Round 10 Team

[Ozza]

Re: Round 10 Team

Would have liked DJ in rather than Reid, but I guess Reids hardness at tyhe ball and the ability to spread quickly got him over the line.

Would have preferred DJ also. I'm personally not convinced about Sam Reid as an AFL footballer whatsoever - but I would be ecstatic to be proven wrong!!!

[Bornadog]

Re: Round 10 Team

Is this a new feature of Sam's game?

According to Rocket that is one of the things he does

[DOG GOD]

Re: Round 10 Team

Final Bench is Moles, Hill, Reid and Sherman. Howard and Wallis named on the ground.

Emergencies are Hudson, Djerkurra and Markovic.

So we're playing Howard, Wallis, Libba, Ward, Wood and Reid in the same game. And we've dropped Hudson and Gilbee.

I hear one more crack about Eade 'playing favourites' and not playing kids I will dead set blow my top.
Minson has the challenge of his career ahead of him. Looks like he might be rucking for a full game, unless Williams or Jones Pinch-hit.

Gia (5-6 great games a year) and Cross are still getting games.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Round 10 Team

What stand? Do you think Grant and Gilbee were the cause of our 123 point defeat? Were they even in our worst five players on the ground? Worst ten?

You think that's taking a stand? .[/B] .

Yes; it's called balance. You want to play the whole seagull side? I'm confident the MC looked at last week and has addressed key performances in this weeks selections.

That is quite possibly the silliest thing that I've ever read in this forum. A discussion on current Match Committee selections is enhanced by an understanding of their performance to date. History can repeat itself or we can learn from our mistakes. You might want to take your blinkers off. .

Right back at ya

[Before I Die]

Re: Round 10 Team

What stand? Do you think Grant and Gilbee were the cause of our 123 point defeat? Were they even in our worst five players on the ground? Worst ten?

Yes, indisputably they were.

Do you really believe that "making a stand" or "sending a shock wave" is the answer? If this were true then Football Clubs are spending a lot of unnecessary money on staff and resources. You quote the Collingwood situation as evidence. For all you know Collingwood may have still won the flag with Lockyer, Medhurst etc still in the team. Maybe not, but we will never know. Lyon "made a stand" and he didn't win a Premiership. if you want to claim that making a Grand Final is evidence of success I may ask you to reconcile this with your line about "accepting mediocrity".

I apologise if I have attributed quotes to you which are not yours, however I am sure I have accurately reflected your contention.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Round 10 Team

Hahn and Gia laid more tackles than all our other forwards combined last year, considering Hill was used all over the pack.

That isn't true.

Gia and Hahn (148 tackles) did not out tackle the rest of our forwards combined (246 tackles to Higgins, Aker, Stack, Grant, Jones, Hall, Hill, Murphy and Johnson) last year. Higgins and Hill did spend time in the middle, but so did Gia and Hahn finished his career at half back.

When evaluating small forwards, I wouldn't get too excited about Gia's tackling average of 3.76 a game last year (2.2 in 2011) or Hahn's of 2.84. They really aren't that good.

Change Hall's name to Gia and most would want him beheaded.

Will Gia Mark 2 still be the giant of a man who plays key position and kicked all those goals last year? I like this Gia more than the current one (and I don't dislike Gia; I just thing he has been played at times when his form has not warranted it).

There's a big difference between a 33 year old power forward and a 27 year old flanker.

The fact is, senior players with senior experience will generally perform better than untried youngsters

If Mick Malthouse had held firmly to that fact last year, would Collingwood have won a Premiership? Every senior player at Collingwood knows that they will be dropped if their form wanes. There is no room for complacency on that list. Malthouse puts games into kids when their form at VFL level does not necessarily warrant it to see how they perform at the elite level. He has reaped the rewards.

A strong criticism of Rodney Eade is that by never dropping senior players regardless of their output he has fostered an environment in which the senior players have not been completely challenged to perform at the best. Dropping a member of the leadership group after three poor weeks might bring them back hungrier and might stop others taking their spots for granted. It is a legitimate criticism. I hope he has learnt from his mistakes.

Has anyone actually considered the radical proposal that full time professionals with 100% of the information actually know the playing list better than Joe Public sitting on the sidelines? Shock horror!

There are a lot of full time professionals in football that lose their jobs each year. Have you ever considered that not all of them are successful in their roles? Or that someone who is good at many facets of his role might have one shortcoming?

Radical.

[azabob]

Re: Round 10 Team

Would have preferred DJ also. I'm personally not convinced about Sam Reid as an AFL footballer whatsoever - but I would be ecstatic to be proven wrong!!!

Interesting call. If we didn't have similar sorts of players would your opinion still be as strong?

[LostDoggy]

Re: Round 10 Team

I apologise if I have attributed quotes to you which are not yours, however I am sure I have accurately reflected your contention.

You've attributed all sorts of crap to me that I never wrote. Next time have the courtesy to keep track of who wrote what instead of taking a stab and offering a lame apology if you were wrong. That's a shit act.

My contention is obvious enough. I don't believe that senior players who lose form should continue to be guaranteed selection regardless of their output. I think that it sets the wrong standard for the entire playing list. I think we have a coach who has made that mistake before and I hope he has learnt from that mistake because it is perhaps his largest shortcoming as a coach. The dumping of Grant, Stack and Gilbee did little to make me think he has. Hudson is a step in the right direction.

[Before I Die]

Re: Round 10 Team

If Mick Malthouse had held firmly to that fact last year, would Collingwood have won a Premiership?

Possibly, there is no way of knowing. Just because you believe something doesn't make it true.

Every senior player at Collingwood knows that they will be dropped if their form wanes. There is no room for complacency on that list. Malthouse puts games into kids when their form at VFL level does not necessarily warrant it to see how they perform at the elite level. He has reaped the rewards.

If this is the magic formula why has it taken Mick ten years to discover it? Maybe, just maybe there are other things that contributed to Collingwood winning the flag.

A strong criticism of Rodney Eade is that by never dropping senior players regardless of their output he has fostered an environment in which the senior players have not been completely challenged to perform at the best.

A strong criticism by who? I don't think it is valid to quote yourself as a supporting source for your own argument.

Hi The Rocket. I am afraid i don't agree with some of your points. My thoughts are the bolded text that I have included in the quote i have taken from your post.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: Round 10 Team

Great, detailed posts Rocket.

Enjoyed the read and agree wholeheartedly.

[Ghost Dog]

Re: Round 10 Team

Cheers Rocket. Enjoyed and agreed
The irony is that Willy has been a much stronger club than Collingwood's at VFL level. You would think that means more competition for places in the firsts.

But that's last year. Now we can't find a senior player for love or money, besides maybe Morris, who turns up to play in a consistent way.

[Desipura]

Re: Round 10 Team

Is this a new feature of Sam's game?

Beat me to it

[Missing Dog]

Re: Round 10 Team

Expect Moles to be a late withdrawl with a shoulder injury.

[Before I Die]

Re: Round 10 Team

What stand? Do you think Grant and Gilbee were the cause of our 123 point defeat? Were they even in our worst five players on the ground? Worst ten?

We lost contested possession by more than fifty. That's not on Grant and Gilbee. Our clearances were shocking. Again, not Grant and Gilbee's full time department. Our defense leaked goals and was pathetic in one on one contests, see a trend here? Sure, they and Stack were crap and lazy too, but I'd be worried about anyone who watched that game objectively and thought that that Grant and Gilbee most deserved to carry the can for the loss. They, unlike a few others who were awful last week, were also quite good the week before.

Do you honestly think that the dropping of a fading flanker and a young forward will be the 'stand' that sends shockwaves throughout the team? Do you think that everyone now feels that they are on notice because Gilbee (the 2011 version, not 2008) and Grant (Jarrad, not Chris) have been omitted?

You don't lose by 123 points without making changes. Rather than addressing the form issues of some of our most important players (the guys who really were responsible for the thrashing), Eade picked the easiest targets in the team to dump, just like he always does.

You think that's taking a stand?




That is quite possibly the silliest thing that I've ever read in this forum. A discussion on current Match Committee selections is enhanced by an understanding of their performance to date. History can repeat itself or we can learn from our mistakes. You might want to take your blinkers off.

2010 showed that wise team selection is crucial for Premiership success. We have a coach who has consistently allowed under performing seniors to retain their spots in the team and it has had a negative impact on the club.

If Malthouse displayed the same loyalty at the selection table, then Lockyer, Medhurst, Fraser and O'Bree would have been in the seniors in September and 2010 could have played out very differently.

Those five players aren't the only reasons why we were smashed, but they are senior players (4 of whom are in the leadership group) whose selection this week flies in the face of Eade's famous 'form and fitness' selection criteria. If Eade truly wanted to make a statement this week, then he would have dropped some of the guys who arrive at the ground knowing that they'll be getting a game next week no matter what. Who knows, maybe if he did it would make every other player on that list (and not just the ones Eade thinks are dispensable) a little hungrier because they will be fighting to keep their spot in the team.

You've attributed all sorts of crap to me that I never wrote. Next time have the courtesy to keep track of who wrote what instead of taking a stab and offering a lame apology if you were wrong. That's a shit act.

My contention is obvious enough. I don't believe that senior players who lose form should continue to be guaranteed selection regardless of their output. I think that it sets the wrong standard for the entire playing list. I think we have a coach who has made that mistake before and I hope he has learnt from that mistake because it is perhaps his largest shortcoming as a coach. The dumping of Grant, Stack and Gilbee did little to make me think he has. Hudson is a step in the right direction.

I don't think I was off the mark at all. Perhaps quote was the wrong word to use, but the terms stand and shockwaves as well as the reference to Malthouse and Collingwood are all attributable to you as shown above.

It was only the mediocrity reference that I was unsure about. However, if you want to point out anything else that you believe misrepresents your views I will retract it.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Round 10 Team

I am pretty much sick of reading this sort of garbage about Eade and his favourite players that he won't drop.

Come on "The Rocket" tell us which players put their hands up in 2010 that warranted a game and didn't get a game?

Sorry Bornadog, I missed your 'challenge' first time round. I was only sneaking a quick look at work today and must have missed it.

In the spirit of the new WOOF tradition of reading your own posts from last year and declaring yourself right in hindsight, I took a quick look at my old WOOF posts to see what I was saying about our match committee last year. In hindsight, I was right!

It's actually a good exercise. I thought my frustration with Hahn occurred at around round eighteen last year but I was dismayed with his performance in June.

As to your question on who I would have given a game to if we had have dropped an under-performing senior player to make him earn his spot:

In May, I wanted to see Everett, Wood and Moles.

In June, it was still Everett and Wood plus Roughead and Jones.

In July, I wanted to see Hooper, Jones and Roughead and mentioned Markovic even though I had my doubts about his pace. I also thought that Tim Callan could do a job one week.

In September I was filthy that it had taken so long to play Hooper (they debuted him in a bloody semi final) and thought Jones should have been played as well.

I went to pretty much every Willy game at Burbank last year so I must have thought that those guys could offer something.

In 2010, Wood played 11, Roughead played 8 and Jones only played 5. All three would have been better served with more exposure to senior football last year.

Please understand that when I say we should drop an out of form senior player, it is so they can find form and come back to the seniors improved; it isn't an omission for life. Could our reserves have been able to accommodate the demotion for a couple of weeks of one of Eade's Untouchables when they no longer ticked the 'form and fitness' criteria that Eade himself set out?

Yeah, I think so.