Unofficial Preview Changes for Carlton (team in OP) IN Reid, Ramsay, De Goey OUT Schade, Broomhead , Varcoe

[Brad Goodman]

Was going to struggle to make any of the first half. That's ok, I'll just blow my ankle out at training and now be there with plenty of time to spare.

Footy gods telling me we'll win and win well now. I had to turn down the brilliant opportunity to be the runner this weekend so I could make it for the opening bounce so we'd better.

 

[The Plowking]

Not happy with Broomhead out. He finally gets an uninjured run them gets dropped? Glory be

Yep, feel for him.

 

[jjsmitty8]

I regularly listen to SEN, during this week Kevin Bartlett (who I usually can't stand) was making the point that he hated seeing players be 'rested' or 'managed' when they weren't playing one week. He keeps dropping the 'back in my day' line and was making ridiculous comparisons saying that your typical country footballer works during the week and then plays a hard, tough game on the weekend, which has absolutely nothing on the rigours of AFL. I originally disagreed because I think the clubs are well within their rights to manage their lists however they see fit to maximise what they can get out of their players in a season.

In terms of Ben Reid last week, I completely support the management of him and can accept the excuse of management. However, this week, Henry Schade being 'managed' just doesn't sit well with me. The kid has played 6 games for us, 26 in his whole career. I genuinely feel that this week the excuse is to just cover up what is just a hard luck omission because Reid's due back and Dunn showed last week that his experience and seasoned body might come in handy.

It's nothing against Henry, I just thought about what KB was saying on radio and the excuse was relevant last week to Reid, but I don't think it fits with Schade and it annoys me. I think sometimes clubs get too caught up with not offending someone or trying to avoid a headline. It's very possible that Bucks just said "Schadey, you've been putting in the hard yards and we're happy with your progress, but due to the structure we want to take into this game we're not going to pick you." That's fine, that's footy. Broomhead got 'omitted', I struggle to believe that the club sat down with Henry Schade pre-season and planned for him to miss round 7 through 'management' because they wouldn't have even known if he was going to be in the side for rounds 1 through 6. Like I said, whilst I agree clubs should be able to manage their list how they want, I don't feel like this one makes sense.

Anywho, just my two bob.

 

[Finnishpie]

Not happy with Broomhead out. He finally gets an uninjured run them gets dropped? Glory be

His form hasn't been good enough though.

 

[Finnishpie]

I regularly listen to SEN, during this week Kevin Bartlett (who I usually can't stand) was making the point that he hated seeing players be 'rested' or 'managed' when they weren't playing one week. He keeps dropping the 'back in my day' line and was making ridiculous comparisons saying that your typical country footballer works during the week and then plays a hard, tough game on the weekend, which has absolutely nothing on the rigours of AFL. I originally disagreed because I think the clubs are well within their rights to manage their lists however they see fit to maximise what they can get out of their players in a season.

In terms of Ben Reid last week, I completely support the management of him and can accept the excuse of management. However, this week, Henry Schade being 'managed' just doesn't sit well with me. The kid has played 6 games for us, 26 in his whole career. I genuinely feel that this week the excuse is to just cover up what is just a hard luck omission because Reid's due back and Dunn showed last week that his experience and seasoned body might come in handy.

It's nothing against Henry, I just thought about what KB was saying on radio and the excuse was relevant last week to Reid, but I don't think it fits with Schade and it annoys me. I think sometimes clubs get too caught up with not offending someone or trying to avoid a headline. It's very possible that Bucks just said "Schadey, you've been putting in the hard yards and we're happy with your progress, but due to the structure we want to take into this game we're not going to pick you." That's fine, that's footy. Broomhead got 'omitted', I struggle to believe that the club sat down with Henry Schade pre-season and planned for him to miss round 7 through 'management' because they wouldn't have even known if he was going to be in the side for rounds 1 through 6. Like I said, whilst I agree clubs should be able to manage their list how they want, I don't feel like this one makes sense.

Anywho, just my two bob.

Seems odd but maybe he's carrying something. Anyway, with Reid playing back, there's no place for him for the moment. I'm not upset about it, I just don't know why we don't play Reid forward -- or at least try it.

 

[jjsmitty8]

Seems odd but maybe he's carrying something. Anyway, with Reid playing back, there's no place for him for the moment. I'm not upset about it, I just don't know why we don't play Reid forward -- or at least try it.

Precisely my point. Just call it an omission if that's what it is, even if the kid is stiff to miss because his form has been fair.

I'm not upset about it either, and I wish we'd try Reid forward too.

 

[Gone Critical]

Seems odd but maybe he's carrying something. Anyway, with Reid playing back, there's no place for him for the moment. I'm not upset about it, I just don't know why we don't play Reid forward -- or at least try it.

I think the reason they won't go with a trial of Reid forward for now is they believe Cox will become a viable forward as well as do the relief rucking. If Reid goes forward we use Darcy in the ruck and that's not ideal. Also with Elliott, Fasolo, WHE, De Goeyall trying to have forward roles we really don't have the space or need for a tall 3rd forward like White who would ruck.

Time will tell if it works. I think it will.

 

[Apex36]

Seems odd but maybe he's carrying something. Anyway, with Reid playing back, there's no place for him for the moment. I'm not upset about it, I just don't know why we don't play Reid forward -- or at least try it.

I guess Schade being 'rested' gives them an excuse to bring him straight back in after Cox inevitably spuds it up as a forward again this week and Reid needs to be swung forward for GWS.

 

[Lockyer24]

Ramsay copping a fair old flogging around the Pies web. Bit unfair for a couple of bad games for a youngster coming off a knee. I think he can bounce back and has some decent backbone

 

[DaVe86]

Well if he doesn't play VFL this weekend, then he is being 'rested'. If it is an omission, he'll play VFL to stake his claim again.

The changes this week make a lot of sense.

We need a running half back flanker with Varcoe out, and that's ultimately what Ramsay is. Not the same quality, but he has more upside than people give him credit for I reckon.

De Goey simply had to come in. Broomhead is unlucky, but someone had to make way. No one else I can really think of to be dropped other than maybe Phillips, but he also hasn't done much wrong.

I think Schade and Dunn will be in battle, but it really depends on the opponent. Schade has an extra 5cm on Dunn, but probably isn't as strong body to body. Dunn strikes me as the better matchup for Casboult. Next week, Schade may be better for Cameron.

 

[DaVe86]

Ramsay copping a fair old flogging around the Pies web. Bit unfair for a couple of bad games for a youngster coming off a knee. I think he can bounce back and has some decent backbone

Yeah it's quite amazing really to hear some of the knocking of Ramsay. Granted his form hasn't been fantastic, but there's no doubt he is still building from his knee. He wouldn't be playing if Sinclair or Varcoe were available, so he has been thrust in there earlier than what is ideal.

I also think people underestimate his footskills. At his best in early 2016, he was one of our only players hitting targets with consistency. His footskills and pace have dropped away this year, and he is getting caught way too much. We probably won't see a bit improvement until 2018, which is normally the case for players coming off knees that they take an extra year to get back to where they once were.

 

[Anzacday]

Schade being rested relates in part to the 3 games in 12 days.
More to the point; it's so he's cherry ripe to play on Patton.
After all he is the only one on our list with an identical build to him.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Even in the context of surviving calling a Collingwood player who has only ever given his best, limited as it is, a cockroach was on the low side.

I unreservedly apologise to all intentions of cockroaching.

Sorry mr Blair

I was just eluding too survivable instincts

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I regularly listen to SEN, during this week Kevin Bartlett (who I usually can't stand) was making the point that he hated seeing players be 'rested' or 'managed' when they weren't playing one week. He keeps dropping the 'back in my day' line and was making ridiculous comparisons saying that your typical country footballer works during the week and then plays a hard, tough game on the weekend, which has absolutely nothing on the rigours of AFL. I originally disagreed because I think the clubs are well within their rights to manage their lists however they see fit to maximise what they can get out of their players in a season.

In terms of Ben Reid last week, I completely support the management of him and can accept the excuse of management. However, this week, Henry Schade being 'managed' just doesn't sit well with me. The kid has played 6 games for us, 26 in his whole career. I genuinely feel that this week the excuse is to just cover up what is just a hard luck omission because Reid's due back and Dunn showed last week that his experience and seasoned body might come in handy.

It's nothing against Henry, I just thought about what KB was saying on radio and the excuse was relevant last week to Reid, but I don't think it fits with Schade and it annoys me. I think sometimes clubs get too caught up with not offending someone or trying to avoid a headline. It's very possible that Bucks just said "Schadey, you've been putting in the hard yards and we're happy with your progress, but due to the structure we want to take into this game we're not going to pick you." That's fine, that's footy. Broomhead got 'omitted', I struggle to believe that the club sat down with Henry Schade pre-season and planned for him to miss round 7 through 'management' because they wouldn't have even known if he was going to be in the side for rounds 1 through 6. Like I said, whilst I agree clubs should be able to manage their list how they want, I don't feel like this one makes sense.

Anywho, just my two bob.

All fair points.
But these days, the handling of people is apparently different. We seem far more intent not to offend.
Which is the right approach? Unsure.

But on one hand we want the club (read Buckley) to be humane, to understand people not be rigid; on the hand when he may feel going down that track is better, we say harden up etc.

But you make good points

 

[CFC2010]

Schade being rested relates in part to the 3 games in 12 days.
More to the point; it's so he's cherry ripe to play on Patton.
After all he is the only one on our list with an identical build to him.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I think the reason they won't go with a trial of Reid forward for now is they believe Cox will become a viable forward as well as do the relief rucking. If Reid goes forward we use Darcy in the ruck and that's not ideal. Also with Elliott, Fasolo, WHE, De Goeyall trying to have forward roles we really don't have the space or need for a tall 3rd forward like White who would ruck.

Time will tell if it works. I think it will.

Whilst Reid Up forward at times could work, I'm thinking they rightly believe him running at the ball just works best.
He's the glue so to speak in the defence area. Such a talent there. Forward he's more likely adequate.

 

[jmac70]

If that's how we look to win the match we'll be in big trouble.



Forget vigour. We can be flat as pancakes, but if we have the belief in ourselves to execute we'll get it done the result will just be lessened. As long as we get the overlap run happening and utilise that inboard kick we'll be fine.

Why?

 

[Countrypie]

Whilst Reid Up forward at times could work, I'm thinking they rightly believe him running at the ball just works best.
He's the glue so to speak in the defence area. Such a talent there. Forward he's more likely adequate.

Agreed. Reid is not the Reid of 2012-2013. He isn't as agile. Playing back suits him better now.

 

[jmac70]

And the pro Buckley fan group come out and say.. where are those who oppose Buckley now (after the Geelong game).

The bloke has coached 1 good game in 6. It's not what I'm looking for in a coach.

And if the coaching staff think we're going to get the same amt of freedom to play as we did agst Geelong.. I doubt that will happen.

If it's not going to plan in the 1st qrt/half.. be interesting to see how Buckley responds.

I don't think I'll ever be entirely convinced that he's the right man for the job.. even if the team is playing well and winning.. who's to say that any other coach wouldn't be just as good. If we are to win more than what we lose.. and even scrape into the 8.. doesn't warrant an extension on his contract as far as I'm concerned when I feel as though a coach of better ilk would get us an extra 4-5 in the yr.. and play good consistent footy week in week out with the odd stuff up of a game. Not 1 4 quarter performance we've seen under this bloke all yr.

This thread is about the game on Saturday, not the coaching future of Buckley. There is a thread for that discussion, please don't derail this one.

 

[Scodog10]

Why?

Because of the focus on stopping their ball movement. It'll create extra numbers in areas we don't want/ need them and prevent us from executing the system that worked for us so well last week. Zoning doesn't work for us so we don't want to move towards it again via protecting the corridor...

We need to take a leaf out of Adelaide's book and take the game on because our midfield will come out on top more often than not. Forget about shutting down their ball movement to a degree and focus on their prime movers.

 

[sideswipe]

I regularly listen to SEN, during this week Kevin Bartlett (who I usually can't stand) was making the point that he hated seeing players be 'rested' or 'managed' when they weren't playing one week. He keeps dropping the 'back in my day' line and was making ridiculous comparisons saying that your typical country footballer works during the week and then plays a hard, tough game on the weekend, which has absolutely nothing on the rigours of AFL. I originally disagreed because I think the clubs are well within their rights to manage their lists however they see fit to maximise what they can get out of their players in a season.

In terms of Ben Reid last week, I completely support the management of him and can accept the excuse of management. However, this week, Henry Schade being 'managed' just doesn't sit well with me. The kid has played 6 games for us, 26 in his whole career. I genuinely feel that this week the excuse is to just cover up what is just a hard luck omission because Reid's due back and Dunn showed last week that his experience and seasoned body might come in handy.

It's nothing against Henry, I just thought about what KB was saying on radio and the excuse was relevant last week to Reid, but I don't think it fits with Schade and it annoys me. I think sometimes clubs get too caught up with not offending someone or trying to avoid a headline. It's very possible that Bucks just said "Schadey, you've been putting in the hard yards and we're happy with your progress, but due to the structure we want to take into this game we're not going to pick you." That's fine, that's footy. Broomhead got 'omitted', I struggle to believe that the club sat down with Henry Schade pre-season and planned for him to miss round 7 through 'management' because they wouldn't have even known if he was going to be in the side for rounds 1 through 6. Like I said, whilst I agree clubs should be able to manage their list how they want, I don't feel like this one makes sense.

Anywho, just my two bob.

I am betting KB is not too familiar with a very basic training concept - periodization. With the individual training plans of today and individual player monitoring, it is more than plausible that Schade (or any other player) is experiencing cumulative fatigue, but more importantly the fatigue has been noticed. His biggest pre-season followed by a block of matches could easily produce that. And after a heavy block, a lighter load can raise fitness. In all endurance sports (footy is one these days), you only improve when you are resting, ie. your body needs rest to repair the damage caused by training and then build to another level.

His "indicators" (sleep, resting heart rate, etc) could be off the charts, indicating he is farked and needs a rest. No one outside the coaching staff can make comment on whether an individual player should be rested. You might not feel like it makes sense, but with respect you wouldn't know.

That "country footballer/in my day" argument is meaningless. I love KB (hated him in 1980), but he is a dinosaur (deliberately I think) in many regards.

 

[jmac70]

Because of the focus on stopping their ball movement. It'll create extra numbers in areas we don't want/ need them and prevent us from executing the system that worked for us so well last week. Zoning doesn't work for us so we don't want to move towards it again via protecting the corridor...

We need to take a leaf out of Adelaide's book and take the game on because our midfield will come out on top more often than not. Forget about shutting down their ball movement to a degree and focus on their prime movers.

We can do both as evidenced by the Geelong game. We were able to deny them the corridor whilst moving the ball quickly when we had possession. There needs to be a balance I believe.

 

[BringouttheGimp]

Because of the focus on stopping their ball movement. It'll create extra numbers in areas we don't want/ need them and prevent us from executing the system that worked for us so well last week. Zoning doesn't work for us so we don't want to move towards it again via protecting the corridor...

We need to take a leaf out of Adelaide's book and take the game on because our midfield will come out on top more often than not. Forget about shutting down their ball movement to a degree and focus on their prime movers.

That there is precisely what should be done:

"We need to take a leaf out of Adelaide's book and take the game on because our midfield will come out on top."

We'll see if the leopard does it though. Is he brave enough to do it.

 

[CFC2010]

I am betting KB is not too familiar with a very basic training concept - periodization. With the individual training plans of today and individual player monitoring, it is more than plausible that Schade (or any other player) is experiencing cumulative fatigue, but more importantly the fatigue has been noticed. His biggest pre-season followed by a block of matches could easily produce that. And after a heavy block, a lighter load can raise fitness. In all endurance sports (footy is one these days), you only improve when you are resting, ie. your body needs rest to repair the damage caused by training and then build to another level.

His "indicators" (sleep, resting heart rate, etc) could be off the charts, indicating he is farked and needs a rest. No one outside the coaching staff can make comment on whether an individual player should be rested. You might not feel like it makes sense, but with respect you wouldn't know.

That "country footballer/in my day" argument is meaningless. I love KB (hated him in 1980), but he is a dinosaur (deliberately I think) in many regards.

Yeah but KB also said he had a broken leg once and he just "ran it out" at training

 

[Scodog10]

And the pro Buckley fan group come out and say.. where are those who oppose Buckley now (after the Geelong game).

The bloke has coached 1 good game in 6. It's not what I'm looking for in a coach.

And if the coaching staff think we're going to get the same amt of freedom to play as we did agst Geelong.. I doubt that will happen.

If it's not going to plan in the 1st qrt/half.. be interesting to see how Buckley responds.

I don't think I'll ever be entirely convinced that he's the right man for the job.. even if the team is playing well and winning.. who's to say that any other coach wouldn't be just as good. If we are to win more than what we lose.. and even scrape into the 8.. doesn't warrant an extension on his contract as far as I'm concerned when I feel as though a coach of better ilk would get us an extra 4-5 in the yr.. and play good consistent footy week in week out with the odd stuff up of a game. Not 1 4 quarter performance we've seen under this bloke all yr.

I beg to differ a little personally. They'll know Carlton won't allow us the same freedom as Geelong so like you I'm interested in their response.

Where we mainly differ is the long term projections on the coach. Like you I doubt I'll fully buy in until he's standing on the premiership dias in much the same manner as some of the hardcore sycophants who'll support him til their last breath. That said we are now in a fantastic position to really test out what he's made of.

It will take a mighty effort from 1-4 to make the finals in an 18 team competition so if he were to pull it off he's well and truly earned the extension. If not he departs no ifs or maybe's. We've gotten lucky that his poor work early season has set things up so nicely. Personally we won't make the 8 from here so I'm in a win win. Glad that he's gone if we fail from here and glad we've made the finals if he succeeds.