Round 12 Selection Discussion

[Rayzorwire]

That is damning stuff...

All the data we've been churning out of our games has looked similar for weeks Ize, it's truly ugly, but we've been let off the hook by multiple sides, including Sydney yesterday.

If nothing develops a club like a finals campaign tells us all what happened to us after our most recent finals campaign...How well did we develop after that?

About as well as you'd expect a club with all their key players in the wrong age groups being coached by a bloke like Frawley who completely fails in his list assessment and assessment of player strengths and weaknesses. Totally different scenario as you should know.

Speaking of delusional on one hand you're bemoaning the fact that our kids are getting smacked around now in normal H&A games and yet you expect them to come out and play full games and winning finals at season end.

They weren't getting smacked around until they were over-exposed - a policy you've also defended and been demonstrably shown to be wrong about as the juniors fall in the physical heap I said they would if we kept using them the way we were.

I've been a fan of Grahams but on what I saw on Saturday Browne looked like Dean Cox...

Talk about exaggerating to make a point and thereby weakening that point in the process. Graham is clearly the better option at this point, very simple and the Wood analogy was a perfect one.

Watching him closely on Saturday at Coburg in conditions that should have suited him i.e. soft ground & lots of in tight contests he was made to look slow by a bunch of VFL no name midfielders.

Yeah, and it's funny how he didn't look too slow in the same conditions in Darwin when he racked up more effective ball in 1/3rd of a game than most of our blokes managed in a full game.

As I've said this year is not about playing finals for one season, its about finding players that are going to give us the best chance of playing finals for successive seasons...

Like Miller.

As I've said repeatedly, losses for development's sake I can take, but wandering around aimlessly between development and wins the way we have without achieving either properly is a poor result and the coaching staff have done a poor job so far this year on either score.

Hardwick's head could very well be firmly on the chopping block going into next year at this rate and if it goes that far it'll more than likely be Richmond: rinse and repeat. None of us want to end up there again, but the fact is, it's the likely outcome if the coaching staff can't get their act together better than what they've shown us so far this year.

 

[_RT_]

They weren't getting smacked around until they were over-exposed - a policy you've also defended and been demonstrably shown to be wrong about as the juniors fall in the physical heap I said they would if we kept using them the way we were.

And I'll continue to defend it until its proven that it doesn't work. Last year we did exactly the same thing, played kids for most of the season and saw guys like Martin Nason Astbury Graham & Vickery come on in leaps and bounds. Perhaps we should revert back to TWs plan of not playing the kids and then wonder why 2-3 years down the track when we need them they aren't ready to step up.

Talk about exaggerating to make a point and thereby weakening that point in the process. Graham is clearly the better option at this point, very simple and the Wood analogy was a perfect one.

Were you there to watch Grahams performance on Saturday? I was and he was utterly useless compared to what Browne did against Seaby yesterday.

Yeah, and it's funny how he didn't look too slow in the same conditions in Darwin when he racked up more effective ball in 1/3rd of a game than most of our blokes managed in a full game.

You would expect a fresh player coming on after half time to look a bit quicker and do a bit better than players who had already played a half in humid conditions.

Like Miller.

Miller plays because younger options weren't/aren't ready to play and because he adds structure to our forward line that the young kids can't because they aren't seen as a threat. Miller at least forces his opponent to be accountable for him rather than sitting in front of Jack like they were last year when we had kids like Post Griffiths & Vickery playing as Jacks support act.

As I've said repeatedly, losses for development's sake I can take, but wandering around aimlessly between development and wins the way we have without achieving either properly is a poor result and the coaching staff have done a poor job so far this year on either score.

Hardwick's head could very well be firmly on the chopping block going into next year at this rate and if it goes that far it'll more than likely be Richmond: rinse and repeat. None of us want to end up there again, but the fact is, it's the likely outcome if the coaching staff can't get their act together better than what they've shown us so far this year.

If Hardwicks head if on the chopping block its because of supporters like you who seem to be too impatient and want results now rather than waiting until we're actually ready.

How many times does it have to be said this year has never been about making finals? Its a development/transitional year so that we can find the players that will develop us sustained success rather than 1 year guest appearances in the finals.

BTW I do like how you didn't answer the question I asked at the end of my previous post.

 

[rammbo]

Miller adds structure ,how many times hav we read that crap, he is not a dangerous player at all carnt mark, slow as shit,not versatile ,doesnt crash packs all he does to an acceptable level is run to good positions .Post griff goo could provide structure with a lot more future upside as they develop.Time to use miller only wen hes a last resort.

 

[_RT_]

Just reviewing the stats in detail and confirming a few suspicions - two centre bounce clearances for the entire game yesterday, we've gone way beyond pathetic.

Dennis-Lane, Reid and Roberts-Thomson collectively beat the centre square clearance power of our entire side - any single one of them beat Cotchin and Foley who didn't have one single centre square clearance despite being at most of them.

Oh well, at least we have 'good ball users' in the side now, except I can't quite work out how it's possible for Cotchin, Martin, Foley and Houli to have 17 inside-50's between them and not a single goal assist, while the next bloke after Tuck on the 'can't kick' chopping block - Daniel Jackson - had 4 inside-50's for two goal assists.

Maybe someone can help me with that...you'd be a top candidate no doubt California.

Also had a look at the stats and saw Cotchin Martin Deledio & Foley were all credited with 2 centre clearances each, while Reid Dennis-Lane LRT & Jackson weren't credited with any at all. Also noticed that Cotchin Martin Foley & Deledio had 20 clearances combined. Also noticed that Jackson was only credited with just the one goal assist.

 

[Rayzorwire]

And I'll continue to defend it until its proven that it doesn't work.

Conca was beaten from pillar to post in the 3-4 games where we played him for extended midfield time, he didn't come up for the Darwin game, he still didn't come up for the Sydney game, we've overplayed him and asked too much too soon, what exactly has been proven to 'work' about the way Hardwick has gone about his development?

What I have suggested all along is extremely limited midfield time, never two full games in a row, and frequent rotations back to Coburg for a spell. That way you have him good and sound for a full season and growing in confidence towards the end of it.

Same policy applies to Batchelor, both could have been rotated more with Webberley used (and developed!) if we still insisted on leaving Tuck out. Helbig just shouldn't have been played any more than any other kid with talent who's been toiling in the Coburg 2nds for a season or two - not even close to ready. Not quite Relton-esque, but still a big WTF? on revealed form. And quite possibly, like all the blokes who *had* to be played last year solely to get senior games into them, he'll be using that 'development' at Coburg next year while a new draftee takes the '6-possession cameo passenger' spot in the side.

I don't really follow the logic there, but I'm sure you'll have a crack at finding some RT.

I think the way I suggested they should be brought along has been proven correct by where both have ended up - even after a bye.

Last year we did exactly the same thing, played kids for most of the season and saw guys like Martin Nason Astbury Graham & Vickery come on in leaps and bounds.

Nason has "come on in leaps and bounds" because he got a few games last year? Astbury? Are you sure you want to run with that?

Both haven't got close to what they did last year and most importantly, both haven't been given senior games in order to re-establish and improve on that benchmark, add Webberley to the list.

We sacrificed results last year (rightly IMO) to get 50+ games into kids ASAP, but this year we've ditched quite a few of last years' debutants and played a fresh batch of kids. At this rate we'll be sacrificing results for a lot more years than Hardwick has on his contract to get these necessary 50 games into enough players, won't we?

Graham got games solely because Simmonds' body totally quit on him, then did exactly what I'd been saying he could do from the moment we said we were entertaining the folly of retaining Simmonds - held his own and did OK. He surprised the hell out of Hardwick and the coaching staff, he didn't surprise me, I'd bothered to watch him closely at AFL level and knew what I was looking for.

How's his 'development' going? Graham, that is.

Perhaps we should revert back to...

...discussing irrelevant crap about Wallace again? I don't think so.

Were you there to watch Grahams performance on Saturday?

I wasn't there to watch any of the 70+ supposedly dismal Graham Coburg performances, as has been pointed out repeatedly (probably by you too at some stage), his Coburg form has consistently been irrelevant to how he'll perform in the seniors, which was the point.

You would expect a fresh player coming on after half time to look a bit quicker and do a bit better than players who had already played a half in humid conditions.

Not if he was considered so slow and useless that it's not even worth letting him play for his spot against first season kids anymore.

Miller plays because younger options weren't/aren't ready to play and because he adds structure to our forward line that the young kids can't because they aren't seen as a threat. Miller at least forces his opponent to be accountable for him rather than sitting in front of Jack like they were last year when we had kids like Post Griffiths & Vickery playing as Jacks support act.

How many games did we win last year with Griffiths in the exact same young forward line setup you're now saying can't and doesn't work?

How many times have we tried Post, Gourdis, Astbury in the lead up decoy forward role we apparently desperately need Miller for?

If Hardwicks head if on the chopping block its because of supporters like you who seem to be too impatient and want results now rather than waiting until we're actually ready.

You say some funny things at times RT, but suggesting I or other supporters somehow have more power to de-stabilise Hardwick's job than March who is peddling his 'finals or else next year' BS in the media yet again, or the board and power structure at the club with their ambitious, results driven agenda, or the media who will hunt him relentlessly if we have a poor result this year...I mean, are you serious?

BTW I do like how you didn't answer the question I asked at the end of my previous post.

There should be no need; as I've made clear since Hardwick was appointed, I don't necessarily prefer aiming for finals over development, I just wish we'd pick one or the other and do it properly, instead of a little bit of each and ending up doing both in a half-arsed manner.

Also had a look at the stats and saw Cotchin Martin Deledio & Foley were all credited with 2 centre clearances each, while Reid Dennis-Lane LRT & Jackson weren't credited with any at all. Also noticed that Cotchin Martin Foley & Deledio had 20 clearances combined. Also noticed that Jackson was only credited with just the one goal assist.

They're the stats I have from Pro-Stats, I have noticed a couple of other anomalies which are yet to be corrected.

 

[MightyTiger]

Conca was beaten from pillar to post in the 3-4 games where we played him for extended midfield time, he didn't come up for the Darwin game, he still didn't come up for the Sydney game, we've overplayed him and asked too much too soon, what exactly has been proven to 'work' about the way Hardwick has gone about his development?

What I have suggested all along is extremely limited midfield time, never two full games in a row, and frequent rotations back to Coburg for a spell. That way you have him good and sound for a full season and growing in confidence towards the end of it.

Same policy applies to Batchelor, both could have been rotated more with Webberley used (and developed!) if we still insisted on leaving Tuck out. Helbig just shouldn't have been played any more than any other kid with talent who's been toiling in the Coburg 2nds for a season or two - not even close to ready. Not quite Relton-esque, but still a big WTF? on revealed form. And quite possibly, like all the blokes who *had* to be played last year solely to get senior games into them, he'll be using that 'development' at Coburg next year while a new draftee takes the '6-possession cameo passenger' spot in the side.

I don't really follow the logic there, but I'm sure you'll have a crack at finding some RT.

I think the way I suggested they should be brought along has been proven correct by where both have ended up - even after a bye.



Nason has "come on in leaps and bounds" because he got a few games last year? Astbury? Are you sure you want to run with that?

Both haven't got close to what they did last year and most importantly, both haven't been given senior games in order to re-establish and improve on that benchmark, add Webberley to the list.

We sacrificed results last year (rightly IMO) to get 50+ games into kids ASAP, but this year we've ditched quite a few of last years' debutants and played a fresh batch of kids. At this rate we'll be sacrificing results for a lot more years than Hardwick has on his contract to get these necessary 50 games into enough players, won't we?

Graham got games solely because Simmonds' body totally quit on him, then did exactly what I'd been saying he could do from the moment we said we were entertaining the folly of retaining Simmonds - held his own and did OK. He surprised the hell out of Hardwick and the coaching staff, he didn't surprise me, I'd bothered to watch him closely at AFL level and knew what I was looking for.

How's his 'development' going? Graham, that is.



...discussing irrelevant crap about Wallace again? I don't think so.



I wasn't there to watch any of the 70+ supposedly dismal Graham Coburg performances, as has been pointed out repeatedly (probably by you too at some stage), his Coburg form has consistently been irrelevant to how he'll perform in the seniors, which was the point.



Not if he was considered so slow and useless that it's not even worth letting him play for his spot against first season kids anymore.



How many games did we win last year with Griffiths in the exact same young forward line setup you're now saying can't and doesn't work?

How many times have we tried Post, Gourdis, Astbury in the lead up decoy forward role we apparently desperately need Miller for?



You say some funny things at times RT, but suggesting I or other supporters somehow have more power to de-stabilise Hardwick's job than March who is peddling his 'finals or else next year' BS in the media yet again, or the board and power structure at the club with their ambitious, results driven agenda, or the media who will hunt him relentlessly if we have a poor result this year...I mean, are you serious?



There should be no need; as I've made clear since Hardwick was appointed, I don't necessarily prefer aiming for finals over development, I just wish we'd pick one or the other and do it properly, instead of a little bit of each and ending up doing both in a half-arsed manner.



They're the stats I have from Pro-Stats, I have noticed a couple of other anomalies which are yet to be corrected.

Don't really care much for the rest of your post but I would like to discuss the highlighted part, Conca in that Darwin game copped 2 very big knocks, his wrist was wrenched in a tackle and then copped another knock after coming back on.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Don't really care much for the rest of your post but I would like to discuss the highlighted part, Conca in that Darwin game copped 2 very big knocks, his wrist was wrenched in a tackle and then copped another knock after coming back on.

True, after barely finishing the game out against Essendon with a shin injury, he could hardly run and wouldn't have even come back on if we hadn't already used our sub.

Then he gets thrown straight back into the midfield next week, a first season player looking physically all at sea - before and after he was smashed - and eventually getting hurt multiple times, while we have Tuck warming the bench as sub.

Two weeks after these heavily draining games he's back to another full game in the seniors (with a road trip no less), obviously still suffering the effects of those tough games and looking a shadow of what he was a month ago, while a fully fit Webberley and Tuck play for Coburg.

It's dumb selection and dumb coaching from both a developmental AND a results perspective...I'm really not sure how anyone could argue otherwise.

 

[santa claws]

I know your one of the great shit stirrers just for the sake of it, but seriously if you rate Browne you really are living at the north pole.

And someone who should know better, Tony Greenberg (and Cotch?) said after Brownes first gig (overated one it was)


Lol.... New number one ruck.

Gus, come back, all is forgiven... we need you.

i dont believe ive rated browne anywhere in fact ive stated fairly regularly recently that i think him short term.

what i have also said is i think browne and graham very similar. with the difference being browne at 20 and graham at 24. one may have a slight hope of a fututre the other at 24 well he has not done enough to be kept.even you surely with your emphasis on winning at all costs can see this.

unlike you i know we we are in early development and have miles to go, we are trying to find out who can play and who cant. forget about winning games this yr and next for that matter it is not what we are about and shouldnt be either.

 

[_RT_]

Conca was beaten from pillar to post in the 3-4 games where we played him for extended midfield time, he didn't come up for the Darwin game, he still didn't come up for the Sydney game, we've overplayed him and asked too much too soon, what exactly has been proven to 'work' about the way Hardwick has gone about his development?

What I have suggested all along is extremely limited midfield time, never two full games in a row, and frequent rotations back to Coburg for a spell. That way you have him good and sound for a full season and growing in confidence towards the end of it.

Same policy applies to Batchelor, both could have been rotated more with Webberley used (and developed!) if we still insisted on leaving Tuck out. Helbig just shouldn't have been played any more than any other kid with talent who's been toiling in the Coburg 2nds for a season or two - not even close to ready. Not quite Relton-esque, but still a big WTF? on revealed form. And quite possibly, like all the blokes who *had* to be played last year solely to get senior games into them, he'll be using that 'development' at Coburg next year while a new draftee takes the '6-possession cameo passenger' spot in the side.

I don't really follow the logic there, but I'm sure you'll have a crack at finding some RT.

I think the way I suggested they should be brought along has been proven correct by where both have ended up - even after a bye.

They are first year players, they aren't supposed to dominiate for 22 straight weeks. Anyone expecting them to is kidding themselves.

Nason has "come on in leaps and bounds" because he got a few games last year? Astbury? Are you sure you want to run with that?

Both haven't got close to what they did last year and most importantly, both haven't been given senior games in order to re-establish and improve on that benchmark, add Webberley to the list.

We sacrificed results last year (rightly IMO) to get 50+ games into kids ASAP, but this year we've ditched quite a few of last years' debutants and played a fresh batch of kids. At this rate we'll be sacrificing results for a lot more years than Hardwick has on his contract to get these necessary 50 games into enough players, won't we?

Graham got games solely because Simmonds' body totally quit on him, then did exactly what I'd been saying he could do from the moment we said we were entertaining the folly of retaining Simmonds - held his own and did OK. He surprised the hell out of Hardwick and the coaching staff, he didn't surprise me, I'd bothered to watch him closely at AFL level and knew what I was looking for.

How's his 'development' going? Graham, that is.

...discussing irrelevant crap about Wallace again? I don't think so.

Nason did come on in leaps and bounds last year as did Astbury, because they were given the chance to play at a higher level and fast track their development rather than just wallowing away at Coburg like the majority of young players had done for the previous 5 years. No wonder you don't want to discuss the TW years. This year as second year players they are struggling a bit no doubt, most second year players do. But at least they have got ~20 games experience into them already and if not for Astbury getting injured on Sunday it quite possible he could have ended the season with 30 odd.

I wasn't there to watch any of the 70+ supposedly dismal Graham Coburg performances, as has been pointed out repeatedly (probably by you too at some stage), his Coburg form has consistently been irrelevant to how he'll perform in the seniors, which was the point.

Its only been irrelevant because there was no-one else who was physically ready to take the role away from him. Now that we have Browne & Vickery that can also handle stints in the ruck Graham needs to be performing at a lower level if he wants his spot back.

Not if he was considered so slow and useless that it's not even worth letting him play for his spot against first season kids anymore.

Many a commentator has suggested the great advantage with having subs is having a player with fresh legs coming on once the sting had gone out of games and the majority of players were already tired.

How many games did we win last year with Griffiths in the exact same young forward line setup you're now saying can't and doesn't work?

How many times have we tried Post, Gourdis, Astbury in the lead up decoy forward role we apparently desperately need Miller for?

We won 5 of 5 games last year with Griffiths playing. However with that young forward line set up for the whole year we only won 6 of 22. So far in 11 games with Miller playing because Griffiths was unavailable we're 4-6-1

You say some funny things at times RT, but suggesting I or other supporters somehow have more power to de-stabilise Hardwick's job than March who is peddling his 'finals or else next year' BS in the media yet again, or the board and power structure at the club with their ambitious, results driven agenda, or the media who will hunt him relentlessly if we have a poor result this year...I mean, are you serious?

You personally might not have any direct influence but this is how it starts, the media read boards like this and see the supporters questioning the way things are going, they start reporting it as supporter unrest which filters back to the club, which in turns starts getting the board questioning whether they are heading down the right track.

March Gale and co have not said a word about making finals next year in fact they have been very consistent with sticking to the plan that Hardwick presented to them back when he was hired. So any talk of unrest is purely fictional but then again I'm used to it with you.

There should be no need; as I've made clear since Hardwick was appointed, I don't necessarily prefer aiming for finals over development, I just wish we'd pick one or the other and do it properly, instead of a little bit of each and ending up doing both in a half-arsed manner.

As I showed you yesterday our current results would have had us sitting in 13th last year a good 2 games out of the 8. This year due to the poor form of previous contenders in the Dogs Saints Roos & Crows as well as faltering form of Essendon we find ourselves fortunate enough to be a game out of the 8 despite having a sub 50% winning record. So again I don't see how we're doing things in a half assed manner when we're already playing as mant kids as possible yet still managing to win the odd game along the way. Perhaps you'd feel more comfortable if we were sitting stone motherless last with a 1-10 record like we were this time last year.

They're the stats I have from Pro-Stats, I have noticed a couple of other anomalies which are yet to be corrected.

Funny they are the exact same stats, as well as the ones of the AFL site, that I looked at.

Anyway rather than continue on with this I'll leave it be because once again its clear that neither of us are going to change the other persons mind.

 

[CoggaRules]

This would be the Daniel Jackson who was still responsible for 20% of our goals deep into the third quarter thanks to that beautiful I-50 to Reiwoldt which was probably the kick of the match?

Maybe if a few more onballers learned to get in the clear goal-side of a stoppage and kick inside-50 like that we wouldn't have had a pathetic nine goals for the game?

------------------------------------------

Well, the selection committee owe us 14 premiership points now by my count - once again we blew the game at the selection table for no logical reasons that I can fathom.

People on the forum here knew well before the game that McGuane was out and that we hadn't taken a tall or even viable medium emergency. Fail.

Been saying along with others since the day Miller was brought into the side: 'why don't we take the development option in this case (Post, Gourdis, Astbury) because it means if we lose a key defender, any of these blokes can go back much better than Miller can?' Miller is no better long term option ability-wise as he's clearly shown. Versatility is so important these days, we've ignored it at our peril in order to play a one-dimensional third tall who wouldn't get a game anywhere else. Fail.

The above two things in themselves constitute a massive break down in common sense and the ability to tick the easiest boxes, but there's so much more.

Conca and Batchelor are very obviously physically fading after a tough first half to the season, Helbig's already dropped out (for a while at least), but we've played the absolute iron horse of the competition - Shane Tuck - as the sub on numerous occasions and left him out entirely on numerous others. Conca, Batchelor and Helbig *could* still be up and firing if they'd been played more sparingly as some of us insisted was the sensible way, Cotchin, Foley, Martin and Jackson *could* have had easier seasons and more room to excel with better support, but no, our coaching staff are much smarter than that. It's a very clear cut case of not managing your available resources well and coming out with a sub-standard performance as a result. Fail.

If the side was up and firing in the areas which Tuck excels in, we could justify leaving him out. When you're getting beaten or smashed at them week in week out, when you're playing juniors or outright flankers and pockets as inside mids, they're getting hurt doing it and it's decimating our ability to win (and actually - God forbid - achieve the lofty goals we've set for ourselves), then it's just appalling selection. Fail.

Hardwick inherited a midfield group in Foley, Tuck, Jackson which was borderline finals in 2008 despite having to rove exclusively to the opposition ruckman and play massive game time, was well drilled in the defensive side of the game and competitive against most sides. We also had Deledio, Cotchin, Edwards, Connors and Morton waiting in the wings, and have since added Martin, Grigg and Conca. On paper, it's a bloody good group of players, but week in, week out it gets flogged at the basic defensive aspects of the game. Flogged at things we used to be much better at with less under a coaching team universally labeled as hopeless. Flogged in part not because of a lack of capable players, but because of the coaching staff's ridiculous exclusion of Tuck. Fail.

I like Browne, he tries his heart out and there are glimpses of ability here and there around his painfully raw moments, but it was clearly a mistake to send him up against Seaby in preference to Graham yesterday and only the most blind and biased Graham detractor could begin to argue otherwise. Ability completely aside, we had to let Seaby run around by himself getting touches at will because Browne couldn't go with him and we had to regularly take Vickery out of an already depleted forward line to give him the extra rest he needs. Collingwood aren't about to dump Wood for a young ruckman who'd be exposed like this at AFL level, Graham comfortably beat Wood and did well against the majority of his opponents, Collingwood know how to pick sides which have the best chance of winning and put a season together by doing so. We're smarter than that. Fail.

Play Graham over Browne, Tuck over Hislop, Webberley over Batchelor/Conca, Gourdis/Post over Miller, then maybe do some radical left of centre thinking like changing your game plan to suit the conditions and juggling your match-ups and positioning so key players get their hands on the ball in better places, then we add another 4 points to go with the other 10 we've glibly thrown away, leaving us 5th on the ladder with 32 premiership points and a massive buzz about the club going into the 2nd half of the season.

Or we could go the Hardwick option and blow multiple games solely due to bizarre, inconsistent, nonsensical selection policies and strategies, to squeeze wonderful 'development chapters' into players like Browne, Conca and Batchelor where they get to run around in various states of sore, tired and just plain not coping with the game, then ride the losers bus/plane back from Darwin and Sydney, knowing we're only a win and a half above being bottom-4 yet again.

Brilliant.

Give it up ErayzorHead. As i suggested we will not close the gap on the top end sides until we have better options than Jackson & White.
You tend to throw up stats that are current, i.e. no where near closing the gap. He gets stats because the opposition want him to dude.
Just doesnt have the quickness of mind for top shelf footy. Would be a gun in leagues that allow you a couple of minutes of thinking music.
As for White, although he tries hard, runs etc etc etc. in the position he plays, we have to maximise our chances and fluffing kicks in a schoolboy fashion IMO stamps his file.
Both have been in the system for way to long to persevere any more, hoping the moon turns blue.

 

[Kapital city TIGER]

thoughtful and thorough discussion here, i just dont know how you can disagree with each other.
Without going to any effort whatsoever, Id like to reiterate points probably made above:
Tuck - was the obvious game for him to add some grunt to counter the swans. We have plenty of pace to counter his lack of it and he could easily play tall at either end and pinch hit. fair enough give conca and Cotch the job of toughing it out as a lesson, but, well, mistake.

Browne - my god what an embarassment, but, he is young, everyone else gets 'developed' fair enough to take him and get some games into him - people need to realise that we may be doing this for several SEASONS before he breaks even.

Miller - was a couple of bs frees against him that made him look bad - not his fault that the swans were scoring (points) at will.

 

[I'm the Juggernaut]

Do you all realise that we played badly and only lost by 10 points. We had all the momentum in the last few minutes. If Cotch had kicked that goal and a little luck we'd all be here saying how we got away with a close win.
Chill out.

Played poor, didn't get smashed and could have pinched it.
Some trades, a good draft and 2012 is looking better.

 

[CoggaRules]

Do you all realise that we played badly and only lost by 10 points. We had all the momentum in the last few minutes. If Cotch had kicked that goal and a little luck we'd all be here saying how we got away with a close win.
Chill out.

Played poor, didn't get smashed and could have pinched it.
Some trades, a good draft and 2012 is looking better.

yep and that just after we played poor and got smashed by the soon to be spooners, but there were excuses and the excuses just keep on rolling in.

Now we have another excuse in our back pocket in readiness for the next installment, of "but we played poor and didnt get smashed" saga.
I can see it now, the bus trip cost us, we will be blaming mother nature next week.
I can tell you for sure and certain, if we lose against the Brisbane Rabble next week, Dimma will need all the tricks in his book to dance around the excuses, he gives to the tigerheads, re. his selections.

 

[Del65166]

This would be the Daniel Jackson who was still responsible for 20% of our goals deep into the third quarter thanks to that beautiful I-50 to Reiwoldt which was probably the kick of the match?

Maybe if a few more onballers learned to get in the clear goal-side of a stoppage and kick inside-50 like that we wouldn't have had a pathetic nine goals for the game?

------------------------------------------

Well, the selection committee owe us 14 premiership points now by my count - once again we blew the game at the selection table for no logical reasons that I can fathom.

People on the forum here knew well before the game that McGuane was out and that we hadn't taken a tall or even viable medium emergency. Fail.

Been saying along with others since the day Miller was brought into the side: 'why don't we take the development option in this case (Post, Gourdis, Astbury) because it means if we lose a key defender, any of these blokes can go back much better than Miller can?' Miller is no better long term option ability-wise as he's clearly shown. Versatility is so important these days, we've ignored it at our peril in order to play a one-dimensional third tall who wouldn't get a game anywhere else. Fail.

The above two things in themselves constitute a massive break down in common sense and the ability to tick the easiest boxes, but there's so much more.

Conca and Batchelor are very obviously physically fading after a tough first half to the season, Helbig's already dropped out (for a while at least), but we've played the absolute iron horse of the competition - Shane Tuck - as the sub on numerous occasions and left him out entirely on numerous others. Conca, Batchelor and Helbig *could* still be up and firing if they'd been played more sparingly as some of us insisted was the sensible way, Cotchin, Foley, Martin and Jackson *could* have had easier seasons and more room to excel with better support, but no, our coaching staff are much smarter than that. It's a very clear cut case of not managing your available resources well and coming out with a sub-standard performance as a result. Fail.

If the side was up and firing in the areas which Tuck excels in, we could justify leaving him out. When you're getting beaten or smashed at them week in week out, when you're playing juniors or outright flankers and pockets as inside mids, they're getting hurt doing it and it's decimating our ability to win (and actually - God forbid - achieve the lofty goals we've set for ourselves), then it's just appalling selection. Fail.

Hardwick inherited a midfield group in Foley, Tuck, Jackson which was borderline finals in 2008 despite having to rove exclusively to the opposition ruckman and play massive game time, was well drilled in the defensive side of the game and competitive against most sides. We also had Deledio, Cotchin, Edwards, Connors and Morton waiting in the wings, and have since added Martin, Grigg and Conca. On paper, it's a bloody good group of players, but week in, week out it gets flogged at the basic defensive aspects of the game. Flogged at things we used to be much better at with less under a coaching team universally labeled as hopeless. Flogged in part not because of a lack of capable players, but because of the coaching staff's ridiculous exclusion of Tuck. Fail.

I like Browne, he tries his heart out and there are glimpses of ability here and there around his painfully raw moments, but it was clearly a mistake to send him up against Seaby in preference to Graham yesterday and only the most blind and biased Graham detractor could begin to argue otherwise. Ability completely aside, we had to let Seaby run around by himself getting touches at will because Browne couldn't go with him and we had to regularly take Vickery out of an already depleted forward line to give him the extra rest he needs. Collingwood aren't about to dump Wood for a young ruckman who'd be exposed like this at AFL level, Graham comfortably beat Wood and did well against the majority of his opponents, Collingwood know how to pick sides which have the best chance of winning and put a season together by doing so. We're smarter than that. Fail.

Play Graham over Browne, Tuck over Hislop, Webberley over Batchelor/Conca, Gourdis/Post over Miller, then maybe do some radical left of centre thinking like changing your game plan to suit the conditions and juggling your match-ups and positioning so key players get their hands on the ball in better places, then we add another 4 points to go with the other 10 we've glibly thrown away, leaving us 5th on the ladder with 32 premiership points and a massive buzz about the club going into the 2nd half of the season.

Or we could go the Hardwick option and blow multiple games solely due to bizarre, inconsistent, nonsensical selection policies and strategies, to squeeze wonderful 'development chapters' into players like Browne, Conca and Batchelor where they get to run around in various states of sore, tired and just plain not coping with the game, then ride the losers bus/plane back from Darwin and Sydney, knowing we're only a win and a half above being bottom-4 yet again.

Brilliant.

top observations.....coaches/selectors need a bit of common sense.