Prediction Round 2: Changes v Melbourne

[Alfonz]

with 5 players on the bench, mathematically at least one player is going to have around 50% TOG no? quick look at the other games and theres at least a few hovering around that mark, mostly rucks as well (maybe ive missed some injuries or womthing?)

Mathematically ... no. But plenty of teams are using it to manage the minutes of players (be it due to age, fitness or ability), hence the 50% is common for a few per team.

The problem with us is one of those 50% was a KPD, which is a position that is normally at 90-95%. And then to compound it we played Switta, NOD, Dudley who had restricted minutes in the pre season (none played versus Adelaide), plus Young must have been touch and go to even play. It's no wonder we fell in a heap.

Maybe between a rock and a hard place with some of the selections, but I think M.Cox and Banfield should have played instead of Darcy and NOD. Will that happen this week? I doubt it.

 

[Doctor J]

Mathematically ... no. But plenty of teams are using it to manage the minutes of players (be it due to age, fitness or ability), hence the 50% is common for a few per team.

The problem with us is one of those 50% was a KPD, which is a position that is normally at 90-95%. And then to compound it we played Switta, NOD, Dudley who had restricted minutes in the pre season (none played versus Adelaide), plus Young must have been touch and go to even play. It's no wonder we fell in a heap.

Maybe between a rock and a hard place with some of the selections, but I think M.Cox and Banfield should have played instead of Darcy and NOD. Will that happen this week? I doubt it.

Sounds logical with the possible exception of NOD, who seemed to run out the game ok - or was his TOG pretty low?

 

[PrancingPony]

If we're looking to add pace, would Sharp be the worst guy to potentially look at getting another crack? See if he's improved his disposal over the preseason?

 

[Alfonz]

Sounds logical with the possible exception of NOD, who seemed to run out the game ok - or was his TOG pretty low?

78% for NOD which was similar to Brayshaw, Jackson, Bolton, Young. All in the 77-79 range.

FanFooty logs the quarter by quarter DT/SC scores (see below for a few players, hopefully the formatting makes sense). I wouldn't say NOD ran the game out OK based on this. He wasn't alone though.

Bolton can be hot and cold, and Johnson is still developing. But it's telling that we lost all output from Young, Switta and NOD in the final quarter when they were guys who didn't have the optimal preparation for the game. I reckon Brayshaw was unwell or carrying something, I can't explain such a bad game from him otherwise.

Caleb Serong 18/16 25/28 21/26 44/80
Luke Jackson 42/44 33/26 30/45 20/27
Murphy Reid 13/16 24/26 12/6 29/41
Neil Erasmus 17/19 15/9 17/4 16/13

Shai Bolton 30/36 16/24 9/3 7/5
N.O'Driscoll 19/30 20/15 8/9 2/6
Hayden Young 33/42 11/20 24/28 0/-10
M.Johnson 32/33 18/21 10/10 6/-7
S.Switkowski 12/9 17/16 12/14 0/-2
A.Brayshaw 16/16 15/13 15/21 7/-3

 

[swanny1234]

Does someone get a run with/tagging role on Kossie?

Did he play more forward or mid against the Saints?

Wags should tag Kozzie - he murdered us last season.

 

[Taylor]

If we're looking to add pace, would Sharp be the worst guy to potentially look at getting another crack? See if he's improved his disposal over the preseason?

I'm not sure he's that quick, he just doesn't stop moving.

Walker and Clark abandoning their men and running forward for a handball receive worked fine right up until it didn't.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Huge week for JLo and match committee. If they go with Darcy over Cox again and we're 0-2 the wolves will start circling.

Was a bizarre decision after Cox's performance against the Crows. I'm confident that if we went with Cox we beat the Cats, Darcy was that bad.

Both Darcy and Pearce will be better for the run.

We still should beat Melbourne

 

[PrancingPony]

Both Darcy and Pearce will be better for the run.

We still should beat Melbourne

I'm not all that convinced by Melbourne, they showed some good signs on the weekend, but they beat an overhyped St Kilda side.

I think we're comfortably a better team than them.

 

[BurnedScones]

I'm not all that convinced by Melbourne, they showed some good signs on the weekend, but they beat an overhyped St Kilda side.

I think we're comfortably a better team than them.

I agree St Kilda are overhyped but I thought Melbourne looked quite good on the weekend.

Not sure us beating them is a sure thing. They moved the ball pretty well which I think could trouble us. Plus if Max Gawn decides to Max Gawn everywhere we might be in trouble.

 

[PrancingPony]

I agree St Kilda are overhyped but I thought Melbourne looked quite good on the weekend.

Not sure us beating them is a sure thing. They moved the ball pretty well which I think could trouble us. Plus if Max Gawn decides to Max Gawn everywhere we might be in trouble.

It's possible that Melbourne give us some fight, but with us being home, and with something to prove after letting the Geelong game slip, I just don't think we'll let them get close.

 

[anchor man]

That’s the fault of the WAFL (and maybe we should reconsider the partnership and move towards the AFL reserves league if it stays like this) - we cannot have a half fit player running around the AFL, when we have a fully fit alternative. I’m sorry that’s the way it is.

You can’t carry someone playing 40% time on ground, and then be totally ineffective during the 40% of time he spends on the field.

The American should play.

There is no way that the Dockers or Eagles will ever go into the VFL reserves comp.It would have to be subsidised by the AFL, and that ain't gunna happen.They have spent and still have to spend more money fixing the AFLW.
The alignment with Peel works fine.The two competitions, WAFL and AFL, will never line up as equal in time.Double the number of games and teams.Etc.
The easy answer waould have been for the AFL to swallow their pride and admit they have screwed up with the Smoke and Morrors round. Allowing ALL clubs to have played the previous week.

 

[Mogumber]

If we don't beat Melbourne, then mumbles is cactus

 

[swanny1234]

There is no way that the Dockers or Eagles will ever go into the VFL reserves comp.It would have to be subsidised by the AFL, and that ain't gunna happen.They have spent and still have to spend more money fixing the AFLW.
The alignment with Peel works fine.The two competitions, WAFL and AFL, will never line up as equal in time.Double the number of games and teams.Etc.
The easy answer waould have been for the AFL to swallow their pride and admit they have screwed up with the Smoke and Morrors round. Allowing ALL clubs to have played the previous week.

Sure but that’s not how the AFL works and we know that.

If a player isn’t match fit, don’t play them. Control what we can control - pick guys that are fully fit. That means Darcy shouldn’t have played.

 

[ignoramus]

The question around selection for the Geelong game is an interesting one in view of the strong suspicion (publicly stated view) that early rounds are faster, the belief that Geelong had a conditioning advantage due to OR, and the fact that Darcy, Pearce and Young were coming off minor setbacks and would need managed minutes.

The loss suggests the decision to play those underdone players was misguided and that the decision to do so is made worse in view of the fact that Longmuir already recognised all the risks that proved to be realities. Why on earth would match committee go into the game with three underdone players, when you’re already aware that it reduces your chances of winning?

The simplest answer is that Longmuir is just not good enough: he’s inflexible, and too wedded to a game plan that footy is trending away from; he plays favourites, when selection integrity demanded others be chosen; and now we can see that he’s just too stupid to see the blindingly obvious.

Another answer is that, week by week, they’re trying to balance two different objectives: the short term aim of winning the round and the long term objective of winning the lot. On the surface, the two objectives appear to be perfectly aligned, in that winning the round every week should see you winning the lot, but I’m not sure they are.

Rightly or wrongly, the club have Darcy in their longer term plans, and I see the selection decision as being a case of trading the benefit that a bit of spare run in the R1 game would bring against the deferred gains to be reaped from improved fitness and connection across the course of the season. Obviously, it was a gamble — as all selection, training, planning decisions are — one which nearly paid off but ultimately didn’t. Just as undeniable is the fact that we do not know yet whether the deferred gains will eventuate and lead to more wins down the track.

Regardless, if part of the thinking was long term gains, then I expect we’ll Darcy selected again.

 

[anchor man]

Sure but that’s not how the AFL works and we know that.

If a player isn’t match fit, don’t play them. Control what we can control - pick guys that are fully fit. That means Darcy shouldn’t have played.

So we shouldn't have played Pearce either!! Or with the Smoke and Mirrors round, maybe we should have just decided to give the game to Geelong and had another week off.
I say he should have played to gain his match fitness. A game with Peel would have been like a intra club game.

 

[kp junior]

The question around selection for the Geelong game is an interesting one in view of the strong suspicion (publicly stated view) that early rounds are faster, the belief that Geelong had a conditioning advantage due to OR, and the fact that Darcy, Pearce and Young were coming off minor setbacks and would need managed minutes.

The loss suggests the decision to play those underdone players was misguided and that the decision to do so is made worse in view of the fact that Longmuir already recognised all the risks that proved to be realities. Why on earth would match committee go into the game with three underdone players, when you’re already aware that it reduces your chances of winning?

The simplest answer is that Longmuir is just not good enough: he’s inflexible, and too wedded to a game plan that footy is trending away from; he plays favourites, when selection integrity demanded others be chosen; and now we can see that he’s just too stupid to see the blindingly obvious.

Another answer is that, week by week, they’re trying to balance two different objectives: the short term aim of winning the round and the long term objective of winning the lot. On the surface, the two objectives appear to be perfectly aligned, in that winning the round every week should see you winning the lot, but I’m not sure they are.

Rightly or wrongly, the club have Darcy in their longer term plans, and I see the selection decision as being a case of trading the benefit that a bit of spare run in the R1 game would bring against the deferred gains to be reaped from improved fitness and connection across the course of the season. Obviously, it was a gamble — as all selection, training, planning decisions are — one which nearly paid off but ultimately didn’t. Just as undeniable is the fact that we do not know yet whether the deferred gains will eventuate and lead to more wins down the track.

Regardless, if part of the thinking was long term gains, then I expect we’ll Darcy selected again.

this seems correct in hindsight, but was anyone here saying this before the game?

 

[anchor man]

If we're looking to add pace, would Sharp be the worst guy to potentially look at getting another crack? See if he's improved his disposal over the preseason?

Sharp can run all day, but he doesn't get the ball all that much.

 

[laptop_MR]

I still maintain this is “recently traded in” bias.

If his name was Michael Frederick or Bailey Banfield he’d be one of the first calls to be dropped.

Blokes had 2 games under his belt with us (one of those being a praccy) and 1 pre season. Gimme a break. New players always take time to gel

Did people on this board call to drop Jackson when he was poor the first 3 games of 2023?

 

[ignoramus]

this seems correct in hindsight, but was anyone here saying this before the game?

I’m sure there are a few posters who will say that they were. Regardless, Longmuir himself had said something about needing extra runners in the early rounds, so I’d say selection committee were sensitive to the risks.

The thing I’m interested in is the thinking behind taking that risk regardless. Hackneyed lines about stubbornness and playing favourites aside, it's interesting to assess it in terms of trading off a chance to win in the coming game for increased chance to win in multiple games down the track. There are other scenarios where this kind of thinking is advocated, especially around resting older players for interstate games.

 

[King Tenz]

Blokes had 2 games under his belt with us (one of those being a praccy) and 1 pre season. Gimme a break. New players always take time to gel

Did people on this board call to drop Jackson when he was poor the first 3 games of 2023?

I don't recall Jackson having a poor start? or Bolton for that matter, since people keep bringing that one up as well

 

[Randomizor]

I don't recall Jackson having a poor start? or Bolton for that matter, since people keep bringing that one up as well

The numbers highlighting Jackson’s TOUGH start at Freo

Pressure is mounting on Dockers recruit Luke Jackson, with one former player suggesting he would be dropped if he didn’t come with such a significant price tag, just two games in at his new club.

www.perthnow.com.au

 

[PrancingPony]

I don't recall Jackson having a poor start? or Bolton for that matter, since people keep bringing that one up as well

There was definitely coverage during Jackson's first month or so at the club about how he was underwhelming, people wondering if we should have paid what we did for him, there was plenty of talk about him not playing as well as he should.

Bolton took a little to get going too.

 

[King Tenz]

There was definitely coverage during Jackson's first month or so at the club about how he was underwhelming, people wondering if we should have paid what we did for him, there was plenty of talk about him not playing as well as he should.

Bolton took a little to get going too.

at least these guys are proven big match premiership players

can't really say the same for McVee can we?

 

[PrancingPony]

at least these guys are proven big match premiership players

can't really say the same for McVee can we?

You may be right, but I personally don't think it is fair to drop a guy who we've recently brought in after one match, he's going to take a little bit to gel with the team. We brought him in because we know he and Clark can form an elite half back duo, give him some time to build to that, he'll get there.

 

[malpaso]

I daresay Gawn is going to pull up a wee bit sore this weekend. Virtually played the entire game on Sunday and a hard tight one at that.