Picking teams is really hard.

[mjp]

So - I read the selection thread every week with interest. I am interested in the selections. I am equally interested in peoples thoughts on the selections.

I have been coaching for (what I think is) a long time. I did my first year as an assistant in 2003 and have been running my own race since 2007. I still hate selection nights.

You have to weigh up form. Opposition structure. Opposition game-style. Size. Experience. Training form. "Character" form (yes, people go from showing good behaviours to less good behaviours just like going in and out of playing form). Time of the season (win loss). Time of the calendar (need to get experience in for next year vs now). Outside influences - in my case this always ends up being recruiters etc. THEN - there is the impact of each of those things on all of the other things.

For example - player x is out of form. But he is a generally 'good' player who might need a new look at things. So you want to move him to half back. Fine. So a defender needs to go out. Who? Clearly a half back. Well...maybe. What role in the back 6 is player x to play. What does that mean for the existing 7 defenders? What about the match-ups? etc etc.

It is chaotic. And each line coach has their say - and favourites - and you need to throw them an occasional bone as well. In the above example, the most likely change for player x coming in might be to drop player y. But he is a favourite of the backs coach who has 100% faith in his idea to 'insert unique skill of dubious value here' and he is fighting hard to keep him in. But wants instead to leave out a developing player who has shown a lot of upside but is prone to making a coach killing error (or two)...but could also be a match winner. All of which means an hour later you have somehow left out a solid citizen outside mid who never did a thing wrong because you moved the 'developing player with upside' to the mids to placate the defensive coach and now a mid had to be spat out instead...

It's really, really, really hard. And the closer to it you get, the harder it gets to manage.

Anyway...I'm sure there is a lot of "It's the coaches job just to get this right" and "How hard is it - just don't pick Gardner or Gowers" feedback to this post but...what can I tell you. I am often surprised at the selections but try not to ever get angry or upset as I am pretty confident a lot of thought and discussion has gone into it...and - after all - seeing the BEST in a player and being confident in their ability to perform despite past inconsistencies is not a bad quality.

[GVGjr]

When you are winning and playing well most selections rarely get challenged.
When you are playing poorly and losing then selections will certainly be challenged.
It's the nature of a highly scrutinized professional sport

I don't really care about selections like Gardner and Gowers as long as we quickly adjust if it doesn't work
What I do really challenge is why we invest games into a player like Hayes last year, keep him on the list but don't select him this year
I also challenge why players who are horribly out of form are selected regardless. Are we picking players on form or reputation?
I get there is a balancing act and that assistant coaches need to be given some latitude to get 'their players' in
There is also a fine line of continuing to build for tomorrow and investing some time into the younger players

But...if I go back to last year, once the selections made sense from about round 5 we started playing better football so they are important. When the selections have that haphazard feel about them they will be challenged
It might be a harder process than many of us give the MC credit for but it's certainly not an impossible one

[The Bulldogs Bite]

When you are winning and playing well most selections rarely get challenged.
When you are playing poorly and losing then selections will certainly be challenged.
It's the nature of a highly scrutinized professional sport

I don't really care about selections like Gardner and Gowers as long as we quickly adjust if it doesn't work
What I do really challenge is why we invest games into a player like Hayes last year, keep him on the list but don't select him this year
I also challenge why players who are horribly out of form are selected regardless. Are we picking players on form or reputation?
I get there is a balancing act and that assistant coaches need to be given some latitude to get 'their players' in
There is also a fine line of continuing to build for tomorrow and investing some time into the younger players

But...if I go back to last year, once the selections made sense from about round 5 we started playing better football so they are important. When the selections have that haphazard feel about them they will be challenged
It might be a harder process than many of us give the MC credit for but it's certainly not an impossible one

Well reasoned post and agree completely, particularly the bolded.

Let's not make it harder than it needs to be.

[bornadog]

I would hate to be a coach or on the MC, as everyone will have different opinions. As MJP says, a player can have a reputation but be out of form so when do you drop him? Do you give them one more go.

The other consideration is the opposition, and who they are playing and the roles required to oppose them.

I don't mind people having an opinion on a player and whether they should be picked or not - we all have an opinion, but lets not forget we only know what we see from the outside. GVGjr mentions Hayes - well we have no idea what the issue is. eg. It could be attitude, it could be just plain bad form, but surely we don't think it is something sinister.

However, once they put on the jumper, lets support them.

[GVGjr]

I would hate to be a coach or on the MC, as everyone will have different opinions. As MJP says, a player can have a reputation but be out of form so when do you drop him? Do you give them one more go.

The other consideration is the opposition, and who they are playing and the roles required to oppose them.

I don't mind people having an opinion on a player and whether they should be picked or not - we all have an opinion, but lets not forget we only know what we see from the outside. GVGjr mentions Hayes - well we have no idea what the issue is. eg. It could be attitude, it could be just plain bad form, but surely we don't think it is something sinister.

However, once they put on the jumper, lets support them.

I'm not sure how you could speculate a sinister conclusion from what I contributed but to hopefully clear that up if Hayes (for example) doesn't play this year and is maintained on the list next year we would have repeated a cycle that we have done with the likes of Greene, Lynch and R.Smith and a few others over the last few years. We invest games into players, don't play them the following year and yet still maintain them on the list at the end of the season.

Some have questioned the quality of our playing list, I'd suggest that sort of approach doesn't help that

[bornadog]

I'm not sure how you could speculate a sinister conclusion from what I contributed but to hopefully clear that up if Hayes (for example) doesn't play this year and is maintained on the list next year we would have repeated a cycle that we have done with the likes of Greene, Lynch and R.Smith and a few others over the last few years. We invest games into players, don't play them the following year and yet still maintain them on the list at the end of the season.

Some have questioned the quality of our playing list, I'd suggest that sort of approach doesn't help that

I was giving an example of what people might think.

[ratsmac]

At the start of the year I thought it was hard to pick our round 1 team because we have such a strong list with good depth. Fast forward to round 11 I am struggling to pick 22 players who are in good enough form to warrant a game. We don't bat as deep as I thought. To top it all off there is no reserves competition so makes it that much harder.

I agree it would be a tough gig, I couldn't do it

[jeemak]

I find the over simplification of the process pretty putrid, to be honest. It's clearly complex, and just because we don't know the mechanisms of it, it doesn't mean it's ill-considered or haphazard.

Information asymmetry is an actual thing, and it makes people angry. I remember Merve Hughes as a selector of the Australian cricket team saying once that I'm a selector and I have the information and you're not and you don't. I think he also said he loves John Howard for some reason so perhaps that's a bad example. I really don't know.

Anyway, I'm growing tired of what I see as pretty one-dimensional linear commentary around selection that basically revolves around the fact people don't have information so they draw conclusions that suit their moods or whatever, and basically disregards that people making the calls are professional and probably have pride in the job they're doing.

And I get it's the job of members and supporters and other stakeholders to question, and that's fine. But at least question with a bigger picture in mind. You know, if we've thought of it I can bet you everyone at the club from the boot studder down has as well. We're not being original.

Good post MJP......for a change! :)

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Nobody has ever suggested it's an easy process, but just as some call out 'over simplification', so too do others on the complexities. The reality is somewhere in between.

In recent weeks I've mentioned selections one way or another don't have a direct impact on the result, because our bottom 5-6 have largely been non factors week to week.

I think we've overrated ourselves based on the last part of 2019.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

When you are winning and playing well most selections rarely get challenged.
When you are playing poorly and losing then selections will certainly be challenged.
It's the nature of a highly scrutinized professional sport

I don't really care about selections like Gardner and Gowers as long as we quickly adjust if it doesn't work
What I do really challenge is why we invest games into a player like Hayes last year, keep him on the list but don't select him this year
I also challenge why players who are horribly out of form are selected regardless. Are we picking players on form or reputation?
I get there is a balancing act and that assistant coaches need to be given some latitude to get 'their players' in
There is also a fine line of continuing to build for tomorrow and investing some time into the younger players

But...if I go back to last year, once the selections made sense from about round 5 we started playing better football so they are important. When the selections have that haphazard feel about them they will be challenged
It might be a harder process than many of us give the MC credit for but it's certainly not an impossible one

But in picking up MJP's point, we don't know what is going on with Hayes non selection. But we can surmise that a lot of thought goes into it.
The fact he hasn't been selected, seems to, in the absence of anything else suggest he is not putting his best foot forward.

[jeemak]

Nobody has ever suggested it's an easy process, but just as some call out 'over simplification', so too do others on the complexities. The reality is somewhere in between.

In recent weeks I've mentioned selections one way or another don't have a direct impact on the result, because our bottom 5-6 have largely been non factors week to week.

I think we've overrated ourselves based on the last part of 2019.

Have we as supporters? Has the footy world generally? Possibly. What's really hard to know is if we have internally. And I doubt after the GWS final we'd be thinking internally that we're as good or as ready to go as some outside of the club might have.

At the club the understanding of the list profile would be front of mind, as would what we can do well versus what we can't would be. I had a chat with a client of mine who was lucky enough as a Collingwood supporter to have an intimate session with Buckley talking about how they would approach 2018, who they'd do well against and who they wouldn't due to list profile and game style. Anyway long story short, what Buckley tabled and why pretty much came to fruition because he had so much information at his disposal about his own club that we/ whoever just doesn't have, and knew enough about who they would be playing and how they would play.

These guys are the most informed people in the business. Yes, they get stuff wrong from time to time but they're at least informed.

[GVGjr]

But in picking up MJP's point, we don't know what is going on with Hayes non selection. But we can surmise that a lot of thought goes into it.
The fact he hasn't been selected, seems to, in the absence of anything else suggest he is not putting his best foot forward.

The Hayes non selection isn't the issue, it's an example of what we have frequently done for a few years now. Invest games into players one year, send them back to the reserves in the 2nd year for whatever reason and then maintain them on the list again in the 3rd year and perhaps beyond before finally making the tough call.

Hayes was played for 5 games in a row early in the season last year and he did not have the form to support the selection. He went back to Footscray for an extended period and came back and played some good football at the end of the year.
This year after coming back after the break in very good condition he's been unsighted for whatever reason and has not even been given the chance to sit alongside of Jordon Sweet as an emergency so I'm under no illusion he hasn't been able to impress the MC.
On top of that Hunter has been out for an extended period and Hayes should have been in the mix to step in as his replacement so yes, clearly something isn't right.

So if selecting the best 22 each week is challenging for our MC and as MJP highlights, it's becoming clearer why we often can't make the tougher calls on the playing list at the end of season

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Have we as supporters? Has the footy world generally? Possibly. What's really hard to know is if we have internally. And I doubt after the GWS final we'd be thinking internally that we're as good or as ready to go as some outside of the club might have.

At the club the understanding of the list profile would be front of mind, as would what we can do well versus what we can't would be. I had a chat with a client of mine who was lucky enough as a Collingwood supporter to have an intimate session with Buckley talking about how they would approach 2018, who they'd do well against and who they wouldn't due to list profile and game style. Anyway long story short, what Buckley tabled and why pretty much came to fruition because he had so much information at his disposal about his own club that we/ whoever just doesn't have, and knew enough about who they would be playing and how they would play.

These guys are the most informed people in the business. Yes, they get stuff wrong from time to time but they're at least informed.

Yep - should have clarified that as supporters we have. There's no doubt the media/footy world also overrated us.

Internally nobody knows but there's certainly contradictions in our approach and there has been for some time, which generates the animosity from the supporter base.

In recent years we've picked up senior players to boost our experience (Crozier, Lloyd, Duryea, Bruce, Keath etc) but there's been times we've bottled the side with borderline too much youth and have pushed the message about how young we are. How young we are week to week is a choice that has dated back from 2017, so I think frustration is understandable.

I guess the crux of it is that we're in a results based business. Winning is king and if you're not winning, there's always going to be unrest. As informed as coaches may be, they're not immune to failure hence there's always typically 2-3 every year fighting to keep their job.

[jeemak]

The Hayes non selection isn't the issue, it's an example of what we have frequently done for a few years now. Invest games into players one year, send them back to the reserves in the 2nd year for whatever reason and then maintain them on the list again in the 3rd year and perhaps beyond before finally making the tough call.

Hayes was played for 5 games in a row early in the season last year and he did not have the form to support the selection. He went back to Footscray for an extended period and came back and played some good football at the end of the year.
This year after coming back after the break in very good condition he's been unsighted for whatever reason and has not even been given the chance to sit alongside of Jordon Sweet as an emergency so I'm under no illusion he hasn't been able to impress the MC.
On top of that Hunter has been out for an extended period and Hayes should have been in the mix to step in as his replacement so yes, clearly something isn't right.

So if selecting the best 22 each week is challenging for our MC and as MJP highlights, it's becoming clearer why we often can't make the tougher calls on the playing list at the end of season

What's the bolded piece based on? It's a serious question, as I just don't understand the link when you/ me / anyone has any insight to how he's going......

[hujsh]

At the start of the year I thought it was hard to pick our round 1 team because we have such a strong list with good depth. Fast forward to round 11 I am struggling to pick 22 players who are in good enough form to warrant a game. We don't bat as deep as I thought. To top it all off there is no reserves competition so makes it that much harder.

I agree it would be a tough gig, I couldn't do it

Well you'd have probably assumed (for example) that Cordy, Young and Trengove were the three competing for the 2nd tall defender spot after Keath but aren't we all surprised to see Gardiner seemingly preferred.

Through form, fitness or some other criteria we don't know of the man many here would have as last on the list to get a game and first to go come seasons end is apparently ahead of other more fancied options. Is he going that well or is everyone else doing that badly?

[Hotdog60]

I generally don't care too much about selections as the people on the panel will have a better insight into how a player is going or who is needed to for fill the game plan the coaches want to implement.
I can't think on how hard it would be. I did a couple of years coaching under 12 and 14's and I struggled rotating players of the bench to give them a game so I god knows how hard their job is at least they don't have parents yelling in their ear to give little Johnny a go.:)
Anyway the match selection thread wouldn't be that long if so people weren't so passionate about who plays. :D

[bornadog]

I generally don't care too much about selections as the people on the panel will have a better insight into how a player is going or who is needed to for fill the game plan the coaches want to implement.
I can't think on how hard it would be. I did a couple of years coaching under 12 and 14's and I struggled rotating players of the bench to give them a game so I god knows how hard their job is at least they don't have parents yelling in their ear to give little Johnny a go.:)
Anyway the match selection thread wouldn't be that long if so people weren't so passionate about who plays. :D

Believe me the coaches do have parents yelling in their ear to give them a go. I know for a fact a couple of fathers of sons have questioned the coach over the years.

[westbulldog]

To supporters, our MC seems to sketch the shape of an oval on the table and throw the names in the air at the end of a hard drinking session. Week after week their selections are hard to fathom.

[Happy Days]

Gotta say I disagree with the thrust of the message. If we can't discuss why certain players are being picked because we aren't privvy to inside intel then why bother discussing anything? Why even bother having the forum?

[bornadog]

Gotta say I disagree with the thrust of the message. If we can't discuss why certain players are being picked because we aren't privvy to inside intel then why bother discussing anything? Why even bother having the forum?

I think it is great to discuss why players are being picked or not, as long as people don't make things up.:D

This year is really hard as in previous years we have had the form of the VFL to put forward our argument.

I find it difficult this year to argue about players picked but what I have worked out is the MC seems to have slotted players into a competition with each other for a specific role. eg Wood goes out in comes Butler, Wood in Butler then out. Dale out, Gowers comes in and vice a versa.

[azabob]

Gotta say I disagree with the thrust of the message. If we can't discuss why certain players are being picked because we aren't privvy to inside intel then why bother discussing anything? Why even bother having the forum?

Couldn’t agree more. The last few weeks has taken a weird turn.

[GVGjr]

Gotta say I disagree with the thrust of the message. If we can't discuss why certain players are being picked because we aren't privvy to inside intel then why bother discussing anything? Why even bother having the forum?

I think the opening post is excellent as it talks through the challenges of selections each week and you can either accept that point of view or challenge it. I've gained an added appreciation.
For some others though there seems to be an effort to control what should or shouldn't be commented on which defeats the point of a discussion forum like WOOF

From my perspective, please keep posting away as you have done for years. Nothing has changed

[Topdog]

I feel that people go overboard because they have the players that they dislike. Gardner is one of those.

It will take a big effort to be worse than R Smith last week.

Appreciate the insight from mjp but certainly agree it's good to discuss and debate why x is in the side instead of y. That's part of why footy is great

[SquirrelGrip]

I feel that people go overboard because they have the players that they dislike. Gardner is one of those.

It will take a big effort to be worse than R Smith last week.


I think Gardner has made that big effort!

[Topdog]

I think Gardner has made that big effort!

Haha i was going to make that comment too

[comrade]

Haha i was going to make that comment too

To be fair, apart from conceding 5 goals to his direct opponent, he did ok.

[bornadog]

To be fair, apart from conceding 5 goals to his direct opponent, he did ok.

Wasn't just the 5, it was the way it was gifted. 4 free kicks all for the same thing, ie holding on to his jumper

[DOG GOD]

I think the most frustrating thing for me regarding selection is the fact that this is a compromised year, with a lot of small breaks between games. If we ever had the chance to see players rotated through like LEW Young, Trengove, Greene, Hayes, Cavarra, Lynch etc, it would be now. The fact that all these guys have hardly got a look in, is rather concerning for mine.

[bornadog]

I think the most frustrating thing for me regarding selection is the fact that this is a compromised year, with a lot of small breaks between games. If we ever had the chance to see players rotated through like LEW Young, Trengove, Greene, Hayes, Cavarra, Lynch etc, it would be now. The fact that all these guys have hardly got a look in, is rather concerning for mine.

Maybe those players aren't up to it?

I think Cavarra may come in next week.

[Mofra]

Believe me the coaches do have parents yelling in their ear to give them a go. I know for a fact a couple of fathers of sons have questioned the coach over the years.
Josh Hill's dad was quite vocal and is made the papers a number of times.

[Mofra]

Maybe those players aren't up to it?

I think Cavarra may come in next week.
Chicken vs egg - are they not up to it due to lack of opportunity, or are we holding on to "marginal" players too long?

Now I love to Roarke Smith story, but he's been at the kennel for years and is a 'marginal' wingman at best. Do we expect a club like Hawthorn would have afforded him the same amount of opportunity? Yes he's had setbacks, but is it the best strategy to suddenly expect a HBFer with two knee recos to suddenly become an AFL standard wingman?

[Happy Days]

Chicken vs egg - are they not up to it due to lack of opportunity, or are we holding on to "marginal" players too long?


My main frustration is not that the players who aren't getting chances might not be up to it (let's face it they probably aren't), it's that the players that are given continued opportunities clearly aren't.

We've seen Lewis Young play some excellent games of AFL football at least once a year every year since 2017, yet Gardner is continually given shine. We picked Cavarra to immediately impact our 22, yet he's been picked once while Gowers had games pumped into him at the rate of a first round pick. Brad Lynch and Fergus Greene showed a ton of promise when played at the higher level despite not really knocking down the door at the lower level, yet haven't even been considered based on...limited form at the lower level. It goes on and on.

None of those guys I just named may make it but we have to know by now the people we're picking ahead of them won't.

[GVGjr]

My main frustration is not that the players who aren't getting chances might not be up to it (let's face it they probably aren't), it's that the players that are given continued opportunities clearly aren't.

We've seen Lewis Young play some excellent games of AFL football at least once a year every year since 2017, yet Gardner is continually given shine. We picked Cavarra to immediately impact our 22, yet he's been picked once while Gowers had games pumped into him at the rate of a first round pick. Brad Lynch and Fergus Greene showed a ton of promise when played at the higher level despite not really knocking down the door at the lower level, yet haven't even been considered based on...limited form at the lower level. It goes on and on.

None of those guys I just named may make it but we have to know by now the people we're picking ahead of them won't.

I mentioned something similar a few days back, we bring some players in and they show some promise but then we lose our way with their development. Some injuries haven't helped but Greene and Lynch have been injury free this year and had good pre-seasons.
It's like we have moved past them for whatever reason but you can bet that later in the year they'll be played, perform well and then get maintained on the list again.

I agree they may not make it but we need to be prepared to make the hard call earlier

[mjp]

Gotta say I disagree with the thrust of the message. If we can't discuss why certain players are being picked because we aren't privvy to inside intel then why bother discussing anything? Why even bother having the forum?

Pretty sure my post said "I am interested in the thoughts of other posters".

It is the anger I don't get.

On the 'Our members have supported us" thread, your post effectively said "my pleasure, happy to support - now stop picking Gowers". I know it was meant to be funny (and I laughed a little) but I also think that it is a bit mean spirited. I am supporting as well but not based on who is in the team...and like I said, I know you were being funny but at the same time.

Going crazy about Gowers and Gardner (and to a lesser extent, Hayes, R. Smith and La Young) is something I just don't get. I guess I was trying to say that there must be a reason for the selections and I just WISH the reactions were an attempt to unpack them rather than just take the "He's no good - don't play him" approach.

I agree it (selection) seems to be pretty random at times and if you look at my posting history you will see I am as frustrated as anyone with the selection process to the point where I posted a "Selection Bingo" poll earlier this year to represent my frustration at the process - but in an attempt to have a bit of fun with it. Bulldogs Footy needs to be a release for me - I simply don't have the energy available to get angry and upset with players and coaches who I am pretty convinced are doing the best job that they can...I guess what I'm trying to say with the OP here is given we know that it isn't and given we know the MC do some 'interesting' things rather than just slinging mud at individuals who DON'T pick the team is there another approach we could take?

Gardner was picked to play on Hipwood. OK. Why? I think that is the debate I would love to have because the 'Gardner is no good and everyone who selected him is a goose' response. Ultimately I suppose people will do what they want - I just get bummed out by the "he's rubbish - everyone is an idiot" responses because it leaves no room to respond or debate.

[Mantis]

Gardner was picked to play on Hipwood. OK. Why? I think that is the debate I would love to have because the 'Gardner is no good and everyone who selected him is a goose' response. Ultimately I suppose people will do what they want - I just get bummed out by the "he's rubbish - everyone is an idiot" responses because it leaves no room to respond or debate.

So lets have the debate? Why was Gardner seen to be an effective match-up for Hipwood? The obvious response is he has the height and maybe the athleticism to go with Hipwood?

But all we saw from Ryan was a nervy performance where he was caught out of position in almost every contest he was in, he felt for body and was subsequently free-kicked for grabbing jumper or Hipwood high. Bevo said he was pretty much hung to dry by his his team-mates, but at some point Ryan needs to be able to show he can nullify an opponent in 1 on 1 contest, which he hasn't done much of so far.. and whilst Hipwood has some talent he is anything but a consistent performer.

Obviously we don't get the opportunity to see Ryan perform at training or in scratch matches, but the performance he gave against Brisbane was pretty much as we expected... and we have seen the exact same type of performances from the likes of Gowers & R.Smith when they've come into the team at the angst of many of our supporters... and the level of 'abuse' is pretty light here compared to the clubs social media pages.

[GVGjr]

For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with Gardner being on the list but we haven't got him ready to perform at the senior level yet and that won't help his confidence

[Grantysghost]

So lets have the debate? Why was Gardner seen to be an effective match-up for Hipwood? The obvious response is he has the height and maybe the athleticism to go with Hipwood?

But all we saw from Ryan was a nervy performance where he was caught out of position in almost every contest he was in, he felt for body and was subsequently free-kicked for grabbing jumper or Hipwood high. Bevo said he was pretty much hung to dry by his his team-mates, but at some point Ryan needs to be able to show he can nullify an opponent in 1 on 1 contest, which he hasn't done much of so far.. and whilst Hipwood has some talent he is anything but a consistent performer.

Obviously we don't get the opportunity to see Ryan perform at training or in scratch matches, but the performance he gave against Brisbane was pretty much as we expected... and we have seen the exact same type of performances from the likes of Gowers & R.Smith when they've come into the team at the angst of many of our supporters... and the level of 'abuse' is pretty light here compared to the clubs social media pages.

Definitely not a 5 gamers fault in any way. He made pretty good position, worked hard and was on a hiding to nothing with the way the ball came in and the lack of 3rd man up support.
Regarding his inclusion, I guess we are all experts in hindsight, amazingly more than guys who do this for a living and see the entire picture. I'm trying to think of the best match up and maybe I think Wood or Cordy athletically. Wood was earmarked for Cameron and credit wheres its due that was a great decision on their most dangerous forward. Cordy probably would've been my choice, but with Wood occupied with Cameron there's no aerial chop out. So I'm guessing the plan was to have Gardner engage Hipwood with Cordy as spoiler, Wood if available but it just didn't work out it came in too fast.
Complete guess.

[Topdog]

So lets have the debate? Why was Gardner seen to be an effective match-up for Hipwood

For what it's worth i appreciate you going to the effort to break it down and expand on your thoughts on the matter. Thanks.

[SquirrelGrip]

For me it’s about how the entire back six works together and what the roles are each week.

Gardner was clearly earmarked for Hipwood as he does demonstrate athleticism on the track and has some height to match him. What we missed in this game was the role usually shared by Wood and Crozier who can chop out in the air and run back to cover. Cameron quote rightly needed a plan and Wood was the only one left standing who could do it. No Crozier and no Wood in their normal roles means we decided on an extra tall, and Trengove was never a mobile match up for the Brisbane forward line with Lewis Young unavailable. Buku and Lachie Young are perhaps those midsize aerial talks that needed a go there without Crozier in.

Seeing Bailey Williams cement a position this year has been a positive but he is still highly shaky in the air yet provides a reasonably skilled kicking option after Caleb. Where does Doc Duryea fit here? Is he our negative defender who would have taken Cameron if fit?

The balance is no easy thing.

[FrediKanoute]

But all we saw from Ryan was a nervy performance where he was caught out of position in almost every contest he was in, he felt for body and was subsequently free-kicked for grabbing jumper or Hipwood high. Bevo said he was pretty much hung to dry by his his team-mates, but at some point Ryan needs to be able to show he can nullify an opponent in 1 on 1 contest, which he hasn't done much of so far.. and whilst Hipwood has some talent he is anything but a consistent performer.



By extension the question has to also be why we got rid of Roberts at the end of 2019 and retained/gave his spot to Gardiner? Roberts was by no means an elite defender, but I haven't seen in any of Gardiner's games to date the positional awareness, body skills or general defensive nous that good defenders have. He is a kid being played when he is so far off being ready its sad.

[GVGjr]

By extension the question has to also be why we got rid of Roberts at the end of 2019 and retained/gave his spot to Gardiner? Roberts was by no means an elite defender, but I haven't seen in any of Gardiner's games to date the positional awareness, body skills or general defensive nous that good defenders have. He is a kid being played when he is so far off being ready its sad.

I think the coach is placing a premium on that the defenders need to have some pace. It's the most likely reason why Trengove hasn't been in the mix this season and almost certainly the reason why Roberts wasn't used much in his last season with us

[bornadog]

I think the coach is placing a premium on that the defenders need to have some pace. It's the most likely reason why Trengove hasn't been in the mix this season and almost certainly the reason why Roberts wasn't used much in his last season with us

I think you are right.

Looking at Trengove the other night, he was very slow. We know he likes English because he gets around the ground and has a bit of pace for a big man.

[GVGjr]

I think you are right.

Looking at Trengove the other night, he was very slow. We know he likes English because he gets around the ground and has a bit of pace for a big man.

It's strange when we have a slowish midfield that we need quicker talls.

[azabob]

It's strange when we have a slowish midfield that we need quicker talls.

From my untrained eye, our midfield is grunt and does their work in-tight and the attack and creation is to come from our running defenders such as JJ, Crozier, Daniel, Gardner etc.

[mjp]

So lets have the debate? Why was Gardner seen to be an effective match-up for Hipwood? The obvious response is he has the height and maybe the athleticism to go with Hipwood?

But all we saw from Ryan was a nervy performance where he was caught out of position in almost every contest he was in...

So - We are talking about selection so don't 'worry' about the outcome. We can't add comments on what happened in here because when the team was picked it hadn't happened...it is pretty easy to get things right when you have seen how it plays out!

I think you nailed it. Gardner was selected to play on Hipwood because he has obviously shown an ability to play on a fast moving 200cm player that others on the list haven't (whether he has or hasn't is immaterial). Alternatively, he was seen the best card in a bad deck and if that's the case we are actually in more trouble than we realise.

I guess I can see why Gardner was chosen ahead of Le Young (zones off, interceptor) or Trengove (seen as too slow) if Hipwood was the intended match-up. What I would have hoped by now is one of those 3 players had achieved "He'll figure it out" status where no matter the match-up the coach had faith in them to do the job (Crozier has this, somehow Wood has this, Williams is close I reckon) rather than it having to be a debate every week...or maybe it is only a debate in our minds and Gardner is a clear #1 option for opposition talls in the mind of the coach?

Now - maybe the #1 option should be Le Young - like everyone else I would have thought he would be an established player by now - but for whatever reason (ands we would all love the answer) he isn't. Why can't we get this info? What has he done wrong? Will we ever know??

[bornadog]

Now - maybe the #1 option should be Le Young - like everyone else I would have thought he would be an established player by now - but for whatever reason (ands we would all love the answer) he isn't. Why can't we get this info? What has he done wrong? Will we ever know??

Very disappointed in the club not giving us progress reports on players not in the senior team. Last year we had a write up each week on the performance of players, but this year we get a short write up of 3 or 4 players.

[Mofra]

I think the coach is placing a premium on that the defenders need to have some pace. It's the most likely reason why Trengove hasn't been in the mix this season and almost certainly the reason why Roberts wasn't used much in his last season with us
I would have said pace and the ability to kick the ball, but Sid was a very good kick even if his decision making was sometimes a little slow.

On Gardner, I think he will continue to frustrate. He has the physical attributes and by all accounts works really hard off field, but he's just lacking 'something', the ability to instinctively make position and hold his temperament. That's something that may come in time, but ideally that's something that he would work on at VFL level while better options get their chance at senior level.

The opaque nature of the selection process doesn't help though. With Croizier out, who intercepts? If Gardner was earmarked as a KPD in Crozier's absence and Wood gets the job on Cameron, we've taken our two medium interceptors out of our normal set up. That's actually a very big change to our 2020 back 6 and that sort of week to week change is what seem to rile fans the most.

If our Pan A is to generate scoring chains from the back half but we've taken away our best avenues to win the ball back off the opposition in the back half, that just seems completely nonsensical to the outside observer. It's no wonder our fans are confused.

[Happy Days]

Gardner was picked to play on Hipwood. OK. Why? I think that is the debate I would love to have because the 'Gardner is no good and everyone who selected him is a goose' response. Ultimately I suppose people will do what they want - I just get bummed out by the "he's rubbish - everyone is an idiot" responses because it leaves no room to respond or debate.

From all that we can gather Garnder is favoured because of his work ethic on the track and his theoretical attributes. That's a nice idea but really can't be all there is to it. Actual in-game performance has to be criteria number one, and if the only form we're willing to go off is sixteen-a-side scratch matches where players are swapping jumpers then we aren't considering selection from all angles.

In our situation where no one has nailed down a spot and there is no one (the club's opinion not mine) who is head and shoulders above their contemporaries talent-wise then everyone (within reason) should be given an opportunity to play a position. Improving your form at a higher level is a full on thing and is a big part of why it's so frustrating the same guys seem to be tried over and over.

Regarding his selection to play on Hipwood - it's fine in theory because that's the exact sort of player he would be on the list to play on. He got handily beat and gave away some panicked free kicks, and that's frustrating but fine. The real frustration is if we were to look at that performance, take seemingly nothing from it, say "hey you'll get em next time" and just keep persisting with it. If it's a developmentally-minded selection then we should be looking to get the games into 18-months-younger, possibly AFL quality Lewis Young. If it's a win-now move then we should be trialling our other options.

[bornadog]

This just tells me we need an agile, athletic 200cm full back, someone like Darcy at Collingwood. We have noi one to play against Dixon, Lynch, Hipwood types.

Start recruiting boys.

[GVGjr]

This just tells me we need an agile, athletic 200cm full back, someone like Darcy at Collingwood. We have noi one to play against Dixon, Lynch, Hipwood types.

Start recruiting boys.

The 200cm Roughead has done a good job for Collingwood in the back line as well

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

The 200cm Roughead has done a good job for Collingwood in the back line as well

I still really struggle with his departure.
How do we arrive at a acenario where a premierahip player, who grew up supporting our club is so disenfranchised that he considered retiring.
For me his departure raises some interesting questions.
His playing role is exactly the thing we are missing.

[The Pie Man]

I still really struggle with his departure.
How do we arrive at a acenario where a premierahip player, who grew up supporting our club is so disenfranchised that he considered retiring.
For me his departure raises some interesting questions.
His playing role is exactly the thing we are missing.

Seems he's happier playing as a key defender, and given we've let go Roberts and shunned Trengove, we were *never* going to play Jordan in that part of the ground with his physical attributes.

Never

The full forward thing late in his Dogs career was strange to say the least.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I still really struggle with his departure.
How do we arrive at a acenario where a premierahip player, who grew up supporting our club is so disenfranchised that he considered retiring.
For me his departure raises some interesting questions.
His playing role is exactly the thing we are missing.

Yeah it's an interesting one isn't it? I mean, most of us weren't overly upset when Roughy left. He hadn't been playing well. But when you see what he's been doing at Collingwood you start to wonder why. Why is he performing for them, in a role we so desperately needed coverage in? Why didn't we play him at FB? It's not like he hadn't before. Then all the same development questions reappear.

[bornadog]

The 200cm Roughead has done a good job for Collingwood in the back line as well

He is very slow I am afraid, but could have been a filler till we developed the right bloke.

I am still hopeful Young can do the job.

[GVGjr]

I still really struggle with his departure.
How do we arrive at a acenario where a premierahip player, who grew up supporting our club is so disenfranchised that he considered retiring.
For me his departure raises some interesting questions.
His playing role is exactly the thing we are missing.

B-Mac was heavily criticized for playing him as a defender, Bucks is seen as pulling off a good strategic move

Does he cover the ground any better than Trengove? I wouldn't suggest so but he has been effective.

[Topdog]

Yeah I thought he was poor for us as a defender and always worried when he was selected there.

[GVGjr]

Yeah it's an interesting one isn't it? I mean, most of us weren't overly upset when Roughy left. He hadn't been playing well. But when you see what he's been doing at Collingwood you start to wonder why. Why is he performing for them, in a role we so desperately needed coverage in? Why didn't we play him at FB? It's not like he hadn't before. Then all the same development questions reappear.

I think there was a few of saying we should keep him because we had some holes in the back line and not much depth in the ruck
I get why we let him go but when you read that we need a 200cm defender and know that Roughie is going OK at the Pies it does make you wonder

Wood is getting some slaps on the back for a good game in nullifying Cameron, Roughie is seen a slow even if he nullifies an opponent

[bulldogsthru&thru]

B-Mac was heavily criticized for playing him as a defender, Bucks is seen as pulling off a good strategic move

Does he cover the ground any better than Trengove? I wouldn't suggest so but he has been effective.

That's a good point. I doubt he covers the ground any better than Trengove. He has a better reach but perhaps its the Collingwood defence setup that helps Roughy get away with his limitations. Since Howe has been out (a huge part of their setup) Roughy has suffered somewhat. In any case he would be good backup for us but with our reluctance to play Trengove, he probably wouldn't be getting a game and perhaps that's why he chose to leave.

By the way, when did we recruit Trengove? Was it after Roghy left?

[GVGjr]

That's a good point. I doubt he covers the ground any better than Trengove. He has a better reach but perhaps its the Collingwood defence setup that helps Roughy get away with his limitations. Since Howe has been out (a huge part of their setup) Roughy has suffered somewhat. In any case he would be good backup for us but with our reluctance to play Trengove, he probably wouldn't be getting a game and perhaps that's why he chose to leave.

By the way, when did we recruit Trengove? Was it after Roghy left?

We recruited Trengove in 2017 for the 2018 season. Roughead left us at the end of the 2018 season

Interesting that both players were drafted in the same year

[GVGjr]

Yeah I thought he was poor for us as a defender and always worried when he was selected there.

I get that but I also thought he played some good games.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

We recruited Trengove in 2017 for the 2018 season. Roughead left us at the end of the 2018 season

Interesting that both players were drafted in the same year

In hindsight it's a little odd. Roughead is basically a better ruck AND a better defender than JT.

I was never a big fan of JT's recruitment, but he was OK at times early on (and late last year). The falling out with Roughy was weird, it's clear he fell out of love with Bevo and he had commented as such.

[GVGjr]

In hindsight it's a little odd. Roughead is basically a better ruck AND a better defender than JT.

I was never a big fan of JT's recruitment, but he was OK at times early on (and late last year). The falling out with Roughy was weird, it's clear he fell out of love with Bevo and he had commented as such.

The Trengove recruitment probably happened a couple of years too late but he was a structure player capable of filling a few spots for us. Roughead could have been given a go as a defender but had lost Bevo's support and maybe that was justified but we needed to have some more options both in the ruck to support English and to cover the back line
I think list spots were a bit tight when we let him go

[The Bulldogs Bite]

The Trengove recruitment probably happened a couple of years too late but he was a structure player capable of filling a few spots for us. Roughead could have been given a go as a defender but had lost Bevo's support and maybe that was justified but we needed to have some more options both in the ruck to support English and to cover the back line
I think list spots were a bit tight when we let him go

At what point do we actually ask why Bevo is losing support on proven performers, instead of blaming the players who have left or finding excuses?

Losing Koby Stevens, Hrovat and Hamling after the flag hurt us. The first two aren't world beaters but they actually contributed at some key times. I was disappointed we lost Koby and while it didn't work out for him at St Kilda due to injuries, he was a good 20-25 list player. Hrovat I could live with losing and he didn't feature as much as Koby, so opportunity was key for him. Still - losing good depth and replacing it with untried skinny 18 year olds doesn't help you compete.

We then went on to lose Stringer (say what you will but we handled this as well as we handed the premiership hangover), Dahlhaus (lost motivation - at one time he WAS the fabric of the club), Roughead (key part of the flag, proven defender/ruck), Biggs (lost motivation completely), Adams (because... I don't know?) whilst Picken/Boyd/Smith couldn't be helped.

One or two drop off? Sure, it happens to every successful side but we've found a way to lose 8+ because we deemed them disruptive or unmotivated. Many of these have been replaced with players who really shouldn't even be in the AFL system, or are lucky to be.

[bornadog]

At what point do we actually ask why Bevo is losing support on proven performers, instead of blaming the players who have left or finding excuses?

Losing Koby Stevens, Hrovat and Hamling after the flag hurt us. The first two aren't world beaters but they actually contributed at some key times. I was disappointed we lost Koby and while it didn't work out for him at St Kilda due to injuries, he was a good 20-25 list player. Hrovat I could live with losing and he didn't feature as much as Koby, so opportunity was key for him. Still - losing good depth and replacing it with untried skinny 18 year olds doesn't help you compete.

We then went on to lose Stringer (say what you will but we handled this as well as we handed the premiership hangover), Dahlhaus (lost motivation - at one time he WAS the fabric of the club), Roughead (key part of the flag, proven defender/ruck), Biggs (lost motivation completely), Adams (because... I don't know?) whilst Picken/Boyd/Smith couldn't be helped.

One or two drop off? Sure, it happens to every successful side but we've found a way to lose 8+ because we deemed them disruptive or unmotivated. Many of these have been replaced with players who really shouldn't even be in the AFL system, or are lucky to be.

*Hamling - wanted to go home to WA - he said so mid 2016
*Dahl - we offered him 3 years he wanted 4
*Stringer - trouble maker - good riddance
* Adams - No player liked him, had no mates
*Biggs - yeah, well he is not playing footy, so he did lose motivation
*Roughead probably the only one that I was surprised with, but it happens.
*Hrovat - not good enough
*Koby - wanted more opportunities, couldn't really break into midfield.

There is always a reason, every team loses players. When you are losing games, you can bring up all sorts of things, different when you are winning.

On top of all that, Murphy and Matt Boyd retired, two players with huge experience, Tom Boyd with mental health issues and you mentioned Smith and Picken

We know you don't like Bevo, that is fine and that is your opinion, but you need to look at the facts as well.

The fact is, the club knows we lost experience and brought in Suckling, Duryea, Trengove, Lloyd, Keath and Bruce.

[GVGjr]

We know you don't like Bevo, that is fine and that is your opinion, but you need to look at the facts as well.

The fact is, the club knows we lost experience and brought in Suckling, Duryea, Trengove, Lloyd, Keath and Bruce.

I don't sense that from TBB, he might not be accepting that Bevo's the messiah he was previously regarded as but I don't believe TBB is in the sack Bevo camp

I'd say very few are in that camp

[The Bulldogs Bite]

*Hamling - wanted to go home to WA - he said so mid 2016
*Dahl - we offered him 3 years he wanted 4
*Stringer - trouble maker - good riddance
* Adams - No player liked him, had no mates
*Biggs - yeah, well he is not playing footy, so he did lose motivation
*Roughead probably the only one that I was surprised with, but it happens.
*Hrovat - not good enough
*Koby - wanted more opportunities, couldn't really break into midfield.

There is always a reason, every team loses players. When you are losing games, you can bring up all sorts of things, different when you are winning.

On top of all that, Murphy and Matt Boyd retired, two players with huge experience, Tom Boyd with mental health issues and you mentioned Smith and Picken

We know you don't like Bevo, that is fine and that is your opinion, but you need to look at the facts as well.

The fact is, the club knows we lost experience and brought in Suckling, Duryea, Trengove, Lloyd, Keath and Bruce.

First of all, it's nothing to do with me not liking Bevo - which is categorically untrue. I've met him personally a number of times and sat in on a couple of private meetings mind you, he's a great guy and I love what he did for our club. That doesn't mean I won't question him (or anyone else) if I don't agree with what I'm seeing. I find your "we get it you don't like him, but you're wrong" comment pretty insulting TBH. You may not agree with my analysis which is fine.

You kinda reiterated my point above too - why are there 8 excuses for a side which should be in harmony after winning a premiership? Why were we content to let proven senior players go? Hamling's situation may be different but I question how hard we tried to make it work. If that was Naughton, would we let him go so easily?

We didn't want to give Dahl 4 (maybe fair enough) but we didn't we give JT 4? Roberts 2? JJ's massive contract? I get you draw the line at some point, but I am confident this was not PURELY about $$ here.

The only two from that group I'd say "yeah, fine" would be Biggs (clearly lost any desire after the flag) and Hrovat (clearly wanted opportunity). IIRC Stevens had some injuries yet still managed 12 games in 2016.

Adams is injury prone and sometimes players don't fit in, but NO player liked him? I find that really hard to believe and it's a real cop out. He's injury prone but he's exactly what we needed to keep (and still need).

Don't be so dismissive of losing proven senior players so soon after winning the flag. Geelong, Richmond and Hawthorn all kept the majority of their players (including fringe players) while they were still in contention and it's really only after last year that the Tigers started giving a couple away. After 2/3 flags, I'd be more understanding too.

[Grantysghost]

Adams is injury prone and sometimes players don't fit in, but NO player liked him? I find that really hard to believe

Got to say I do too. I was introduced to Marcus at a function and he was a really good guy. Friendly, intelligent and generous with his time. He was studying psychology and we are involved in this area so he was interested and asking questions; one of the better guys I've met.
Maybe he had a falling out with a couple of players im not sure but that wouldn't be unusual in any place where there's multiple humans.

[GVGjr]

Got to say I do too. I was introduced to Marcus at a function and he was a really good guy. Friendly, intelligent and generous with his time. He was studying psychology and we are involved in this area so he was interested and asking questions; one of the better guys I've met.
Maybe he had a falling out with a couple of players im not sure but that wouldn't be unusual in any place where there's multiple humans.

From memory, he was pretty good mates with Hamling and I went to a function where they had driven in together
I think he was frustrated by his injuries and that's why he wanted to test Brisbane's ability to get him right rather than head back to WA and they have struggled in that area as well

I would have liked him to stay but it didn't work out that way.

[bornadog]

I find your "we get it you don't like him, but you're wrong" comment pretty insulting TBH. You may not agree with my analysis which is fine.

Show me where I said that? No need to get insulted, it's your opinion and that is fine. All I ask is look into the reasons why players left




You kinda reiterated my point above too - why are there 8 excuses for a side which should be in harmony after winning a premiership? Why were we content to let proven senior players go? Hamling's situation may be different but I question how hard we tried to make it work. If that was Naughton, would we let him go so easily?

Gave you reasons why each one left. As I said with Hamling I knew mid year we were going to lose him. Maybe we didn't try hard enough? Hard to stop alot of the indigenous boys from wanting to go home.


We didn't want to give Dahl 4 (maybe fair enough) but we didn't we give JT 4? Roberts 2? JJ's massive contract? I get you draw the line at some point, but I am confident this was not PURELY about $$ here.

Trengove got 3 years not 4. Roberts deserved 2 at the time and I don't know what JJ is on but he deserves it, he is A grader


Adams is injury prone and sometimes players don't fit in, but NO player liked him? I find that really hard to believe and it's a real cop out. He's injury prone but he's exactly what we needed to keep (and still need)..

Don't believe me, but that is what I understand and what you think I made that up?


Don't be so dismissive of losing proven senior players so soon after winning the flag. Geelong, Richmond and Hawthorn all kept the majority of their players (including fringe players) while they were still in contention and it's really only after last year that the Tigers started giving a couple away. After 2/3 flags, I'd be more understanding too.

Well gave you reasons why they left. We have actually lost Roughead, Dahl, Hamling and Stringer - 4 PLAYERS still playing footy. Hardly the biggest issue of all time

For me Hamling is the biggest loss, but we know why he left.

Here is the GF team



Jason Johannisen



Jackson Macrae



Matthew Boyd
Retired


Liam Picken
Retired


Luke Dahlhaus
Wanted more money


Thomas Liberatore



Marcus Bontempelli



Lachlan Hunter



Toby McLean



Dale Morris
Retired


Shane Biggs
Retired


Josh Dunkley



Thomas Boyd
Retired


Caleb Daniel



Easton Wood



Jordan Roughead
Traded


Clay Smith
Retired


Jake Stringer
Traded


Tory Dickson



Zaine Cordy



Joel Hamling
Traded


Fletcher Roberts
Delist

[Topdog]

Can't believe we are talking about Stevens and Horvat.

The only player that has left and actually looks decent is stringer and rough.

I don't think stringer leaving had anything to do with Bevo

[G-Mo77]

Can't believe we are talking about Stevens and Horvat.

The only player that has left and actually looks decent is stringer and rough.

I don't think stringer leaving had anything to do with Bevo

They were good depth players though. Players who could come in and play a role. We had players like that on tap and we squandered all our depth and replaced them with kids.

Stringer caused his own mess. Could we have got him through all the issues is a good question? Did we want to is another?

[Topdog]

They were good depth players though. Players who could come in and play a role. We had players like that on tap and we squandered all our depth and replaced them with kids.

Stringer caused his own mess. Could we have got him through all the issues is a good question? Did we want to is another?

But who was actually doing the job? Dahl was really poor in his last few years here. Adams could never do his job cos he never got on the field.

[Remi Moses]

We miss Hrovat ?
This site’s officially jumped the shark :rolleyes:

[Remi Moses]

Stringer was terrible in his last two years
Can’t put his issues off field at the feet of the coach!
He plays on his own terms and still does
Dahlhaus was also a non contributor since the flag
Adams ? Who ? Give me a break

[Remi Moses]

Can't believe we are talking about Stevens and Horvat.

The only player that has left and actually looks decent is stringer and rough.

I don't think stringer leaving had anything to do with Bevo

Roughy for me also . Thought he got a raw deal to be honest
Hrovat couldn’t get a game at Norf
Premiership teams always lose fringe players . Tigers have lost Butler and Lloyd and players leave for greater opportunity

[The Bulldogs Bite]

RM (among a few others), do you actually take the time to read posts or do you interpret what you want to suit your narrative?

Nobody said we MISS Hrovat. Or Stevens. They DID provide us reasonable depth, of which now when we have injuries, we replace players with kids who aren't ready or players nowhere near the standard.

Pretty easy concept to grasp I'd have thought.

Might take my holiday from here for a while :)

[Sedat]

First of all, it's nothing to do with me not liking Bevo - which is categorically untrue. I've met him personally a number of times and sat in on a couple of private meetings mind you, he's a great guy and I love what he did for our club. That doesn't mean I won't question him (or anyone else) if I don't agree with what I'm seeing.
I don't know how any sensible, rational supporter wouldn't question what Bevo and the club have done with the footy dept after seeing us go 36-42 since our premiership. That is a very long sample size of bog ordinary performance, bordering on sub-standard.

Every single question simply has to be asked by Gordon and Baines as to what has happened and why, in all aspects of the footy dept, since the pre-season of 2017. I don't think any free-thinking supporter would consider this a controversial viewpoint. Geelong did something similar from the top down after 1 under performing season (2006) not 3 and a half seasons, and they have basically been finalists at worst and contenders most years since 2007

[1eyedog]

Great debate guys, cheers.

I was thinking about our list since 2016 and Whately's recent comments regarding that it was our choice we have such a young list like it was a bad thing. Sure it was our choice but what other choice did we have? Of course in a perfect world you keep a premiership team together as long as you can, but with all the retirements, alleged unrest and decisions to go elsewhere for a fresh start from key experience players, Im not sure what other choice we had.

[bornadog]

Great debate guys, cheers.

I was thinking about our list since 2016 and Whately's recent comments regarding that it was our choice we have such a young list like it was a bad thing. Sure it was our choice but what other choice did we have? Of course in a perfect world you keep a premiership team together as long as you can, but with all the retirements, alleged unrest and decisions to go elsewhere for a fresh start from key experience players, Im not sure what other choice we had.

If you look at the premiership team and take away the retirements, then we only lost 4 players, then Hamling is the one I would have loved to have kept as he would fit in with the current philosphy.

[jeemak]

I don't know how any sensible, rational supporter wouldn't question what Bevo and the club have done with the footy dept after seeing us go 36-42 since our premiership. That is a very long sample size of bog ordinary performance, bordering on sub-standard.

Every single question simply has to be asked by Gordon and Baines as to what has happened and why, in all aspects of the footy dept, since the pre-season of 2017. I don't think any free-thinking supporter would consider this a controversial viewpoint. Geelong did something similar from the top down after 1 under performing season (2006) not 3 and a half seasons, and they have basically been finalists at worst and contenders most years since 2007

Maybe cut the mayonnaise down two a standard two egg Sedat, three's making you seem intolerant.

I'm a supporter who thinks our messaging has been really shit since the premiership, we didn't know - in my view - how to tell hungry/ lusting supporters that we've reached the pinnacle and need to rebuild to reach it again as quickly and sustainably as possible after we realised everyone was still in party mode in 2017 and we got injuries and couldn't recover.

Additionally I can confidently say that our performances have matched our list profile and churn since that time, and will continue to do so until we address its serious deficiencies. A good litmus test is to look at our win loss record, versus churn and player availability and profile, and think what our expectations would be had we not won the premiership in 2016.

Our continuity has been dreadful, and we've found out the hard way that the balance being tipped towards youth comes with consequences. Sure we can suppose that we should have tried harder to keep players or scout players better than we have done, but who really knows what we offered versus what we didn't to players to retain or attract them.

So anyway, we find ourselves with a coach who is rebuilding the club/ list (and has been since 2018) having made three out of five finals series, having won a premiership and still in the race to earn another finals berth, and shit's going crazy. We're ignoring every fact that doesn't suit our own biases to push our viewpoints because that's just what we do these days, and we're questioning the freedom of thought of fellow members/ supporters if they don't take the same approach to assessing our position.

*!*!*!*! I wish there was a pandemic out there to worry about.

[SonofScray]

We have put a lot of players through the squad in recent history. But have never really established continuity. The bottom six feels like it's always being shuffled.

Grant has spoken about trying to get a particular number of games played together + avg games played in to the 22. I'd be interested to track what that looks like over the course of the year from here on in. Feels like we aren't building that continuity at all.

[Sedat]

Maybe cut the mayonnaise down two a standard two egg Sedat, three's making you seem intolerant.

I'm a supporter who thinks our messaging has been really shit since the premiership, we didn't know - in my view - how to tell hungry/ lusting supporters that we've reached the pinnacle and need to rebuild to reach it again as quickly and sustainably as possible after we realised everyone was still in party mode in 2017 and we got injuries and couldn't recover.

Additionally I can confidently say that our performances have matched our list profile and churn since that time, and will continue to do so until we address its serious deficiencies. A good litmus test is to look at our win loss record, versus churn and player availability and profile, and think what our expectations would be had we not won the premiership in 2016.

Our continuity has been dreadful, and we've found out the hard way that the balance being tipped towards youth comes with consequences. Sure we can suppose that we should have tried harder to keep players or scout players better than we have done, but who really knows what we offered versus what we didn't to players to retain or attract them.

So anyway, we find ourselves with a coach who is rebuilding the club/ list (and has been since 2018) having made three out of five finals series, having won a premiership and still in the race to earn another finals berth, and shit's going crazy. We're ignoring every fact that doesn't suit our own biases to push our viewpoints because that's just what we do these days, and we're questioning the freedom of thought of fellow members/ supporters if they don't take the same approach to assessing our position.

*!*!*!*! I wish there was a pandemic out there to worry about.
That's a very reasonable viewpoint. Dare I say it sensible, rational, and free-thinking ;)

Another viewpoint is that 2016 has clouded the water somewhat. When Bevo got the job, I'm sure his business plan did not have us winning a premiership in year 2 of his tenure. I also don't think it would have had us treading water in years 3-6 of his tenure either, which we have done (notwithstanding year 6 is only half run).

FWIW, a comprehensive review of the footy dept operations should be seen as a positive experience and not a negative one. Clearly there are areas in our footy dept that have contributed to our underwhelming 36-42 W/L formline in years 3-6 of the Bevo plan, and the opportunity to review all areas with a clinical and rational eye should not be wasted.

It's not about 'sack Bevo'. It is about properly analysing what has worked and what has not worked, and to make the necessary changes to our footy dept so that the areas of underperformance can be restructured to give Bevo and the rest of the footy dept the best chance of sustained long-term improvement and success.

[Mofra]

Great debate guys, cheers.

I was thinking about our list since 2016 and Whately's recent comments regarding that it was our choice we have such a young list like it was a bad thing. Sure it was our choice but what other choice did we have? Of course in a perfect world you keep a premiership team together as long as you can, but with all the retirements, alleged unrest and decisions to go elsewhere for a fresh start from key experience players, Im not sure what other choice we had.
Wait... choice?

Wingard, Impey, Martin... and by rumour we made offers to Moore.
Then the successes - Crozier, Keath, Bruce.

Let's not pretend Bevo just loves young players and doesn't want experience. We chase experience every year.

[Grantysghost]

Am I right in thinking we’ve had a bit of an issue with the middle aged bracket historically ? (for a reason that escapes me).I seem to remember maybe in the rocket days we had that big gap of players in their mid 20s. Wonder if this is a legacy of that rather than by design.
Having said that clearly we’ve had time to rectify, just thought it interesting.

[bornadog]

FWIW, a comprehensive review of the footy dept operations should be seen as a positive experience and not a negative one. Clearly there are areas in our footy dept that have contributed to our underwhelming 36-42 W/L formline in years 3-6 of the Bevo plan, and the opportunity to review all areas with a clinical and rational eye should not be wasted.

A review of the performance of the footy department should be done at the end of every year, whether successful or not. In corporate life, some businesses do it well and others just brush over it. I would like a proper review of the footy department every year to ensure we have the right people and the right strategies to move forward and become a better team year on year.

Because of the financial situation of the AFL, all footy departments will be reviewed heavily as the budget is rumoured to be sliced by $3 million, which means you need a thorough look at every role, and work out who you need who you don't need and what deficiencies there are.

[bornadog]

Am I right in thinking we’ve had a bit of an issue with the middle aged bracket historically ? (for a reason that escapes me).I seem to remember maybe in the rocket days we had that big gap of players in their mid 20s. Wonder if this is a legacy of that rather than by design.
Having said that clearly we’ve had time to rectify, just thought it interesting.

We did have that issue in the Rocket days, and it was something he inherited from the previous regime? Ages 23 to 27 were lacking.

I think our middle bracket now, which are the players that are left on the list from the premiership team, are ok. For probably a long time now, we don't have any players in the 200 plus bracket. These guys are usually in the twilight of their career, but also they help stabilise the list, and help produce consistent performance. Losing Murphy, Moyd, The Glove, Picken has left a big hole. The next most experienced are players that have come in from other clubs like Suckling and Trengove.

At the end of next year - going into 2022, we will have guys like Bont, Macrae, Libba, Wallis, JJ, Hunter getting close to 200 games.

The worry for me is the next tier down.

[Topdog]

RM (among a few others), do you actually take the time to read posts or do you interpret what you want to suit your narrative?

Nobody said we MISS Hrovat. Or Stevens. They DID provide us reasonable depth, of which now when we have injuries, we replace players with kids who aren't ready or players nowhere near the standard.

Pretty easy concept to grasp I'd have thought.

Might take my holiday from here for a while :)

We dont miss them and we dont miss the depth that they provided. Even when Libba has been out we werent missing them.

Players to run through the midfield is not somewhere that we lack depth.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

If you look at the premiership team and take away the retirements, then we only lost 4 players, then Hamling is the one I would have loved to have kept as he would fit in with the current philosphy.

The biggest losses IMO has been in the area of onfield leadership. Players like Picken, Matthew Boyd and Morris were able to dig deep when the going got tough. Roughead and Tom Boyd also had a good 2016 finals campaign. We have also taken a long time to replace a Dahlhaus small forward type.