Changes v Ade Rd 3

[theGav56]

I'm not sure what your issue is here. I named those we had available on our list last year who could hold down a key position. Only three on that list were available this game, and one of those played midfield.

The last time we have been comparatively poor in that regard was the Richmond game last year. And look how Johnson played then.

You bitch on and on about how we (and how modern football) only need 1 tall forward (Pavlich) but contradict yourself all over the shop. That is it really.

Why would we worry about Tarrant going if that is the case?

Why do we have so many tall defenders who can all play KPB? You named 4 who were all in our best 22 last year.

Why do Cats, Hawks, Saints, Crows, Eagles, Lions, Pies etc etc all have forward structures with a minimum of 2 KPF's?

I have a son around your age, and it is very amusing how he can make a case for an argument I don't agree with, but can easily understand, but you can't.

 

[Avid_Avenger]

My bad, Harvey actually said play-maker. Not sure that is accurate either but it's certainly closer to the mark than game-breaker.

Oh okay, yeh play-maker is at least closer to the mark then game-breaker. Unfortunately he doesn't get the pill enough to be a real playmaker either but that's a separate issue.

Being a play-maker often means having an allowance to be less accountable but unlike a player like Duffield, Johnson doesn't get involved enough and at the moment is doubling as a KPF. He's failing at both roles.

If Harves was still playing players on form Johnson and/or Crowley would spend at least a week in the magoos. But I don't see it happening.

I only hope we play Palmer and Lower for full games to offset Johnson and Crowley's low output.

 

[Clay Davis]

You bitch on and on about how we (and how modern football) only need 1 tall forward (Pavlich) but contradict yourself all over the shop. That is it really.

Seem to have touched a nerve. Show me where I am contradicting myself.

Why would we worry about Tarrant going if that is the case?

Because he was our best key defender.

Why do we have so many tall defenders who can all play KPB? You named 4 who were all in our best 22 last year.

Really? When did they all play in the same team last year?

Why do Cats, Hawks, Saints, Crows, Eagles, Lions, Pies etc etc all have forward structures with a minimum of 2 KPF's?

Who is the Saints other KPF?

I have a son around your age, and it is very amusing how he can make a case for an argument I don't agree with, but can easily understand, but you can't.

Pfft.

I can see you gearing up for another argument trying to justify all the poor recruitment decisions of the past that you were fully in favour of. Pretty sad, considering how often you have been shown to be wrong over the past 4-5 years.

 

[Scham]

Does anyone else find it strange that Harves even considers Johnson a 'game-breaker'?

He doesn't have any of the atributes that you'd normally associate with this quality. He's not fast. He doesn't rack up quick stats or clearances or monster opposition midfields. He never kicks a burst of goals. He doesn't breakaway from contests. He doesn't pull in contested marks.

Not quite sure how he 'breaks games open'. At his best he is great linking up through the middle with great skills that is handy in dissecting zones and can sometimes create a mismatch. But we seldom see his best.

If Johnson is a 'game-breaker', how many players does Harvey rate in the same category?

Even right up to his last woeful game for us Harve's rated Des as a game - breaker and a match winner. And of course in his day, and on his day, Des certainly was. It's just that his day only came along about 6 times in 5 years and never in his last 12 months with us. But Harve's couldn't seem to see that.

I'm a big fan of Harvey's but it does worry me that he shows absolute blind faith in a few players. You've got to back players in to perform but when they repeatedly don't then you need to act, and act consistantly with how you treat every other player.

 

[Avid_Avenger]

Even right up to his last woeful game for us Harve's rated Des as a game - breaker and a match winner. And of course in his day, and on his day, Des certainly was. It's just that his day only came along about 6 times in 5 years and never in his last 12 months with us. But Harve's couldn't seem to see that.

I'm a big fan of Harvey's but it does worry me that he shows absolute blind faith in a few players. You've got to back players in to perform but when they repeatedly don't then you need to act, and act consistantly with how you treat every other player.

Totally agree. It sends the wrong message to other players and the players trying their hearts out in the wafl.

 

[Alfonz]

After learning that Crowley has had zero tackles this season, I would drop him instantly. What does he offer us? No tackling pressure, average tagging and poor disposal. He is averaging 32 SC points, which is the worst in our entire side and fairly pathetic for a senior player roaming through the midfield/forward line.

I'd replace him with maybe Crichton, I don't think we would be losing anything and we'd be getting games into a kid which will be more beneficial down the track when we are more genuine contenders.

Our average tackles per game is right down in the bottom few in the league, and a huge way off the top tackling sides. Lots of tackles doesn't necessarily guarantee you victories, but pressure on the opposition is such a large part of our game. Until our tackle count goes way up, we are going to be a mediocre side.

Michael Johnson is sitting in 2nd last place on the SC points tally, just ahead of Crowley. I know statistics shouldn't be followed blindly, but in this case I think it backs up what we see with our eyes before consulting the stats. The contribution of these two guys has been abysmal and they should both be dropped.

 

[yakamoto]

Sorry to disagree Avid and Scham but coaches can't, never have and never will, treat all players the same. Coaches, and selectors, will always support players who have shown over an extended period, that they can perform at the required level. At selection the blokes who are always at risk are the newcomers or the blokes who can only come up to the mark now and then.
eg 1. Walters - handful of games only, not an oustanding talent, will be at risk of relegation most weeks this year.
2. Bradley - has been useful at times, ok on Saturday, but has been AFL listed for 6 or 7 seasons without ever commanding a regular spot, will always be chopped if form drops off or team going badly(natural scapegoat).
We have a relatively small group of mature players and fortunately they consistently perform at a pretty high level. None of them are going to be dropped in a hurry, especially two games into a season.

 

[Murray79]

I thought Bradley played quite well on the weekend.

There were a few players who risk being relegated. I think Palmer did enough to move up to being a regular starter next match.

Not sure why Johnson is out of form, he is capable of doing better. Crowley should also be playing better footy.

Clancy Pearce is a player who is worth getting another shot...he might earn a spot as a sub. Playing some good footy at WAFL level.

 

[Alfonz]

We have a relatively small group of mature players and fortunately they consistently perform at a pretty high level. None of them are going to be dropped in a hurry, especially two games into a season.

This might be true to a certain extent, but we are talking about Johnson and Crowley (and Headland in a past life) ... and these guys have never performed consistently at a high level. Maybe Crowley went through a good taggging patch several years ago, but those days are long gone. They should not be given the same leniency that might be rightfully shown to Broughton, Pav, Mundy, etc. and to a lesser extent the likes of Duffield.

Crowley and Johnson have been undeniably our 2 weakest contributors in the first 2 games, and they should therefore be the first 2 candidates to be axed.

 

[Clay Davis]

If you go through yakamoto's old posts, you'll find he rates Johnson as better than Sandilands.

Definitely part of Johnson's family. It's like when Tarrant's mum posted here.

 

[Rhino1966]

I flagged on the other site that I thought Creepy looked a bit off and a little slow getting to the contests in the preseason and was howled down. I have always been a fan and think his inate nature is to tackle and have a physical presence. I fear that he is struggling to get to contests which is not a good sign.......The Pig has taken Creepy's role I fear

Is lack of speed to get to the contest the reason why Ryan Murphy averaged only 1 tackle per game or was he just soft

 

[Scham]

I flagged on the other site that I thought Creepy looked a bit off and a little slow getting to the contests in the preseason and was howled down. I have always been a fan and think his inate nature is to tackle and have a physical presence. I fear that he is struggling to get to contests which is not a good sign.......The Pig has taken Creepy's role I fear
Is lack of speed to get to the contest the reason why Ryan Murphy averaged only 1 tackle per game or was he just soft

Why fear it???

De Boer was better than Crowley last year and he's improving as he becomes more experienced whereas Crowley is dropping off as he gets older and slower. And let's face it, Crowley was never top shelf was he? He struggled for years to break into our side (which is saying something as we were crap) and when he did he was good but not great and used mainly as a midfield enforcer and tagger. What he did do in those days was push forward and kick a few goals but he seems to struggle to do that these days with the tight defensive zones and congestion etc.

 

[Frigate]

Personally I would persist with Crowley. He is clearly out of form, however he has proven he can subdue the best in the AFL, and have an impact forward. We are coming in to round 3. Geelong have always made our team look poor. Standby the fact that we should have won it though.

He will be important against Adelaide. Maybe a good match up for Knights?

 

[Seppo]

I flagged on the other site that I thought Creepy looked a bit off and a little slow getting to the contests in the preseason and was howled down. I have always been a fan and think his inate nature is to tackle and have a physical presence. I fear that he is struggling to get to contests which is not a good sign.......The Pig has taken Creepy's role I fear

Is lack of speed to get to the contest the reason why Ryan Murphy averaged only 1 tackle per game or was he just soft

Its funny that Crowly has taken a step back from last year, he had a pretty good preseason and i know endurance wise he put some good numbers for the 3k. Is it that he was matched up with quicker opponents to tag or is it a case like MJ where the coach will admit to playing him 'out of position'

Maybe Crowly will find some of last years form once the speed of the game slows down after the BYE. I heard other sides have left particular players out of the team, waiting for the high energy to come out of the 1st few games.

 

[Alfonz]

Whatever Crowley has proven in the past is now ancient history. When was the last time he actually shut a prime mover from the opposition out of a game? Maybe he has done this recently and I can't remember, but I just can't see what his value to the side is.

It seems if he tags someone, it will be some lesser light, and even then he isn't really that effective. For example, I think he was sort of playing on Corey (??), not Bartel/Chapman/Enright/Varcoe who were killing us, yet Corey still had an impact with 97 SC points.

Do we have to play a tagger, especially if they aren't effective? Collingwood don't really do it much. Maybe you're better off just having a team defensive effort with everyone applying pressure as hard as they can. Bring in Crichton or someone like that.

 

[Avid_Avenger]

Sorry to disagree Avid and Scham but coaches can't, never have and never will, treat all players the same. Coaches, and selectors, will always support players who have shown over an extended period, that they can perform at the required level. At selection the blokes who are always at risk are the newcomers or the blokes who can only come up to the mark now and then.
eg 1. Walters - handful of games only, not an oustanding talent, will be at risk of relegation most weeks this year.
2. Bradley - has been useful at times, ok on Saturday, but has been AFL listed for 6 or 7 seasons without ever commanding a regular spot, will always be chopped if form drops off or team going badly(natural scapegoat).
We have a relatively small group of mature players and fortunately they consistently perform at a pretty high level. None of them are going to be dropped in a hurry, especially two games into a season.

Johnson is the most inconsistent player in our team. About the only time he has put a string of good-great games together since 2006 was in the last 3 or 4 games of 2010.

Sometimes the only way to sort a player like this out is to send them back to the wafl for a week. Tarrant benefited from it. Johnson would too.

Having said that, I don't expect he will be dropped but his application has been shocking so far this year and that sends a bad message to other players if he keeps lining up each week. Nothing wrong with saying this.

It's also a pity because if Johnson is untouchable, it means there is one less chance to try out players like Jack and Sibo in the team to see how they go, in terms of the position that Johnson should be playing considering his height/speed (even though he is actually a slow flanker).

 

[Avid_Avenger]

Whatever Crowley has proven in the past is now ancient history. When was the last time he actually shut a prime mover from the opposition out of a game? Maybe he has done this recently and I can't remember, but I just can't see what his value to the side is.

It seems if he tags someone, it will be some lesser light, and even then he isn't really that effective. For example, I think he was sort of playing on Corey (??), not Bartel/Chapman/Enright/Varcoe who were killing us, yet Corey still had an impact with 97 SC points.

Do we have to play a tagger, especially if they aren't effective? Collingwood don't really do it much. Maybe you're better off just having a team defensive effort with everyone applying pressure as hard as they can. Bring in Crichton or someone like that.

Exactly what I've been saying. We have FOUR taggers in our team, four players who's main role is to be a negative player, that's at least one too many.

One of them has to go and if Crowley hasn't even laid a tackle - a stat that is completely unacceptable from a tagging point of view - then he should be the one to go.

Until De Boer is released to the midfield or McPhee to the forward line, McPhee, Crowley, De Boer and JVB should not be in the same team.

Especially when our attacking/midfield players are already depleted through the loss of Barlow, Mora, Hayden, Mzungu, Ibbo etc. and the use of Palmer/Lower as sub. We need more ball-winning midfielders to take the pressure of our key players!

 

[Wizard]

Do some of you dipshits actually watch the games or are so so engrossed in watching the ball fly that you don't take time to notice structures and match ups etc??
Crowley case in point had the job on Adcock for a half v Brissie and shut him down, then he moved onto Black and slowed him right down as well.
To say he is struggling is a joke, yes he was average on the weekend but one game means jack. We need his physical presence at the moment especially with the smaller guys in our side like Hill, Fyfe and Sonny.

 

[Clay Davis]

Their point is that zero tackles isn't good enough.

 

[Lach72]

Their point is that zero tackles isn't good enough.

especially for a tagger...

 

[Avid_Avenger]

^ Pretty simple stuff really.

We have too many negators/taggers in the team. Getting rid of one means we can play someone like Palmer for an entire game.

 

[prattsta]

Do some of you dipshits actually watch the games or are so so engrossed in watching the ball fly that you don't take time to notice structures and match ups etc??
Crowley case in point had the job on Adcock for a half v Brissie and shut him down, then he moved onto Black and slowed him right down as well.

Calm down.

The argument is simply that we have too many negating players in our team; Crowley is one of them. Of the rest, both McPhee and de Boer are performing at the required level, JVB has been about as poor as Crowley. That leaves one of Crowley or JVB who needs to go IMO.

The argument against Crowley is mostly that he hasn't laid a single tackle in 2 games, he's poor offensively around stoppages and his disposal is ordinary. Shutting a player out of the game and making it a 17 v 17 contest isn't enough anymore. You need to be able to hurt your opponent going the other way. Crowley isn't doing that at the moment.

Rather than having a crack at everyone, how about simply saying 'we need Crowley for such and such a reason' instead. If you think it should be JVB instead of Crowley who is dropped, make your case. If you don't think either should be dropped, again, make your case.

To say he is struggling is a joke, yes he was average on the weekend but one game means jack. We need his physical presence at the moment especially with the smaller guys in our side like Hill, Fyfe and Sonny.

Why do we need his physical presence? Seriously?

At center bounces he generally stands in there with either Pavlich and/or Mundy along with either Sandilands or Bradley. Whilst around the ground there is a bunch of players who should be able to look after the smaller blokes. McPhee, de Boer are the first to come to mind but even smaller guys like Suban, Ballantyne, Palmer, Lower would be more than willing to help out.

Basically, there are enough other guys who can set blocks, shepherd defenders and generally just create space for the likes of Hill, Fyfe and Walters without carrying a guy along for that reason alone. We need some more players who are making a positive contribution to the side, not just having a break even effect with their opponent.

 

[Clay Davis]

Shutting a player out of the game and making it a 17 v 17 contest isn't enough anymore.

This is something I've been thinking about, and I reckon you're spot on. Collingwood doesn't have any pure taggers. Players might play that role at times, but every mid is expected to play creatively.

Moreover, shutting down the opposition becomes every player's responsibility. Shutting down a player because he's 'Chris Judd' or 'Simon Black' isn't good enough, he must be shut down simply because he is in possession of the ball.

Therefore the 17 vs 17 being not good enough argument is a fair one. It might be successful in some games, but over the long run it isn't. It's especially so if you're not putting on tackles, like Crowley isn't.

 

[Avid_Avenger]

We have generally had two defensive forwards in both games so far, effectively two non-forwards (JVB plus Crowley or Crowley plus De Boer). Add that to two makeshift KPF in Kep and Johnson and you can understand why our forward line has been so shambolic.

With the bench reduced by 1 we have seen Palmer subbed in and out in both games - one of our ball-winners - in favour of leaving taggers on the field.

If we are reducing our scoring/creative/ball-winning ability in this way, you want to at least see some return. i.e. tackles and lockdown on opposition playmakers, and a zone that is clearly working. IMO we aren't seeing either. Playmakers are still in the game, albeit in a slightly reduced capacity, tackles are down and the zone is easier to break than last year.

 

[Frigate]

I love the comparisons to the best team in the comp by a distance.

"Collingwood play this style, so we should too". That is my face if our list was as good as the Pies coz then we will be on track to win 3 premierships in a row.

We have to negate teams coz otherwise players like Swan, Judd, Ablett, can destroy you. We have no such dominant midfielders so the best measure is to try and minimise the damage they cause. Saying that Hill still gets attention, coz he is identified as one of our most damaging players.

Crowley and McPhee are our blockers/ run in straight lines/ create a path for our mids in Mundy, Hill, Fyfe and others.

I agree Crowley needs to lay effective, hard hitting tackles.