Rumour 2023 Rumours and Speculation (Rumours total 37!, 1 (busted) BIG FISH ALERT last October 9th) (9 confirmed! 17 Busted!)

[Captain Furious]

I never said he was better I said lets try him and find out

I would play Dowling , Curtin and Edwards

Wow 1 game. I'm convinced

Over who?

That 2nd part makes no sense...1 game what?

 

[Captain Furious]

Taylor for McHenry or Murphy. Why do one of these proven spuds have to be in the team?
Dowling for Crouch or Laird.

How about when he subbed Nank for Smith, you were ok for that?

I'd rather not have Murphy and McHenry in the side either but also don't want to see a midfielder who had 4 kicks in the SANFL try and play half forward in the AFL team.

I understand the frustration, really, really I do...I still think there needs to be a calculated approach to selection and games not given away. Since our 0-4 start - even taking out the Kangas bye - we're 2-2-1 against 4 top 8 sides and last year's grand finalist with a + 25 point differential. I don't want to play coulda woulda shoulda but that could easily have ben 5-0. We're not that far away and while finals are unlikely, they're still possible.

 

[George Kramer]

Out: Richard Douglas, Andy Otten, Cam Ellis-Yolmen (Brisbane Lions), Eddie Betts (Carlton), Sam Jacobs (GWS Giants), Hugh Greenwood (Gold Coast Suns), Alex Keath (Western Bulldogs), Josh Jenkins (Geelong Cats)

In: Billy Frampton

Milera missed the whole season other than first 2 games, Sloane missed a big chunk with injury, Doedee came back later from a knee then did his hamstring...we were absolutely decimated for talent and experience.

The team that lost to Port by 75 points in round 2 in it had:

Tex, Sloane, Lynch, Matt and Brad Crouch, O’Brien, Milera, Laird, Seedsman, Smith, Talia, Brown, Doedee, Murphy, Keays, Fogarty, Stengle, Kelly

That scoreline was with shortened quarters.

Similar side got thumped by Gold Coast the following week.

I could go on.

Sloane played 12 from 17 games.
Doedee played 9 from 17.

That side wasn’t good enough to play finals but it was better than bottom with a lot of beltings in shorter game time and lost 13 games in a row.

 

[George Kramer]

I'd rather not have Murphy and McHenry in the side either but also don't want to see a midfielder who had 4 kicks in the SANFL try and play half forward in the AFL team.

I understand the frustration, really, really I do...I still think there needs to be a calculated approach to selection and games not given away. Since our 0-4 start - even taking out the Kangas bye - we're 2-2-1 against 4 top 8 sides and last year's grand finalist with a + 25 point differential. I don't want to play coulda woulda shoulda but that could easily have ben 5-0. We're not that far away and while finals are unlikely, they're still possible.

Hang on, you’ve cherry picked one game of Taylor’s, that’s hardly building an argument why he shouldn’t play over known spuds.

I’m glad you brought up the 0-4 start, earlier you said the players couldn’t play the game plan Nicks wanted but it was Nicks who changed our game plan for rounds 1-4 and chose a shit midfield mix.

No comment on selecting Smith over Nank given their respective forms this year and their games against Port?

 

[Captain Furious]

Hang on, you’ve cherry picked one game of Taylor’s, that’s hardly building an argument why he shouldn’t play over known spuds.

I’m glad you brought up the 0-4 start, earlier you said the players couldn’t play the game plan Nicks wanted but it was Nicks who changed our game plan for rounds 1-4 and chose a s**t midfield mix.

No comment on selecting Smith over Nank given their respective forms this year and their games against Port?

I'd love to see if Taylor can play but he's injured a bunch and hasn't strung together anywhere near decent form enough to earn a game. More importantly, when he does play it should be where he actually plays - not set up to fail in a position he's not familiar with.

I like Nank but he's still prone to too many errors to be a walk up starter.

 

[Sanders]

That's an extremely naive view. Sam Berry isn't going to become Errol Gulden through development, he's a completely different type of player. If you listen to Hamish for more than 5 minutes, you'll hear the word 'competitive' about 10 times. He champions the McHenrys and Pedlars of the world who are competitive, hard at it and other cliches. Which is great, you need those types of players, you just don't need 15 of them and you don't spend your prize draft capital on them.

Naive view? From someone like you?

Tremendous

 

[Sanders]

Ok...

1. While you may want to think that as it's supports your view, it's not accurate. Each selection committee would work a little differently (Alistair Clarkson probably has more say than Adam Yze) but the coach does not get automatic final say. It just doesn't work that way. Sorry.

It does. You’re wrong.

What evidence do you have we aren't following Nicks instructions to the letter as to how he wants it played? - I watch games and assume his instructions aren't to give the ball to the opposition.

That old chestnut

 

[Sanders]

You can choose to dismiss Nicks criticisms but that just puts you in the same make believe world as Wayne.

I had the exact same thought. It’s not, but they’re cut from the same cloth

 

[George Kramer]

I'd love to see if Taylor can play but he's injured a bunch and hasn't strung together anywhere near decent form enough to earn a game. More importantly, when he does play it should be where he actually plays - not set up to fail in a position he's not familiar with.

I like Nank but he's still prone to too many errors to be a walk up starter.

He’s not injured a bunch this year. His form and more importantly McHenrys form means he most certainly deserves a go. McHenry was playing a combination of half forward and wing. Taylor with his skill set could play that. If you’re waiting for a midfield spot to become available he will be delisted without a game.

Found it interesting you moved on from using a 4 kick game to justify not selecting him at half forward, to injuries to not his role. What’s next? He doesn’t wash Nicks car well enough?

Nanks 94% disposal efficiency against Port in a showdown with 2 turnovers. Yeah that’s an argument to make him sub for Smith whose form has been crap and had an impactful 2 kick ins in a qtr. His seasons disposal efficiency is at 82%.

Oh saw you skipped over Nicks changed game plan and shit midfield mix leading to 0-4 again.

Come on mate, you can’t with a straight face try and build a defence for Nicks with shit arguments like that.

 

[Captain Furious]

He’s not injured a bunch this year. His form and more importantly McHenrys form means he most certainly deserves a go. McHenry was playing a combination of half forward and wing. Taylor with his skill set could play that. If you’re waiting for a midfield spot to become available he will be delisted without a game.

Found it interesting you moved on from using a 4 kick game to justify not selecting him at half forward, to injuries to not his role. What’s next? He doesn’t wash Nicks car well enough?

Nanks 94% disposal efficiency against Port in a showdown with 2 turnovers. Yeah that’s an argument to make him sub for Smith whose form has been crap and had an impactful 2 kick ins in a qtr. His seasons disposal efficiency is at 82%.

Oh saw you skipped over Nicks changed game plan and s**t midfield mix leading to 0-4 again.

Come on mate, you can’t with a straight face try and build a defence for Nicks with s**t arguments like that.

Ugh this has got seriously repetitive and redundant. Over and out.

 

[George Kramer]

Ugh this has got seriously repetitive and redundant. Over and out.

Good decision. As for repetitive, yep, had to correct your opinion a few times.

 

[Captain Furious]

Good decision. As for repetitive, yep, had to correct your opinion a few times.

When someone doesn't want to talk to you anymore, it doesn't mean you're right. Just boring.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Ok...

1. While you may want to think that as it's supports your view, it's not accurate. Each selection committee would work a little differently (Alistair Clarkson probably has more say than Adam Yze) but the coach does not get automatic final say. It just doesn't work that way. Sorry.

2. You need to read the thread.

3. The coach absolutely does not have a leading or even weighted say in drafting. They may ask for a type of player (hence our pivot since 2001 when Nicks probably begged Hamish for no more grunt players who can't kick) but they don't get to dictate players. I remember Ross Lyon saying in an interview he had zero impact on drafting at Freo. Leigh Matthews said a similar thing.

What evidence do you have we aren't following Nicks instructions to the letter as to how he wants it played? - I watch games and assume his instructions aren't to give the ball to the opposition.

Who do you propose bringing into the team?

firstly, a coach lives and dies by game day results. There is not a coach on the planet in any team sport that doesn't seect the players they want to play. As I said, its a committee but the final decision is and always be the head coach but that doesn't mean the assistance dont get a say, they will clearly talk Nicks into trying different things with different players.

What wont happen is turning to Roo at game day selection and state 'Oh Roo its your turn, how about for giggles this week you select our midfield.

Secondly, draft and trading. The coach, his game plan and future plans will always be forefront of mind during the draft and trading of players. Some players speak for themselves and would walk into a best 22, so clearly its a no brainer about someone like Hayward for example. What I am talking about is the trading in of fringe players. This would revolve the coach convincing someone they will get games or at least be in selection contention. So the coach has to be on board.

Aside from the best players in the draft, need roles would very much be the coach's wants for positional depth.

Lastly game plan. Yeah man. The weight of evidence suggests we are playing every bit the way Nicks wants us to.

The pattern of the games usually go this way

Q1. defend with methodical possession, counter attack
Q2. As above
Q3. Defend with methodical possession, counter attack, but If behind switch to all out attack and play on at all costs until we gain even, conserve energy
Q4. Defend with methodical possession, all out attack final minutes.

Every game except the Showdown, North Melbourne have been variations of this game plan with mixed success. A repeated pattern does indicate that its deliberate does it not?

Or are you trying to tell us, that the players are doing their own thing, can't play Nicks style but we somehow have honourable losses every week.

 

[adelaidecrows]

When someone doesn't want to talk to you anymore, it doesn't mean you're right. Just boring.

What was frustrating was that Sanders , George Kramer and I all said variations of the same thing based on our observations but instead of having a discussion, you decided to lecture us on how we are wrong by nothing more than the assumptions you've made watching TV.

 

[FR0GGY]

I hear Nicks also killed Princess Diana. We should bash him behind the bike sheds after school.

Maybe she had our freo game on repeat zzzzz

 

[Captain Furious]

What was frustrating was that Sanders, George Kramer and I all said variations of the same thing based on our observations but instead of having a discussion, you decided to lecture us on how we are wrong by nothing more than the assumptions you've made watching TV.

When you're saying the same thing as Sanders, that's a solid cue to reassess.

How is it that you were discussing but I was lecturing? The answer is that I wasn't agreeing with you and that's how you then chose to frame it. Then you take all those posts and sum it up with that sentence and expect me to take you seriously? Are you really that frustrated that I didn't end up agreeing with you? It's ok man, it's fine to have a difference of opinion.

You think Nicks is responsible for every negative thing at the club.

I think:

a) that's a naive view of how football clubs operate
b) we're not that far away from being a very good team and probably would've been there by now if not for some extremely questionable drafting over a decent period of time

 

[George Kramer]

When someone doesn't want to talk to you anymore, it doesn't mean you're right. Just boring.

Nah, it’s generally when the other persons argument has been exposed and you can’t debate it. It’s easier to slink away, it’s a classic Wayne move.

Case in point, you’re changing goal posts on Taylor. You’re blaming the players for not being able to perform Nicks attacking game plan and refusing to acknowledge we did last year, one of the key reasons we went 0-4 is because Nicks changed our gameplan and his midfield mix sucks. Then there’s Nank where you justified his being made sub because of errors after a 94% disposal efficiency game.

If you’re position is Nicks is good and ignoring his **** ups, yeah I get why you’re struggling.

 

[adelaidecrows]

When you're saying the same thing as Sanders, that's a solid cue to reassess.

How is it that you were discussing but I was lecturing? The answer is that I wasn't agreeing with you and that's how you then chose to frame it. Then you take all those posts and sum it up with that sentence and expect me to take you seriously? Are you really that frustrated that I didn't end up agreeing with you? It's ok man, it's fine to have a difference of opinion.

You think Nicks is responsible for every negative thing at the club.

I think:

a) that's a naive view of how football clubs operate
b) we're not that far away from being a very good team and probably would've been there by now if not for some extremely questionable drafting over a decent period of time

Not really. I just find your conclusions humorous.

Not once have I blamed Nicks for anything other than what happens within the football department.

I agree with you we aren't far away. I'm off the conclusion we are simply a good coach who knows what they are doing from genuinely become a finals threat.

But you say 5 years isn't enough for Nicks, out of curiosity how long before you draw the line? 10 or 15? think Hamish can get him a good list by then or will it be 20 because Nicks is hamstrung by star player retirements which was unfair?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Will Nicks get poached when he explains to other clubs that the players just couldn't execute the game plan and our drafting stunk? Oh yeah, and that he gets overpowered in selection meetings.

 

[Mutineer]

I never said he was better I said lets try him and find out

I would play Dowling , Curtin and Edwards

Wow 1 game. I'm convinced

Dowling might have a case though I'm not seeing this inside bull some seem to be, Edwards however is miles off it AFL wise IMO On anything he's shown thus far since joining us. Ryan at this point looks more ready for an AFL gig than Edwards.
Edwards's name had hardly been mentioned at the start of his draft year and it was only quite late in the CTL season where he was talked up hence he never got a representative game for Vic Country and to my knowledge he never made a representative squad even coming through. He also only received a STATE Combine not a National Combine invite I'm pretty sure. He was always going to be a slow burn.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Nah, it’s generally when the other persons argument has been exposed and you can’t debate it. It’s easier to slink away, it’s a classic Wayne move.

Case in point, you’re changing goal posts on Taylor. You’re blaming the players for not being able to perform Nicks attacking game plan and refusing to acknowledge we did last year, one of the key reasons we went 0-4 is because Nicks changed our gameplan and his midfield mix sucks. Then there’s Nank where you justified his being made sub because of errors after a 94% disposal efficiency game.

If you’re position is Nicks is good and ignoring his heck ups, yeah I get why you’re struggling.

I for one want to know how games can follow the same defensive kick and catch then counter attack game pattern if thats not Nicks game plan?

There are only 3 conclusions
1. Nicks is selecting players that can't play this mysterious attacking game plan
2. The players aren't listening to Nicks after 5 years and a whole year of playing an attacking game plan
3. Old mate is talking out his arse and he is totally just guessing.

 

[spenze]

Huge fan of people making excuses for a coach with a 30% winning record over 5 seasons

 

[adelaidecrows]

Huge fan of people making excuses for a coach with a 30% winning record over 5 seasons

The entertainment value is pretty good though. Whats not to like about someone pissing in our ear and telling us its raining.

 

[jackster83]

Huge fan of people making excuses for a coach with a 30% winning record over 5 seasons

We had a review and fired the coaches and head of football for a season where we won 10 games and finished 11th.

Five years on we are actually worse now.

Imagine defending that. With all those high draft picks plus Dawson and Rankine coming in, we haven't made any progress.

"iT's tHe pLaYeRz fAuLt"

 

[Twist_of_Lemon]

We had a review and fired the coaches and head of football for a season where we won 10 games and finished 11th.

Five years on we are actually worse now.

Imagine defending that. With all those high draft picks plus Dawson and Rankine coming in, we haven't made any progress.

"iT's tHe pLaYeRz fAuLt"

We should've kept Dunstall on retainer so he could just glare our club into submission whenever they decide to make further foolish decisions.