Team Mgmt. 2017 Team selections, injuries and availability

[Lore]

So you're probably aware of the spreadsheets I keep posting everywhere. Well this will be something of a home for it I guess.

Spoiler: 2016 version

 

[Red Black and Blue]

I'm worried he's not going to make enough hard calls going forward. We are a big chance to miss the 8 with an easy draw and the healthiest list in the comp.

On the flip side we are pretty close to making the eight with one of the worst midfields in the competition.

 

[EnolaGay]

I'm worried he's not going to make enough hard calls going forward. We are a big chance to miss the 8 with an easy draw and the healthiest list in the comp.

I think he will. He's left Stanton, Hocking, Howlett (mainly) in the 2's. Jackson Merrett's papers stamped. Didn't recall Luey when he hadn't been too bad prior to him missing for injury/illness. There's certainly still some sorting of wheat from chaff to come.

 

[Ambrosia]

I think he will. He's left Stanton, Hocking, Howlett (mainly) in the 2's. Jackson Merrett's papers stamped. Didn't recall Luey when he hadn't been too bad prior to him missing for injury/illness. There's certainly still some sorting of wheat from chaff to come.

That is promising but there's also been talk of re-signing Kelly/Watson and we haven't blooded much talent this year.

 

[vast]

Will he make the hard call on Jobe this week though.

 

[Doss]

That is promising but there's also been talk of re-signing Kelly/Watson and we haven't blooded much talent this year.

Kelly's form has easily been good enough to warrant another year if he wants it. He probably won't though regardless.

 

[BrunoV]

On the flip side we are pretty close to making the eight with one of the worst midfields in the competition.

Why do we continue to assume that playing the kids means that we'll lose?

The experienced players are the ones who are producing results bouncing up and down like a yo-yo.

Looking back three weeks the decision to pick Bird over Langford was ridiculous.

 

[DERO]

Why do we continue to assume that playing the kids means that we'll lose?

The experienced players are the ones who are producing results bouncing up and down like a yo-yo.

Looking back three weeks the decision to pick Bird over Langford was ridiculous.

If we lose this week it would be crazy not to play the kids for the rest of the year as finals will pretty much be out of reach. Right here, right now, the team needs to be made up of our best players, not young kids who may or may not have potential. This week is not the week to be experimenting hoping for a result.

 

[BrunoV]

If we lose this week it would be crazy not to play the kids for the rest of the year as finals will pretty much be out of reach. Right here, right now, the team needs to be made up of our best players, not young kids who may or may not have potential. This week is not the week to be experimenting hoping for a result.

The divide between old and young is created by the coaches who always manage toconvince themselves to stick with the experienced player despite, this year, so much of the improvement coming from young and/or inexperienced players who we ended up just going with (in addition to the best 22 players found last year).

Gleeson, Stewart and McKenna are the players.

They were not in our best side when they got selected (McKernan was out performing Stewart, Stanton was better and more consistent than McKenna and Gleeson replaced Dea based on a game in which Gleeson would have been torched by Dea's opponent).

They didn't become best 22 in a game or even two but after a month they'd made the best 22 a better 22.

We're now in a situation where we won't be able to selct the next new guy because we've left it too late but we're probably not good enough to make finals.

It's weird to watch the same players do the same thing every week and continue to get selected in team which is ultimately underperforming.

This is really characteristic Worsfold rigidity which is being covered up by the return of the banned players which in the context of this year has been a red herring. At best it could be attributed to having cost us one game early in the year which we would have expected to win.

He's proven himself wrong on three occasions this year.

 

[Doss]

I thought Langford should have been selected, not in place of Bird however.

And Bird's performance in that Saints game hardly supports your argument that his selection was ridiculous. He came in and performed his intended role perfectly.

 

[Killer_Mike]

The divide between old and young is created by the coaches who always manage toconvince themselves to stick with the experienced player despite, this year, so much of the improvement coming from young and/or inexperienced players who we ended up just going with (in addition to the best 22 players found last year).

Gleeson, Stewart and McKenna are the players.

They were not I our best side when they got selected (McKernan was out performing Stewart, Stanton was better and more consistent than McKenna and Gleeson replaced Dea based on a game in which Gleeson would have been torched by Dea's opponent).

They didn't become best 22 in a game or even two but after a month they'd made the best 22 a better 22.

We're now in a situation where we won't be able to selct the next new guy because we've left it too late but we're probably not good enough to make finals.

It's weird to watch the same players do the same thing every week and continue to get selected in team which is ultimately underperforming.

This is really characteristic Worsfold rigidity which is being covered up by the return of the banned players which in the context of this year has been a red herring. At best it could be attributed to having cost us one game early in the year which we would have expected to win.

He's proven himself wrong on three occasions this year.

Gleeson I would consider a regular since he started. Yes, he has been sent back to VFL to work on things at times but since he started with us I would consider him a regular.

Stewart is in his first season with us. The link with McKernan I'm not sure about? Smack was selected as a ruck to kick off the year and then sent back to VFL when Leuey was made available. That to me was a clear indication he is depth. His only other selections were to replace Hooker when injured. That was an indication that Woosha likes to maintain structure. In what is basically his first season as coach he is trying to develop a blueprint which requires sticking to structures. Stewart to his credit was knock only knocking on the door at VFL level he was kicking it in.

And to suggest Stanton was better and more consistent than McKenna is not accurate either. McKenna has always performed very well at VFL and it was always going to be a given that he would transition into the side. Stanton was average at best and was sent back to VFL to assist with developing the younger guys at VFL. McKenna remained in the side because it was obvious to the coaches (and a handful of us posters) that he had considerable more upside than using somebody like Stanton.

All three of the guys you have suggested have done at minimum a three year apprenticeship at either the second level of football and games at senior level. Most of the guys we have in the current VFL side are either first year players or in their second years and are either getting fit or have had injury concerns. Langford would be the only player I think that is worthy of a spot but is effectively still a first year player in terms of playing as a midfielder.

 

[BrunoV]

I thought Langford should have been selected, not in place of Bird however.

And Bird's performance in that Saints game hardly supports your argument that his selection was ridiculous. He came in and performed his intended role perfectly.

Bird came in and had no impact on the game and certainly none that was beyond Langford. They picked him because they wanted the experience and it made no difference because the game was a rout. Or am I to accept that we won by 10 goals because of Bird?

Based on the performances of Stewart, Gleeson and McKenna it is quite possible that Langford could now be a best 22 player. We won't know because we went with an unnecessarily conservative selection.

 

[BrunoV]

Gleeson I would consider a regular since he started. Yes, he has been sent back to VFL to work on things at times but since he started with us I would consider him a regular.

Stewart is in his first season with us. The link with McKernan I'm not sure about? Smack was selected as a ruck to kick off the year and then sent back to VFL when Leuey was made available. That to me was a clear indication he is depth. His only other selections were to replace Hooker when injured. That was an indication that Woosha likes to maintain structure. In what is basically his first season as coach he is trying to develop a blueprint which requires sticking to structures. Stewart to his credit was knock only knocking on the door at VFL level he was kicking it in.

And to suggest Stanton was better and more consistent than McKenna is not accurate either. McKenna has always performed very well at VFL and it was always going to be a given that he would transition into the side. Stanton was average at best and was sent back to VFL to assist with developing the younger guys at VFL. McKenna remained in the side because it was obvious to the coaches (and a handful of us posters) that he had considerable more upside than using somebody like Stanton.

All three of the guys you have suggested have done at minimum a three year apprenticeship at either the second level of football and games at senior level. Most of the guys we have in the current VFL side are either first year players or in their second years and are either getting fit or have had injury concerns. Langford would be the only player I think that is worthy of a spot but is effectively still a first year player in terms of playing as a midfielder.

Look at Stewart's VFL numbers. From memory he had sub-10 possession games in three of the four VFL games he played. Before his inclusion in the AFL side he may have played one game in 2017 that got close to the high-teen possession games that he is now putting together (out of about 10 games). McKernan is clearly a key forward as much as he is a ruck based on his selection against Sydney. We made a structural change and overlooked McKernan despite a very good AFL performance against Hawthorn and his having kicked more VFL goals (and the added bonus of being able to use him in the ruck).

McKenna was not playing well in the VFL he was really only just going. I remember being surprised that he got included because I didn't think his performances warranted selected (and I've been watching him keenly for three years now because his potential is so great). Both he and Stewart have been very different players in the AFL where there is a clearer structure for them to work in (McKenna for example would go on about 1/3 of the number of mad dashes out of defence when playing VFL). They've also just become much better players in the AFL in the last 8 weeks.

Gleeson is another whose game is at a whole new level compared to the player that got his latest run in the AFL side (and he's was getting better week to week until the Dogs game - not that I am being critical).

 

[eth-dog]

Look at Stewart's VFL numbers. From memory he had sub-10 possession games in three of the four VFL games he played. Before his inclusion in the AFL side he may have played one game in 2017 that got close to the high-teen possession games that he is now putting together (out of about 10 games). McKernan is clearly a key forward as much as he is a ruck based on his selection against Sydney. We made a structural change and overlooked McKernan despite a very good AFL performance against Hawthorn and his having kicked more VFL goals (and the added bonus of being able to use him in the ruck).

McKenna was not playing well in the VFL he was really only just going. I remember being surprised that he got included because I didn't think his performances warranted selected (and I've been watching him keenly for three years now because his potential is so great). Both he and Stewart have been very different players in the AFL where there is a clearer structure for them to work in (McKenna for example would go on about 1/3 of the number of mad dashes out of defence when playing VFL). They've also just become much better players in the AFL in the last 8 weeks.

Gleeson is another whose game is at a whole new level compared to the player that got his latest run in the AFL side (and he's was getting better week to week until the Dogs game - not that I am being critical).

Stewart kicked 8 goals to Smack's 6 when Stewart was initially selected. He also had two games of 16 and 17 possessions. And had more disposals than McKernan in those four games too.

 

[Killer_Mike]

Look at Stewart's VFL numbers. From memory he had sub-10 possession games in three of the four VFL games he played. Before his inclusion in the AFL side he may have played one game in 2017 that got close to the high-teen possession games that he is now putting together (out of about 10 games). McKernan is clearly a key forward as much as he is a ruck based on his selection against Sydney. We made a structural change and overlooked McKernan despite a very good AFL performance against Hawthorn and his having kicked more VFL goals (and the added bonus of being able to use him in the ruck).

McKenna was not playing well in the VFL he was really only just going. I remember being surprised that he got included because I didn't think his performances warranted selected (and I've been watching him keenly for three years now because his potential is so great). Both he and Stewart have been very different players in the AFL where there is a clearer structure for them to work in (McKenna for example would go on about 1/3 of the number of mad dashes out of defence when playing VFL). They've also just become much better players in the AFL in the last 8 weeks.

Gleeson is another whose game is at a whole new level compared to the player that got his latest run in the AFL side (and he's was getting better week to week until the Dogs game - not that I am being critical).

Stewart kicked 6 goals in the pre-season game against Richmond and from there I could see he was going to be breaking into the side very fast. He followed that up with games of 17 and 16 possessions and was easily our best forward at that level. if you read any of my posts from when I started on this site in March I was saying that we have an extremely good forward on our hands. If I could see that then I'm comfortable in saying that our recruiting and coaching departments were onto it. He has done well at Senior level because of his workrate. The guy never stopped running at VFL level and hasn't stopped running in the seniors.

McKenna has been one of our best performed VFL players since he started playing football. He showed lots of promise as a small forward initially but when given an opportunity at AFL level his lack of knowledge of the game exposed his weaknesses. From their they thought it best like other Irish guys before him to try him off half back. For those of us that attend VFL it was a regular sight to see him slaloming through the middle of the ground and delivering with precision by foot. Again if you go through my posts you will see that I thought he was a lock for the side.

And Gleeson has been a regular since he started whether you agree with it or not. You are arguing that these players need to be given a run in the seniors to further develop their game, but these three guys that you have used as examples all did extensive apprenticeships in the VFL at some stage of their rookie seasons. That to me is an indication that its a good training ground. Fantasia was another that played significant games in the VFL.

I am regular VFL watcher and have been for a long time and it's my personal belief that of all the guys we have in the development league only Langford has earned the right to be playing seniors regularly. Woosha has his reasons for not playing him and I tend to agree with them. Next year he and Parish will be permanent midfielders and I suspect the level of development put into both is going to pay massive dividends.

I'm a big fan of the young guys playing in the seniors but I also acknowledge that the VFL can play a massive part in giving them vital training. Using Laverde as an example, I would be more than happy if he went back to VFL level and played as a permanent mid. I just don't see the purpose of somebody with his skillset playing as a leadup third tall. We need gamechangers not roleplayers, and he has so much more potential to do more. He just wont get the opportunity to play as a mid at senior level because he is behind so many others to get an opportunity.

 

[Doss]

Bird came in and had no impact on the game and certainly none that was beyond Langford. They picked him because they wanted the experience and it made no difference because the game was a rout. Or am I to accept that we won by 10 goals because of Bird?

Based on the performances of Stewart, Gleeson and McKenna it is quite possible that Langford could now be a best 22 player. We won't know because we went with an unnecessarily conservative selection.

Had no impact?

Spare me.

 

[BrunoV]

Had no impact?

Spare me.

Okay, if we're going to get bogged down in semantics. Did Bird play a game as a depth player that was good enough to justify not playing Langford?

That's the thing about depth players, you want them to play games that you think are beyond the kids that you otherwise want to integrate over a period of time. If they're not doing that they're 'list cloggers' (as much as I hate that term). Clearly they don't think that Bird is good enough otherwise he would have played more than 2 games despite the reality that he'd be leading the VFL best and fairest.

But sure, his 16 possessions and two big tackles was amazing and vindicates his selection. Then when you look at the big picture, here we are with Watson being burned the moment the ball is more than 1m and struggling to keep up, Myers somewhere between being an adequate replacement and not and with Bird (that's the player that we wont select unless Watson is not playing) seemingly as the only viable replacement going into a finals campaign. Does this make sense to you? It makes no sense to me. To make sense to me, Bird would have to have played more footy for a side that has struggled around the contest all year.

 

[citizen-erased]

The divide between old and young is created by the coaches who always manage toconvince themselves to stick with the experienced player despite, this year, so much of the improvement coming from young and/or inexperienced players who we ended up just going with (in addition to the best 22 players found last year).

Gleeson, Stewart and McKenna are the players.

They were not in our best side when they got selected (McKernan was out performing Stewart, Stanton was better and more consistent than McKenna and Gleeson replaced Dea based on a game in which Gleeson would have been torched by Dea's opponent).

They didn't become best 22 in a game or even two but after a month they'd made the best 22 a better 22.

We're now in a situation where we won't be able to selct the next new guy because we've left it too late but we're probably not good enough to make finals.

It's weird to watch the same players do the same thing every week and continue to get selected in team which is ultimately underperforming.

This is really characteristic Worsfold rigidity which is being covered up by the return of the banned players which in the context of this year has been a red herring. At best it could be attributed to having cost us one game early in the year which we would have expected to win.

He's proven himself wrong on three occasions this year.

Good post

If we make finals, I'd like it to be on the back of experience into the kids who will take this club forward.

 

[Ambrosia]

I thought Langford should have been selected, not in place of Bird however.

And Bird's performance in that Saints game hardly supports your argument that his selection was ridiculous. He came in and performed his intended role perfectly.

Had no issue with Bird's selection as I don't see how bringing Langford in just to be dropped straight away makes any sense.

 

[Teflon Dons]

Had no issue with Bird's selection as I don't see how bringing Langford in just to be dropped straight away makes any sense.

Yeah good point, Watson was always coming back the week after. Bird is the easier conversation and probably was more like for like in terms of a hardened body to cope with sydney's style. Which has been consistent in selection the entire season.

Langford's had a couple of goes, it would've been a mistake to bring him in for a week against the best midfield in the comp. Confidence killer

 

[Doss]

Had no issue with Bird's selection as I don't see how bringing Langford in just to be dropped straight away makes any sense.

There is also that, but Langford isn't really an inside mid at the end of the day. Watson, who Bird replaced, is and so is Bird.

Sometimes like for like is all that is needed.

 

[Lore]

-McGrath has good legspeed and makes great decisions and should be starting the summer training with the midfield group. Compared his first year to Jaegers first year.

Yep, big call.

He sounded pretty confident that Woosha was going to give him for the midfield group. He actually sounded a bit frustrated because of the lack of legspeed in our midfield which I think everyone could see all year. McGrath will definitely assist there.

(quoting you here so the coaching panel thread doesn't go in twenty different directions at once)

If McGrath moves into the midfield, it's interesting to think about what our defence will then look like.

This year we've played seven defenders, with three talls and four 'general' defenders, with Dea and Gleeson playing some sort of combination of third tall and small, particularly after Ambrose and Brown were injured. With McGrath opening up a spot in defence, does that mean Dea or Gleeson get a more permanent role as a 'small', or perhaps Ridley or McNiece comes in to his spot?

And there's also Aaron Francis to concern ourselves with, who seems to be being brought up as a defender. Perhaps he pushes Dea/Hartley/Brown out of the 22 (whichever currently owns that spot, I'm not certain) when he's ready.

 

[Killer_Mike]

(quoting you here so the coaching panel thread doesn't go in twenty different directions at once)

If McGrath moves into the midfield, it's interesting to think about what our defence will then look like.

This year we've played seven defenders, with three talls and four 'general' defenders, with Dea and Gleeson playing some sort of combination of third tall and small, particularly after Ambrose and Brown were injured. With McGrath opening up a spot in defence, does that mean Dea or Gleeson get a more permanent role as a 'small', or perhaps Ridley or McNiece comes in to his spot?

And there's also Aaron Francis to concern ourselves with, who seems to be being brought up as a defender. Perhaps he pushes Dea/Hartley/Brown out of the 22 (whichever currently owns that spot, I'm not certain) when he's ready.

Yep, I think you will find this is what Teflon and myself have been talking about in relation to our backline.

if McGrath does move to midfield our defence is going to be slow and sluggish and with few good ball users. I think this is why we were linked to JJ and now Pittard.

Our talls are fine but with Kelly and McGrath not their next year a lot will be dependent on how much Gleeson and McKenna develop. They need to pick up the slack in terms of rebound.

 

[Lore]

Our talls are fine but with Kelly and McGrath not their next year a lot will be dependent on how much Gleeson and McKenna develop. They need to pick up the slack in terms of rebound.

I think McKenna will be fine. Gleeson is the one I have trouble 'getting'... he's not really a shut down defender but doesn't seem to rebound a lot either. I think possibly he has been playing as third tall a bit lately with the injuries to the others, and in that case he's probably too busy to provide a lot of rebound, as he might otherwise do.

There's also Redman, Morgan and Long that I forgot about before, I'm not sure if they adequately fill that rebounding type role either. Hmm.

 

[Killer_Mike]

I think McKenna will be fine. Gleeson is the one I have trouble 'getting'... he's not really a shut down defender but doesn't seem to rebound a lot either. I think possibly he has been playing as third tall a bit lately with the injuries to the others, and in that case he's probably too busy to provide a lot of rebound, as he might otherwise do.

There's also Redman, Morgan and Long that I forgot about before, I'm not sure if they adequately fill that rebounding type role either. Hmm.

Agree on both counts. McKenana already showed enough that he's already incredibly important now and he still has lots of improvement. Gleeson on the other hand is not elite in any one thing and never will be and for mine that puts him in a tricky spot. Their are three elements to his role. The defence part he's poor at. He doesn't have any body strength and also gets exposed in the air. His rebound is improving but he's clearly well behind Hurley, McKenna and McGrath in that regard and for me that is what his role is all about. The third one is being the interceptor. He's good at that but I would say no better than Brown. When you compare him to the better interceptors then you can see he is well behind. I k ow he has his fans and I acknowledge that he is improving but that role is critical. Rebound from the back half is super important and we are poor at it.

 

[Lore]

Agree on both counts. McKenana already showed enough that he's already incredibly important now and he still has lots of improvement. Gleeson on the other hand is not elite in any one thing and never will be and for mine that puts him in a tricky spot. Their are three elements to his role. The defence part he's poor at. He doesn't have any body strength and also gets exposed in the air. His rebound is improving but he's clearly well behind Hurley, McKenna and McGrath in that regard and for me that is what his role is all about. The third one is being the interceptor. He's good at that but I would say no better than Brown. When you compare him to the better interceptors then you can see he is well behind. I k ow he has his fans and I acknowledge that he is improving but that role is critical. Rebound from the back half is super important and we are poor at it.

I think he's been taking a match-up meant for Paddy Ambrose or Mitch Brown for most of the year, so I don't think it's really fair to judge him on that with regard to his strength and being outbodied by bigger opponents It's like saying Walla isn't great overhead and therefore is a bad player, but really he shouldn't be matched up on jumping marking opponents with 7 or 8 inches on him before they've even left the ground either.

The question really is, if he were allowed to play on someone more appropriate, would he be at that an appropriate level to command a best 22 position, and if not, is it an appropriate use of resources to replace him in that role. I think while the former is arguable, he is definitely able to play a role and replacing him with someone better would probably cost more than it is worth (especially if we're talking about premiership norm smith medallists or something), although that's a discussion for the trade/draft thread.

It's probably more a question for eth-dog, but if we look at some of the best offensive set ups in the country at the moment, what is the best way of structuring our defence to match up on them? And within that given structure, who do we have for each role?