Edwards is hard to understand.

Bond is an instant delist.

 

[WeeBlake]

"I suspect one of the main decisions behoind Brodie Smith not playing as many games this year compared to last is that they are trying to maximise the opportunities for young players" Well that's just absolute garbage, which younger players have been prioritised ahead of Brodie when an opportunity has presented itself? Our back 7 are Murray/Butts, Keane, Worrell, Laird, Milera, Michaelanny and Hinge. Only Max is a younger player and he doesn't play in favour of Brodie for any other reason than he's much better and is needed to actually defend an opposition player. When an opportunity has arisen for a younger player, ie Laird rested or Hinge suspended, we've played Brodie. It's the exact opposite of the sentence of yours that I bolded. I'm honestly not sure how you could have possibly formed that view.

Probably thinking of Nank? Altho he’s played wing I think

 

[WeeBlake]

Will be hilarious/depressing later in the year to hear Nicks talking about how a long season takes it toll

 

[Tex Danger]

I actually see this as a bigger test than Brisbane at home

I’ll at least say we need to win 2 of next 3 to suggest we’ve taken any notable step forward. Even that could be considered par rather than a statement

1/3 certainly a fail and concern

 

[CrowBloke]

The believe to win the flag you have to had finals experience - shit, who would have known that.

Seriously, it ain’t bloody rocket science.

You appear to be irritated that I stated the obvious ...?
I was replying to another poster and if anything I was saying I do not think we will win a Flag under Nicks.

If you cannot comment with civility, please don't.