Preview AFL Round 14 - Geelong v Adelaide, Skilled Stadium, 1:10PM Sunday 26 June

[AM]

Hawkins gets dropped, plays shit in the VFL, has a week off injured, then recalled.

Simpson played well against an AFL standard ruckman in the VFL and Hawk gets in ahead of him.

Added to the Gillies one already discussed, quite perplexing.

Um! We have won 12 on the trot. Bit hard to be too critical of a Match Committee with that record.

I too have misgivings about Gillies. However, London to a brick the MC have well founded reasons for including him and Tomahawk which may well be bigger picture reasons.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

That may be so, but Hawkins simply doesn't deserve a game ahead of Simpson this week based on their recent form.

What about what the coach said at the start of the year about younger players getting games if their 2's form deserves them? Doesn't seem to have followed his own advice this week.

 

[you pick one]

That may be so, but Hawkins simply doesn't deserve a game ahead of Simpson this week based on their recent form.

What about what the coach said at the start of the year about younger players getting games if their 2's form deserves them? Doesn't seem to have followed his own advice this week.

Can only think there may have been one to many changes alread which has worked against him.

 

[Frappe]

The perception of the MC may be that Hawkins can play in more positions than Simpson can (ie. Full Forward).

There was a little talk early in the week that Ottens may be rested hence Simpson is an emergency.

 

[AM]

That may be so, but Hawkins simply doesn't deserve a game ahead of Simpson this week based on their recent form.

What about what the coach said at the start of the year about younger players getting games if their 2's form deserves them? Doesn't seem to have followed his own advice this week.

You're singling out one comment and continually recycling it. Chris has made many statements over the year about team selection. Including outsiders not appreciating the roles players are called-up to perform. Team selection isn't black and white as you sometimes portray it.

 

[Gaz_Brownlow]

Taking two big ruckman into any game is a risk these days. hawkins offer more balance, especially in support of young Mitch Brown. Simpson, whilst unlucky, is still very much project player who is progressing bit by bit. He will get his chance, but Hawkins really has the ability to be considered amongst finals contention, where you would assume Simpson won't figure unless Otto goes down. we just have to back the philosophies of the match committee who have done an outstanding job to date.

 

[LifeSpan-Void]

Maybe he's getting a dry run for a Carey critique?

 

[JUBJUB]

Now that the final team has been named, I can officially say congrats to Mitch Brown on his senior debut, here's hoping the young guy finally has something go right for him and makes the most of this chance

He was in the starting 18 so you could've said it last night.

Just an interesting one with Gillies,I looked up the times he's played to see if Lonergan,Taylor and Scarlett were playing.He's had a couple of games where all 3 [plus Milburn] played and that was in 2009 when Lonergan went back to defence.

 

[vivien]

wanna see a big win to boost our percentage

 

[longtimecat]

My son a Hawthorn member watched the Geelong v Hawthorn VFL match a couple of weeks ago. I asked him for an independent assessment of Hawkins, these were his words, " A cut above the rest Stood out" So please get off his back he is a young key forward that the coach and match committee believe is an emportant part of our future.

 

[Exhale You]

That may be so, but Hawkins simply doesn't deserve a game ahead of Simpson this week based on their recent form.

Surely that depends on the role they want filled.

If they want a legitimate, straight second ruck then yes, you're right, Dawse deserved a chance before Tom, however if they wanted someone who was versatile enough to ruck and spend time forward, Tom is clearly the best available option.

 

[Baudolino]

Taking two big ruckman into any game is a risk these days. hawkins offer more balance, especially in support of young Mitch Brown. Simpson, whilst unlucky, is still very much project player who is progressing bit by bit. He will get his chance, but Hawkins really has the ability to be considered amongst finals contention, where you would assume Simpson won't figure unless Otto goes down. we just have to back the philosophies of the match committee who have done an outstanding job to date.

This.

In fact I was going to make an almost identical point, but you said it better.

Hawkins has the ability to improve on what we have at the moment in the first 22. He's flexible, he facilitates better structures when he's playing well, and he offers Pods much needed support. Simpson cannot help us out in any of these regards - if Dawson lines up for us in finals, for whatever reason, we can guarantee it is a bad sign. Whereas Hawkins may be out of touch at the moment, but if he finds form it makes us a more dynamic side in my opinion (preferably working in tandem with Pods and Vardy in a three-pronged attack).

And I can't say I appreciate the logic that says that because Hawkins endured some poor form in the AFL, he's automatically relegated behind all the other big men on our list. He hasn't fallen that far down the hierarchy - even operating at 50% capacity he still offers more around the ground than West and Simpson.

Simpson is completely redundant whenever Brad Ottens lines up anyway. It's as if people want him in the team not on his own merits, but as a punitive course of action against Hawkins. Whenever I've seen the VFL this season my impression of Simpson has been more 'meh' than 'wow'.

 

[catswhiskers]

Simpson can play and will have his day.

Hawkins is in the side because the selectors can remember what happened when we took a lot of kids to Brisbane a while back.

Hawkins will require a good defender and will allow Brown to take the third defender. Gives Brown a chance to play on the flank where he will play for a year or two if he can crack best 22.

Hawkins + Brown (with 3rd defender) >>> Brown in KP (with 2nd defender)
Ottens + Simpson >> Ottens + Hawkins (rucking)

But their is a much bigger difference in the first line.

 

[Copernicus]

I'll be stuck catching the replay of this since I will be out of town, but I can't wait to get my first glimpse of Mitch. Hopefully he works his arse off and has an impact.

Interesting to see Gillies in there - I suspect the club wants to see how he goes playing at a higher level, and he seems a reasonable size to replaced Milburn. Not sure if I ever saw him as a key back in the mold of Scarlo or Harry, but anyway here's his chance to show us what he's got in the seniors. Very happy to see Bundy back in.

 

[LifeSpan-Void]

Simpson can play and will have his day.

Hawkins is in the side because the selectors can remember what happened when we took a lot of kids to Brisbane a while back.

Hawkins will require a good defender and will allow Brown to take the third defender. Gives Brown a chance to play on the flank where he will play for a year or two if he can crack best 22.

Hawkins + Brown (with 3rd defender) >>> Brown in KP (with 2nd defender)
Ottens + Simpson >> Ottens + Hawkins (rucking)

But their is a much bigger difference in the first line.

Realistically you're probably on the money here, Pods will take Rutten out of the equation +/- 2nd & 3rd man up, and Hawkins will require the attention of whoever else is KPD height - Brown as a third tall will be hard to man up. Makes you wish you had Lonergan/Taylor/Scarlett/Gillies playing for you. Oh wait...

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Surely that depends on the role they want filled.

If they want a legitimate, straight second ruck then yes, you're right, Dawse deserved a chance before Tom, however if they wanted someone who was versatile enough to ruck and spend time forward, Tom is clearly the best available option.

Fair point, and as I said in my initial post, I understand that's why he's been selected, however I don't agree with it for two reasons. The first is because I believe the team (i.e. chance of winning on Sunday) is given more benefit with Ottens part time forward than it is with Hawkins part time ruck (which is what we're choosing between because if Simpson were to play he'd be mainly in the ruck). Frankly I'd prefer neither, i.e. I'd prefer Ottens-Vardy, but given we can't do that on Sunday, I think option A provides slightly more benefit than option B, given the marking form Ottens has been in lately, and the ruck form Dawson showed on Saturday.

But secondly, and most importantly, it's clear between Vardy's emergence and Mooney being on his last legs that Hawkins spot is at full forward, and only full forward.

Funnily enough, if they had picked Hawkins at full forward (this obviously assumes Pods is CHF, because he's the first tall forward picked) then I would actually agree with you, because he's clearly the best option for that, given Mooney is on his last legs and Brown's body is not yet ready for that role in the side (he may have a role but it won't be that one). He however is not the best option for the forward who can ruck role.

Put succinctly, if Tom is playing in September, I can't see how he'll be playing in that role, so there isn't much point in him playing it on Sunday. I understand why they've done it, because as you allude to they wanted someone for that specific role this week, I simply don't agree with it, which I'm allowed to do. Nothing wrong with diversity of opinion.

 

[Exhale You]

Put succinctly, if Tom is playing in September, I can't see how he'll be playing in that role, so there isn't much point in him playing it on Sunday.

So how does that logic sit with your want for Dawson Simpson this week? Short of wanting us to abandon our obvious preference for a versatile second ruck simply to accommodate Dawse, i can't see how you can argue for both points given they're diametrically opposed.

Either way, our squad is depleted and even when it's not we're often going to have a key player out resting which means we need to fill those roles with the best option available, whether said player is likely to play that role long term or not.

None of us really know what our team will look like in a month, let alone in September, but if the club believe that for this week, they need a direct replacement for Nathan Vardy's role then Tom Hawkins is first cab off the rank.

We all want to see form rewarded but the reality is that unlike back in the 70's and 80's when teams would simply pick the players who performed well at reserves level and sort the rest out later, strategy, structure and a host of other variables are all factored in when selecting teams in the modern day and as a result, sometimes we on the outside won't understand the reasons for their selections.

I understand why they've done it, because as you allude to they wanted someone for that specific role this week, I simply don't agree with it, which I'm allowed to do. Nothing wrong with diversity of opinion.

Which is why i replied to your post, suggesting that perhaps 'recent form' is but one of many selection criteria.
And above all, i think we both value healthy, vigorous debate, which is exactly what we're engaging in.

I know you feel strongly about the concept of 'picking the best player from last week's VFL team' when replacing injured players, and just as you're entitled to express that view strongly, i'm just as entitled to highlight that whilst that may be your ideal, i believe it's a long way from the reality how players are selected.

 

[oozeboss]

Mild digression here: there is absolutely no discussion of this game on the Adelaide board. Not a word.

 

[The Casey Cat]

Mild digression here: there is absolutely no discussion of this game on the Adelaide board. Not a word.

Quietly hoping for the best I suppose. Not what we have come to expect from parochial Crow fans but swap situations and we would probably be the same.

I still want Crow blood this week too. Our loss to them late last year was bitterly disappointing and may well have stuffed our flag chances up. They come out all fired up and celebrated at the end of the game like they had won a flag or something only to lose to the ####en Port Power next week.

I know we weren't all that cohesive at the time and the Pies were on another level and may well have beaten the Hawks at the end of the year to take top of the ladder if they needed to but would like to have been top of the ladder and played the Dogs week 1.

 

[vinum coupe]

6 kids in the side. An out of form Varcoe and Hawkins.
A possibly sore Bartel and Kelly.

This is the type of game we usually lose........

 

[GoCattas]

Just found out this is not on Ch7, only Fox.

Damn it!

 

[The Casey Cat]

Just found out this is not on Ch7, only Fox.

Damn it!

Ahuh. Early Sunday game always on fox. Might be heading to a near pub sports bar I reckon.

 

[JUBJUB]

6 kids in the side. An out of form Varcoe and Hawkins.
A possibly sore Bartel and Kelly.

This is the type of game we usually lose........

Are you ever happy Vinnie ?

 

[vinum coupe]

Yeah. Very happy with everything.

If you can't discuss how we can get better then you're going backwards. TM Mick Malthouse.

I have always thought there is a threshold for how many kids you can have before you just can't win.
This isn't one of them.

But to think of it in reverse.

I'll ask you this. If we played the VFL team of last year Vs the crows this year we'd get smashed right? Of course we would.

Well how many senior players do you have to add to that team before it can win?

I reckon if Bartel and Kelly didnt play and 2 more kids did then we would get done by 85% of the competition.

 

[The Casey Cat]

Bartel out according to SEN. One zero for me this week in SC. Byrnes looks like he will get game 100 this week.