Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Danjul
The problem with Bruce is very simple. He is going to be played no matter what.
When he is out of form he gets games in the firsts to run into form.
That was done in 2020 and to describe it as not a great year is dishonest. It was disgraceful and his selection was shameful. Held back the team on the field and prevented player development. And he never gained form. Look at the elimination final where he got us eliminated.
In 2021 he was obviously in better shape and certainly should have been played. And after his 10 goal haul against north he seemed very confident in later games. Helped get and keep us at the top of the ladder. Excellent.
This year he has been totally out of form again, although some think goalless for three and a half games was an excellent return. He was a liability against Geelong and Freo. Poor performances which did more to help us lose than win. Couldn’t run properly, couldn’t turn, timing was out, generally made bad positions. All to be expected in the circumstances.
All others are judged on ‘where they are at’ . Bruce is judged on ‘where he has been’.
And they don’t even try to hide the fact! It is the blatant disrespect for genuine ‘selection’ principles that gets me.
And I don’t blame Bruce In any way. They pick him so he plays. He does his best and I hope next year’s return is a repeat of 2021.
Who are the some? Sorry but this is a ridiculous comment.
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bulldog4life
Who are the some? Sorry but this is a ridiculous comment.
Maybe it's the Trump? 'Some say I was the best president for the Blacks since Lincoln, maybe better'
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bulldog4life
Who are the some? Sorry but this is a ridiculous comment.
People (some) on here said that when Bruce got three possessions he was an asset because he ‘straightened up’ the forward line, what ever that means. When he got 2 possessions the following week against Melbourne he was judged as the brains behind JUH’s 5 goals. An exaggeration, maybe, but consistent with the fact.
I definitely read it here. Here’s one of them:
Yeah, he may be struggling but he takes a good defender, makes our forward structure better and separates the defence. We are better as a team with him pot there even in his form atm.
It is ridiculous, certainly, but that applies to the original statements, not my referring to them.
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Danjul
People (some) on here said that when Bruce got three possessions he was an asset because he ‘straightened up’ the forward line, what ever that means. When he got 2 possessions the following week against Melbourne he was judged as the brains behind JUH’s 5 goals. An exaggeration, maybe, but consistent with the fact.
I definitely read it here.
It is ridiculous, certainly, but that applies to the original statements, not my referring to them.
I know Bevo has said Bruce returning has helped Marra but I'm not really seeing the value in that.
I don't think anyone really believes Bruce has been a genuine value for us since his return but there might be some intangibles he brings.
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GVGjr
I know Bevo has said Bruce returning has helped Marra but I'm not really seeing the value in that.
I don't think anyone really believes Bruce has been a genuine value for us since his return but there might be some intangibles he brings.
That sums it up G. I don't remember anyone saying it was an excellent return by Bruce.
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GVGjr
I know Bevo has said Bruce returning has helped Marra but I'm not really seeing the value in that.
I don't think anyone really believes Bruce has been a genuine value for us since his return but there might be some intangibles he brings.
from a post after the Melbourne game:
Yeah, he may be struggling but he takes a good defender, makes our forward structure better and separates the defence. We are better as a team with him pot there even in his form atm.
it was written by an ‘anyone’
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Danjul
from a post after the Melbourne game:
Yeah, he may be struggling but he takes a good defender, makes our forward structure better and separates the defence. We are better as a team with him pot there even in his form atm.
it was written by an ‘anyone’
I thought against Freo he was starting to really show some form.
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bornadog
I thought against Freo he was starting to really show some form.
I agree, after half time.
It is proof that players should not be dropped after 1 or 2 or 3 bad games.
But we have seen some benched after a few bad minutes. I won’t elaborate on the ‘some’ but if you can’t think of any you haven’t been paying attention.
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
The guy he's, presumably, competing with kicked 7 in the twos last week. So, I think with that kind of "pressure" coming from below he needs to move aside. I doubt he will.
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bornadog
I thought against Freo he was starting to really show some form.
Was it good enough to hold his spot in your opinion?
I'd say he's unlikely to be dropped but there might be a slight chance.
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GVGjr
Was it good enough to hold his spot in your opinion?
I'd say he's unlikely to be dropped but there might be a slight chance.
I thought he was brought back prematurely from VFL.
Do you now drop him? I doubt he will be.
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mjp
Ummm.
Maybe??
I sort of don't really think we have a 'real' problem but you can have 1 of 2 philosophies with this role:
1/. You pick a second ruckman who can 'RUCK' and accept that in most circumstances that player will be a replacement level forward (at best). Example? Jackson at Melbourne, Ryder at the Saints etc.
2/. You use a position player who is tall enough/strong enough to 'fill in' for 5-minutes per q/hold the fort BUT this player gives you genuine positive minutes in their primary position. Example? Blicavs at Geelong.
The challenge we have right now is we are using a player who fits in neither of those two categories...and that is a problem. Will Lobb solve that problem? Well - I'm not sure because I don't see any way we can play English, Lobb, Bruce, Jamarra and Naughton in the same team.
Right now - if I was coaching - I would probably WANT to do what Bevo IS doing which is play Bruce and roll him up into the ruck for 5mins per q whilst crossing my fingers that something 'clicked' for him up forward. I don't think I could keep doing it though as Bruce looks a million miles off AFL footy right now (coming back from an ACL is v. hard and he is a big unit so it's probably even harder) and I would want to at least TRY Sweet in that role on the basis that:
- Maybe English could play a 50-50 ruck-forward split which would be more effective than having Bruce up there.
- Even if Sweet only spends 5 mins per q up forward and 14-17 in the ruck hopefully that WOULDN'T compromise rotations TOO much.
Rotations would stress me out with Sweet though - I would worry about the amount of time I would need to sit him on the pine because of his lack of forward line understanding and the impact that would have on my running players (in particular the West/Garcia/Weightman pressure forwards who play high intensity roles and would be at risk of getting cooked!).
So do I think we have a problem? I think we have a bit of a balance problem (as I have said repeatedly) and I think it hurts us.
2x Tall backs + 1x utility (Think Gardner + Keath + either Cordy or O'Brien).
1x genuine small defender (we only have one - Duryea).
3x running defenders (Richards, Dale and Daniel).
3x Outside mids (Williams, Hunter and Treloar)
4x Inside Mids (Liber, Bont, Macrae and Dunks)
1x Ruckman (English)
2x Tall forwards + 1x Utility support (Naughton, Jamarra + Bruce/Sweet)
1x Genuine small forward (we don't have one but say Weightman)
3x mid size forwards (Garcia, West and McNeil)
I've probably missed someone in my typing rush but I genuinely think we get the balance wrong and go in with players uncertain as to what their roles are...
mjp thank you for providing insight into what you would do and working through the scenarios at play and the thought process Beveridge would be going through.
It is also quite concerning our lack of A grade or even B grade key defenders, small defenders and small/mid forwards.
I do wonder if our balance problem and role clarity is of our own doing with Beveridge preferring flexibility over actual players who can only play one position and if you do not excel at it e.g. Sweet in the ruck you are not getting a look in.
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
azabob
mjp thank you for providing insight into what you would do and working through the scenarios at play and the thought process Beveridge would be going through.
It is also quite concerning our lack of A grade or even B grade key defenders, small defenders and small/mid forwards.
I do wonder if our balance problem and role clarity is of our own doing with Beveridge preferring flexibility over actual players who can only play one position and if you do not excel at it e.g. Sweet in the ruck you are not getting a look in.
Isn’t list balance also an issue with a pure “best available” drafting strategy? Not sure what our strategy is as we’ve had to farm picks into JUH and Darcy the last 2 years.
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bornadog
I thought he was brought back prematurely from VFL.
Do you now drop him? I doubt he will be.
Yep. Sit him down, have the chat get on the same page and get him a good pre season under his belt.
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MrMahatma
Isn’t list balance also an issue with a pure “best available” drafting strategy? Not sure what our strategy is as we’ve had to farm picks into JUH and Darcy the last 2 years.
The principle is sound but at times there is a reset option to this approach.
With two longer term prospects at the key positions in recent years selected our focus might switch slightly.
There will be plenty of good midfielders and defenders in this draft as well as KPP players