Tenace getting another go?

[TheHonestyPolicy]

What has Tenace done that DJ, Djerka or Hogan hasn't done? Why don't we give them a chance every year round one?

Feels like the coaching staff trying to warrant Tenace as a top 10 pick no matter what it takes.

It's actually the other way round. Tenace was a top 10 pick so why isnt he a star by now? If he turns the ball over he must surely be crap? So lets rewind and play over and over every single mistake that he makes. Ignoring the exact same mistakes of other players in the side. Every player turns it over. I dont care if someone slightly misses a handball up forward if it costs us a goal and the ball gets rushed down the other end what difference does it make to front and square out of defence? None. With the new zone defending coming into being its something you better get used to this season anyway.

Whats really out of whack here is this growing expectation of the sort of player Tenace must become to satisfy those who feel it would justify being picked in the top 10. That was a comparatively weak draft and if he was getting picked in 2008 he wouldnt make the top 20 but I guess that is Tenace's fault again I assume? Its just the Nab Cup lets discuss round 1 when its round 1.

 

[ripitup27]

That is true about the weak draft, you're spot on.

But all I'm saying is, if push comes to shove and a spot is vacant in the seniors team I want someone else to be given a go before the do a Prismall and want to leave.

 

[Pivo]

It's actually the other way round. Tenace was a top 10 pick so why isnt he a star by now? If he turns the ball over he must surely be crap? So lets rewind and play over and over every single mistake that he makes. Ignoring the exact same mistakes of other players in the side. Every player turns it over. I dont care if someone slightly misses a handball up forward if it costs us a goal and the ball gets rushed down the other end what difference does it make to front and square out of defence? None. With the new zone defending coming into being its something you better get used to this season anyway.

Whats really out of whack here is this growing expectation of the sort of player Tenace must become to satisfy those who feel it would justify being picked in the top 10. That was a comparatively weak draft and if he was getting picked in 2008 he wouldnt make the top 20 but I guess that is Tenace's fault again I assume? Its just the Nab Cup lets discuss round 1 when its round 1.

That is a fair observation and I can't comment about how Tenace is perceived by others but I do feel there is a flaw in your argument.

The flaw goes by the name of Byrnes.

Like Tenace, Byrnes is much maligned yet he came off the rookie list. By the logic you are employing, no-one should care because there isn't going to be the same scrunity on a rookie as there is on a top 10 selection.

Yet Byrnes has copped more (until right now) than Tenace has.

However, I will attempt to watch the game on the weekend without bias against Tenace.

 

[scottydeewah]

But all I'm saying is, if push comes to shove and a spot is vacant in the seniors team I want someone else to be given a go before the do a Prismall and want to leave.

I think all we are saying is when the coaching staff choose a team each weekend, we want them to pick the best available team. If that means Hogan, DJ, Djerk or Tenace are in that team, because they have shown the best form in the NAB cup and are in our best 22 then that is great. If they are not in the best 22 then dont pick them.

Or I guess we could pick favourites, players on potential, etc.

 

[TheHonestyPolicy]

That is a fair observation and I can't comment about how Tenace is perceived by others but I do feel there is a flaw in your argument.

The flaw goes by the name of Byrnes.

Like Tenace, Byrnes is much maligned yet he came off the rookie list. By the logic you are employing, no-one should care because there isn't going to be the same scrunity on a rookie as there is on a top 10 selection.

Yet Byrnes has copped more (until right now) than Tenace has.

However, I will attempt to watch the game on the weekend without bias against Tenace.

Haha, that's all you can ask

In theory I agree with you that expectations would rightly be higher for a top 10 than a rookie. To me rookies are often just guys at that age who are at a different stage of development. Interesting as I think you pointed out earlier Tenace did produce and deliver early on in his career as a top 10 pick should. No one would argue that hasnt continued. I would just like to see him fully fit and given a go. If it doesnt work so be it. The argument "it didnt work before so it wont work now" is generally contrary to the whole notion of grooming players at any age. There will always be a time when enough is enough but if Tenace hadnt sustained a number of injuries in the last two years then I might be less tolerant also. No harm for mine trying him out in the Nab Cup.

 

[scottydeewah]

Also what did you want Bomber to say after a good game by Tenace, a player that in the past according to himself, senior players and coaching staff has suffered from a lack of confidence that has hurt is progress. Perhaps come out and say that he has no chance of making the team, that he is a terrible footballer? I mean cmon at the start of the season every player on a list at any club has the right to prove himself again.

Also the argument that he hasnt cemented his spot in the team in previous years is stupid for many reasons:

• Players develop at different rates. I dont give a flying **** if a player waits until he is 28 before he is good enough to play footy. If he is good enough, play the guy. Sport is littered with players who have come good at different stages of their career.
• Players are picked at what they can do now, not what has been done in the past. In the same way that I want a player who is passed it retired, I dont judge younger players on something that happened two years ago.

 

[darren forssman]

Interesting as I think you pointed out earlier Tenace did produce and deliver early on in his career as a top 10 pick should. No one would argue that hasnt continued.

that is when he was playing as a winger/midfielder where i think he is more suited...he (himself) doesnt look comfortable playing off half back.

 

[ripitup27]

Also what did you want Bomber to say after a good game by Tenace, a player that in the past according to himself, senior players and coaching staff has suffered from a lack of confidence that has hurt is progress. Perhaps come out and say that he has no chance of making the team, that he is a terrible footballer? I mean cmon at the start of the season every player on a list at any club has the right to prove himself again.

Also the argument that he hasnt cemented his spot in the team in previous years is stupid for many reasons:

• Players develop at different rates. I dont give a flying **** if a player waits until he is 28 before he is good enough to play footy. If he is good enough, play the guy. Sport is littered with players who have come good at different stages of their career.
• Players are picked at what they can do now, not what has been done in the past. In the same way that I want a player who is passed it retired, I dont judge younger players on something that happened two years ago.

I agree Bomber couldn't have said anything else.

Sure players develop at different rates, but when do you start thinking about delisiting them because they keep letting you down? As I said, he's played round one for the past four years. Why don't other players get the luxury of all these chances that Tenace gets.

At the most I'd be okay if Tenace was given another shot in the midfield, but I don't like him on HB.

 

[turbo0010]

Twinkle Toes Kent Kinglsey got over 100 chances, so Tenace has 50 to go.

 

[Hinkley29]

100% disposal efficiency in the 07 Grand Final calls BS.

The times Woja does stuff up the kick is when he's going flat out into the forward line, where an errant kick doesn't matter as much. Tenace stuffs his kicks up in the corridior in the back 50...not pretty.

Pulling out one isolated stat from one game calls BS.

Wojak had 7 kicks in the 2007 GF. Not a huge sample size there.

If I recall correctly, he was actually one of our worst performers on 2007 GF day, with some indisciplined free kicks against (one that stands out is the reckless tackle that gave Tredrea a goal in the first qtr). Not overly relevant to this thread, but I always thought it slightly amusing when people gave his absence as one of the main reasons why our 2008 GF day performance wasn't as good as our 2007 GF day performance. He just wasn't that good in the 2007 GF.

In fact, I might just go and watch the 2007 GF to check that my recollections are in fact correct.

I also think it is BS that Wojak makes all of his errors in the forward 50. He rarely even gets into the forward 50. Maybe twice a game. When he does they are exciting so perhaps it seems like he does it more ofthen because when he does they are memorable. He is generally running through the centre corridor, and I would suggest that he makes most of his errors in the centre corridor on the defensive side of the centre circle.

To a degree it is irrelevant where on the ground you make a centre corridor turnover. If you have run forward and turn the ball over at the forward 50m line, chances are all the backmen have run forward as well and are now totally out of position. Invariably a turnover of this kind will result in a shot at goal for the opposition.

 

[scottydeewah]

Sure players develop at different rates, but when do you start thinking about delisiting them because they keep letting you down? As I said, he's played round one for the past four years. Why don't other players get the luxury of all these chances that Tenace gets.

MANY players have had more chances than Tenace. Also can you tell me out of the players who were traded or delisted who was better than Tenace that we could/should have kept?

 

[Conan Troutman]

Pulling out one isolated stat from one game calls BS.

Wojak had 7 kicks in the 2007 GF. Not a huge sample size there.

If I recall correctly, he was actually one of our worst performers on 2007 GF day, with some indisciplined free kicks against (one that stands out is the reckless tackle that gave Tredrea a goal in the first qtr). Not overly relevant to this thread, but I always thought it slightly amusing when people gave his absence as one of the main reasons why our 2008 GF day performance wasn't as good as our 2007 GF day performance. He just wasn't that good in the 2007 GF.

In fact, I might just go and watch the 2007 GF to check that my recollections are in fact correct.:thumbsu:

I also think it is BS that Wojak makes all of his errors in the forward 50. He rarely even gets into the forward 50. Maybe twice a game. When he does they are exciting so perhaps it seems like he does it more ofthen because when he does they are memorable. He is generally running through the centre corridor, and I would suggest that he makes most of his errors in the centre corridor on the defensive side of the centre circle.

To a degree it is irrelevant where on the ground you make a centre corridor turnover. If you have run forward and turn the ball over at the forward 50m line, chances are all the backmen have run forward as well and are now totally out of position. Invariably a turnover of this kind will result in a shot at goal for the opposition.

Your recollections are correct IMO. I thought he was one of our worst too. I also couldn't understand why people were saying he should have played in 08 - personally I were happy with that decision prior to the GF and I still think it was the correct call.

 

[Cattery]

......... I also couldn't understand why people were saying he should have played in 08 - personally I were happy with that decision prior to the GF and I still think it was the correct call.

You still think it was the correct decision after the way Varcoe played?

Guess it's a judgement call, but I thought it was a c**p decision at the time and still think it was a c**p decision now.

 

[catempire]

Couldn't have dropped Varcoe on his Prelim Final performance.

It was a crap decision, but it was crap because we played Stokes who clearly not fit to play.

 

[Cattery]

Couldn't have dropped Varcoe on his Prelim Final performance.

It was a crap decision, but it was crap because we played Stokes who clearly not fit to play.

Tough call I admit, but they dropped Wojcinski after he played a good game.
Thought Varcoe was the one to go IMO "if" Stokes was fit, personally thought the chances of Varcoe putting two good games together were next to nil and that's how it panned out.

If Stokes was as unfit as it appeared then you're probably right, he was the one who shouldn't have played.

 

[catempire]

Tough call I admit, but they dropped Wojcinski after he played a good game.
Thought Varcoe was the one to go IMO "if" Stokes was fit, personally thought the chances of Varcoe putting two good games together were next to nil and that's how it panned out.

If Stokes was as unfit as it appeared then you're probably right, he was the one who shouldn't have played.

The Prelim was Varcoe's best game for the club. He provided dash and class when we looked flat and were struggling against the Bulldogs. To drop him would have made no sense at all.

The fact that he played a bad game in the GF doesn't make it a bad decision. That logic would have about a dozen other players marked as poor selections too.

I thought Wojcinski played well enough to keep his spot. I thought it was imperative that we take a fit team into the GF (or as close to fit as we could). For that reason, I think to leave a fit and in form Wojcinski out and to keep a clearly unfit Stokes in, was a mistake.

But I digress...

 

[Gogeelong]

Tenace and Byrnes both played well against Port.

I did not see many skill errors today

 

[Turbocat]

Stokes got game when he shouldn't have because he can kick goals.Just like todays game , hes probably our best forward small. Varcoe got a game because of his best game ever etc but he doesn't kick enough goals to replace Stokes. So Wojo got chopped.

anyway

I thought Tenace was alright today , Im sure the more they play him the more chance they have of getting a return from their investment. I'd rather him than DJ ,purely as I don't see any improvement from DJ is possible.

But , if comes down to a choice between a Blackjack and the Duke , I think I'd rather the Duke. Nathan D could really can be a big improver for our side.Looks well built , can play inside or out and looks to have pace and reasonable skills. Put some games into him and he really could be a very good player.

 

[catempire]

Stokes got game when he shouldn't have because he can kick goals.Just like todays game , hes probably our best forward small.

Turbo, games like today show just how out of sorts Stokes was on GF day. In today's condition, there's no question about him. In the week before the GF it was clear to me and many others that he was not fit to play.

 

[darren forssman]

I also think it is BS that Wojak makes all of his errors in the forward 50. He rarely even gets into the forward 50. Maybe twice a game.

he may not get into the f50 too often but he does kick goals off a half back or long bombs into the f50 that usually create a one on one for our forwards.

but you're right, most of his errors are between the f50 and d50.

 

[Cattery]

The Prelim was Varcoe's best game for the club. He provided dash and class when we looked flat and were struggling against the Bulldogs. To drop him would have made no sense at all.

The fact that he played a bad game in the GF doesn't make it a bad decision. That logic would have about a dozen other players marked as poor selections too.

I thought Wojcinski played well enough to keep his spot. I thought it was imperative that we take a fit team into the GF (or as close to fit as we could). For that reason, I think to leave a fit and in form Wojcinski out and to keep a clearly unfit Stokes in, was a mistake.

But I digress...

Fair enough points you make, but my reasons for thinking Varcoe should have been the one omitted [ despite his good prelim' game ] were made without knowing Stokes was unfit, certainly not to the extent he apparently was.

Given that a fit Stokes would be a walk up starter there weren't many other options, and personally I would go with Wojcinski every day of the week ahead of Varcoe.

Would have been tough on him I admit, but if you have to make a decision between two players you make your selection based on their season/careers, not on the strength of one game.

A hypothetical question, if you were unaware that Stokes was injured, who would you have opted for to be omitted?

 

[Belisarius]

I unfortunately saw no vision of the game against Port - so I cannot comment on this game, or Tenace's performance. However it seems to me that if you were at a club for 6 years without becoming a regular in the first 22 - then the chances of you making it are quite low - but not impossible. The odds are against him.

He has had quite a few injuries as well - and that has not helped his progression. However I fear he has lost confidence in his abilities over this time. Whether he had the abilities to become a good, regular performer is certainly questionable, but when you lose confidence over a long period of time (too few good performances - even in the twos), it is extremely hard to get back from there. Tenace must know if he fails to do anything this year in the seniors his tenure at the club will most likely be over.

Given he is on the list for this year, I suspect Thompson is trying to nurture Tenace along - knowing he is in most likely his last year at the club (under the pump) - and his confidence is very much down. A hard road for Tenace to run I suspect.

A coach (coaches) needs to get the best out of a player - so the team is better - and has a greater chance of weekly success and ultimate glory. But equally they also need to pick the best team each week that will do the job. AFL is an elite sport, played by adults - and sometimes hard decisions, however unpalatable they are, need to be made.

I personally do not think he will make it - as he neither uses his best asset, his pace to advantage, his kicking skills are not that good and he seems to dislike putting his body on the line all the time. This is why I suspect Tenace will not make it - he is just not hard enough at the ball or opponent to make up for these other negatives.

I cannot believe some Geelong people do not like Kelly. At least you know you have a hard, committed body out there that will take a hit and tackle fiercely all day - even if they are not playing as well as they could.

Not every player is as talented as the next - but they all need to contribute for the team to be successful. Even if this is just a hard body and you go 100 %. Max Rooke is a good example of this. Not the most talented Geelong player but he adds something to our side when he is out there.

We can't have 10 Abletts, 6 Joels Coreys, 4 Bartels and 2 Scarletts in our side (imagine the salary cap required for starters) - so we need consistent, hard working footballers with a physical presence to work within the game plan and along side our stars - our more damaging players. From what I have seen so far, though I sincerely hope I am wrong, I cannot see Tenace making it. He has had quite a few chances but has not demonstrated thus far, as I see it, that he adds really anything significant to the team. With the added pressure of a possible last year, lack of a defined role and a lack of confidence, it would be quite extraordinary if he turned it around this year.

I remember very clearly the GF loses we had in the late 80's - early 90's. What stood out for me was that we had enough stars to win a premiership but we did not have the depth in support players. Our last 4 were only ok. Just remember we had Hocking, Bairstow, Couch and Ablett senior (along with Barry Stoneham). Not a bad line up. The backline particularly lacked a real physical presence that provided sufficient pressure for a whole game. Blight and our star footballers got us into GFs but we did not have the depth to win (over a super side like Hawthorn, to lesser extent WC).

I trust we have learned from that era - and that we must at all costs build a team - a champion team not a team of champions with a few weaker links.

 

[catempire]

Fair enough points you make, but my reasons for thinking Varcoe should have been the one omitted [ despite his good prelim' game ] was made without knowing Stokes was unfit, certainly not to the extent he apparently was.

Given that a fit Stokes would be a walk up starter there weren't many other options, and personally I would go with Wojcinski every day of the week ahead of Varcoe.

Would have been tough on him I admit, but if you have to make a decision between two players you make your selection based on their season/careers, not on the strength of one game.

A hypothetical question, if you were unaware that Stokes was injured, who would you have opted for to be omitted?

To give you some context, here is what I said in grand final week:

People seem to be discussing Stokes as if he's playing his best football. He is clearly not. He is hampered by his injury (injuries?) and it is, at times, a liability for the team.

On several occasions on Friday night, the ball was kicked towards Stokes and his opponent and Stokes went to ground, allowing his opponent or another Dogs player to clear the ball. It was not a long-stops/short-stops problem. He was going to ground because he has lost explosiveness and lateral movement ability.

It will be terribly unfortunate for him but there simply is no other better option.

The important point being, that the error was made in selecting Stokes based on careers rather than who was best placed to win us the flag on 27/09/08. On his best day, Stokes is in, no questions asked. You only have to look at how dangerous he was today and last week to see that he is a dangerous player.

But to me the decision didn't come down to Wojcinski or Varcoe. Varcoe had earned his spot. Bomber came out right behind him in GF week saying unequivocally that he would play (and rightly so). Chapman was to return so the question was who would make way.

So for me it came down to who was going to create a spot for Chapman (who had to come in). On the form of previous weeks leading up to the GF, Stokes looked ineffectual. He wasn't dangerous, he wasn't moving freely and he wasn't kicking goals like he usually did. We needed Chapman to come in and fulfill this role because Stokes wasn't doing it.

Wojcinski provides dash off half back. I think we missed this to some extent on GF day, but I don't think the lack of it was the difference. Nor was Varcoe the reason we lost. Nor was Stokes the sole reason we didn't win.

However, I think a team that would have given us a better chance of winning would have been Wojcinski in and Stokes out.

 

[rizzo]

Props to the bloke, I thought he was pretty good this week.

 

[Pivo]

Props to the bloke, I thought he was pretty good this week.

Agreed, I thought some of his work in the packs to get the ball out was good - I almost fell out of my chair.

Of course, one game doesen't make a season but if Tenace continues to play like he did against Port rather than like he has for the majority of his career then I'll cut him some slack.

Happy to give credit where credit is due. He did some nice things.