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