Selection - structure vs form vs effort

One of the most debated facets of our year (and previous years really) is the MC - how and why they choose who they do.

Obviously we're not privy to niggles and what goes on behind the scenes, but how are we actually choosing the team each week?

What weighting do we, and should we, place on structure vs players who are actually in form? There is every possibility that the six most 'in form' forwards we select will be all smaller players which will kill us when we have to kick the ball into an organised defence on gameday.

Is there also an element of "rewarding the hardest trainer" in selection? If there is, is that 'short term pain for long term gain' or doe it actually hurt our chance by not putting on the most talented 22 each week?

It is certainly something that as supporters we do not understand and also do not influence.

There tends to be a thought that certain players have had the "papers stamped" for whatever reason and there opportunities will be extremely limited. Evidence Jackson Trengove in 2020 and Fletcher Roberts 2018-9.

There are others that on outside appearance get opportunities that, as supporters, we deem as undeserving. Evidence Ryan Gardner and Billy Gowers.

However, we just don't know as we have no visibility of the scratch matches or training form.

We also do not know what role the coach expects of individuals when they play and this also leads to a lack of understanding of the reasons some players get omitted. Evidence Rhylee West.

When you look at our historic month in 2016 and compare it to 2020 there are noticeable differences.

In the GF we had Hamling and Roberts in the last line. Both tall. Task was to spoil and body opponents. (Remember Hamling wrestling Buddy, it looked like Hamling was inside Buddy’s jumper).

Next line had Morris, a little bit tall but a big bit strong. (Remember Morris dragging Buddy to the ground, allowing Boyd’s goal.) Beside him was Wood as a high marking interceptor, not a Kpb.

Rucking in the middle was Roughead, genuine tall good above his head. And Libba- strong.

For one of the rare times in his career with us T Boyd was able to play as a conventional big forward. Beside him Cordy, not a genuine tall but good combination of height and mobility.

On the full forward line we had Clay. Strong!

Picken, strong hands marking above his head and excellent positional play.

Sweeping through we had M Boyd and Biggs, stayed in the open and delivered well by foot to players making position 40m ahead. No sideways handball there. They took responsibility for making play up the ground and the receivers knew it.

That team had balance and coordination. It had strength and purpose. The teams we have been selecting for the last 3 years have rarely reminded me of it.

Those guys didn’t win the Grand Final by standing 20 metres clear of their opponents, letting them easily take the ball end to end . They used handball effectively, it was quality, not quantity. They had 40 more kicks than handball, now it is frequently the other way round. Against St Kilda we had 177 to 142 kicks. 9 times the 2016 squad had over 400 disposals, now it’s common to have under 300. Have the shortened games had that much impact?

Times have changed.

What we do know is that it's highly variable and perplexing.

Some issues I have with selection are that we seem to consistently select the most inappropriate player from our bottom six for our needs at the time i.e. need a pressure forward who has shown something we select Weightman over West, or we don't choose one at all i.e. Cavarra. Need to hit the scoreboard yet our best kick for goal languishes in a black hole, is he even alive? Many woofers feel we need to add a second tall to alleviate pressure from Bruce by dragging their second tall out of the contest, yet Schache and Lew Young remain in the ether. We haven't seen Will Hayes, who I don't rate, yet he is probably our best runner who can at least contribute and helps with our rotations / player fatigue (especially during short breaks). There are a plethora of other examples. The biggest issue for me has been Bont and Macrae being used in the ruck. That has been a bridge too far for me. Bring in Sweet at the expense of our last picked to help English and save our blue chip mids from impact injuries, please.

Bevo pulls the selection strings and rewards training there's no doubt about it he's said so in the past but he also seems to have very different expectations of some players opposed to others (Ed Richards constantly getting a game but Toby McLean on the outer), again, there are other examples. Another perplexing selection decision is to debut a player or play a young player for one match and then omit them.

In terms of the game plan he has stuck to the methodology that he thinks can win us another flag, and he needs players to play a variety of roles, yet doesn't make changes during a match. That's perplexing. It's definitely a long-term gain as far as I'm concerned, at least I think that's the perceived end result. It will be all in the next 2-3 years or nothing.

What Bevo has done is provide plenty of content for WOOF over the past 5 years and will continue to do so while he remains coach.

I'm still a fan but he is the most highly-unconventional coach I've ever seen.

Unconventional?

I don’t see him as unconventional. The problem is he is too predictable. Just because something doesn’t work is no reason to stop doing it.

What is something unconventional that has worked this year?

I think there's two different things to consider here. Sure he's predictable in terms of the game plan but for me it remains to be seen if this is a problem. Or at least a long-term one.

Also, I'm not arguing that his (so called by me) unconventional approach is working. As per the OP I'm merely commenting that who he decides to play and where he decides to play them has been largely unconventional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1eyedog

Also, I'm not arguing that his (so called by me) unconventional approach is working. As per the OP I'm merely commenting that who he decides to play and where he decides to play them has been largely unconventional.

---

I think most of us would agree on certain selections - e.g. Trengove left out for Gardner as a KPD in the first couple of rounds.

To me it seems Bevo preferences footspeed and rebound potential over defensive ability. Sometimes that's right, sometimes it's not. By all accounts Gardner's a good trainer so maybe there was a bit of messaging to the group too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danjul

For one of the rare times in his career with us T Boyd was able to play as a conventional big forward. Beside him Cordy, not a genuine tall but good combination of height and mobility.

---

It's quite strange now to think that Cordy played forward in that finals series, and kicked some very important goals in the Prelim and Grand Final.


I recall that when Bevo first came to the club he was a big advocate for playing every player to their strengths, bringing out the best of what was already there. We seem to have gone away from that philosophy a bit.

Easton Wood was the best interceptor in the league at one point, he now regularly plays lock down roles while Crozier gets the loose role in general play. We look a much better team in my view when Easton is picking off opposition kicks.

The Bont's game-changing strength is his penetrating left peg bringing the ball inside fifty, but far from enabling this strength we play him as a marking target inside fifty or when he plays in the midfield often starts goal side of the stoppage as a handball distributor (I think Dunkley and Libba play this role much better).

McLean in my view plays his best footy when he's running through the lines, he's one of just a few players we have who can carry the ball and cover the ground while also being adept in the contest. It's encouraging to see him kick a couple of good goals against Port but his talents could be put to better use on the wing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scorlibo

It's quite strange now to think that Cordy played forward in that finals series, and kicked some very important goals in the Prelim and Grand Final.

I recall that when Bevo first came to the club he was a big advocate for playing every player to their strengths, bringing out the best of what was already there. We seem to have gone away from that philosophy a bit.

---

I wonder if that is due to list imbalance? We have 35 backmen and a few mids, with a couple of 'swingmen" and Josh Bruce.

Crozier is played well behind the ball... after we tried him forward.
Ed Richards is improving in all the things he doesn't get stats for, but is still not finding too much of the ball. He played juniors as a rebounding defender and showed great promise in that role early.
Naughton was one of the best intercepting defenders I've ever seen under 25 in his debut season, but is desperately needed forward.

Cordy played forward as a defensive forward to nullify McGovern in the elimination final, and held his spot because of his influence there. Grundy did take quite a lot of mark in the GF so I'll leave it up to everyone else to determine how viable he is as a long term forward option (I do love his aggression at the contest though).

Our best forward right now? A slow inside mid.

I think our biggest MC problem is the personnel. Bevo was at his best when he had the right team around him. Ever since we had that coaching shuffle (for no good reason I might add) we have had shitty results on the field. A few have moved on also. But things seem stale in there if you ask me.

2016 we were scratching our head with selections back then as well but everything seemed to work. These days though it always feels like we are selecting players for the future and not for the job at hand. Horses for courses is not Bevo's way from what I can see (which is not much). The problem for me is that by the time we have tried all the players that never look like making it, Bont Macrae Libba ect are all over the hill and we missed our chance.

Also in 2015/16 our manic high pressure fast ball movement by hand style game plan worked as the opposition weren't ready for it and didn't have effective defensive structures to deal with it. Now they do and some teams even play our manic style (Richmond St kilda) better than us. We haven't evolved enough since then and results show.

My thoughts too ratsmac. I hope we are proven wrong. I think selection of players not up to it would surely have a detrimental impact on psychology of playing group. Again hope I'm wrong. This year appears to be a lost year for us when I thought the short term changes could favour us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by josie

My thoughts too ratsmac. I hope we are proven wrong. I think selection of players not up to it would surely have a detrimental impact on psychology of playing group. Again hope I'm wrong. This year appears to be a lost year for us when I thought the short term changes could favour us.

---

Stay positive Josie, long way to go yet

Thanks BAD.

I will always watch our games no matter where we are in ladder. Agree a fair way to go. Love watching young players like Vandermeer prosper. Will also be great to have Naughts back soon as he is an excitement machine.