hutchings is priddis.v2
should be playing sheed, who cares if he a couple of shit games.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 7 - Pride Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Preview Changes Vs Gold Coast Round 13
- Thread starter kane249
- Start date
- Tagged users None
should be playing sheed, who cares if he a couple of shit games.
Miguel Sanchez
(Unique injury) TBC
Yeah, timing has been unfortunate for him and Colledge. East Perth had a bye, then there was another bye for the state game, then they both got injured in the Foxtel Cup.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,339
the difference is hutchings doesn't have the role of #1 midfielder.
as i've said plenty of times if priddis was given the role of say someone like luke parker at the swans (plays about 1/3rd game in the mid, 1/2 up forward, pinch hits down back when need, rest of the time on the pine) we'd think of priddo as a good solid foot solider... and that's more or less the role hutchings has.
with that greater role comes greater responsibility and an expected higher performance.
- Jul 27, 2008
- 2,786
- 1,672
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Perth Demons, Perth Wildcats
That maybe so but iirc they both played colts footy for Perth so have known each other for a very long time.
wasn't a compliment for hutch, i think he is a dud. i should have said poor mans priddis in fact.
i agree priddis shouldnt be dropped, but he certainly shouldnt have the role he currently has... but this topic has been discussed to death so moving on...
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,339
twce13 agreed don't think hutchings will ever progress beyond being the 17th-22nd player picked on a weekly basis. His career may peak in his mid 20's where he is pushing the top ten players at a club, but i'd be very (happily) surprised if it went beyond that.
as long as his role in the team is in line with that standing (and it is) then i've not got dramas with him getting games, unless there is another guy who is more deserving of a go and has a higher ceiling. not every player in the team can be a superstar.... sheed is probably the most likely to displace hutchings, but no one seems to know what is happening there.
as long as his role in the team is in line with that standing (and it is) then i've not got dramas with him getting games, unless there is another guy who is more deserving of a go and has a higher ceiling. not every player in the team can be a superstar.... sheed is probably the most likely to displace hutchings, but no one seems to know what is happening there.
Last edited:
Ive always thought that, then grundy was still available, then wellingham got crap.
Im very happy with the ins and out this week. Wellingham has been our worst mid for the year. Very very disappointing.
Brown and Emac in the KPD posts and Schofield as the third tall. McGovern CHF and Kennedy FF, Darling roaming and Naita/Lycett resting in the pocket. I like it as a spine set up.
The midfield still needs some work
the Turkeys a little dry....WHOA! THE TURKEYS A LITTLE DRY!!!
- Jun 11, 2013
- 11,150
- 13,027
- AFL Club
- West Coast
So he can get 5 touches and look disinterested again? Oh but he has great hair, I forgot.
- Sep 10, 2010
- 28,939
- 42,097
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Toronto Maple Leafs
Maybe he actually needs those hipster glasses, maybe his eyesight is failing rapidly...So he can get 5 touches and look disinterested again? Oh but he has great hair, I forgot.
It is irrelevant what we paid to get him. He is easily in our best 22, I would personally be playing him this week as I thought he did a very good job as sub last week. I suspect Simpson is treating him hard to get the best out of him so I can see why we are leaving him out.
I think Wellingham wants to play a pure midfield role (from interviews) but he wont get that if he doesnt improve his work rate but I dont think he will improve his work rate without playing midfield so its circular. Hopefully he improves and it wont matter. Playing that high half forward role is not overly easy, especially the way we we are playing.
Correct
Yeh certainly wouldn't be a bad idea, I just have an issue of saying hutchings should have been dropped instead of wellingham. I think people are getting caught up in reputation rather than performance
Easily in our best 22 is highly debatable! And of course it matters what price you pay to get a player even if they are 'clearly best 22'. How else can you manage a list!! You wouldn't trade a top 5 pick to get mundy who would clearly be our best midfielder but you would definitely do it for pick 35!!
Do you not remember freo trading away high picks to get good-average players. Set them back 10 years
- Jun 11, 2013
- 11,150
- 13,027
- AFL Club
- West Coast
The kid has had less than 20 games, and is regularly showing our so called superstars how to win the ball, lay a tackle and run from one end of the ground to the other to get the ball into our forwards. He's made a couple of mistakes here and there which you'd expect from someone of less than 50 games at the top level but so what? Luke Shuey couldn't kick 15 metres to hit up Gaff last week when they were in space and no one says a thing, and he's played more than a hundred games, but Hutch misses a kick and gets bagged out mercilessly.
Hutch got 28 possessions including hitting up several of our forwards for goals plus took a ripper mark off a MCGovern bullet pass and no one says anything complimentary, but Sharrod Wellingham has 12 possessions in a game with three shanks and the odd good kicks and everyone's calling for him to replace Hutch. Masto did very little last week again apart from one goal and then proceeded to get pushed out of every contest he was in but he's an automatic favourite.
You can wish for these so called superstars to be played every week in the hope they do something, but when they keep cruising around doing sweet f/a and getting paid big cash to do it, eventually any coach worth his salt is gonna say "**** it" and bring in the honest hard working kid who racks up 28+possessions a game because at least he gets it to your forwards. He may not have the silkiest of actions(or haircuts) but he can hit targets and will get better with time and games at AFL level, where as a showboat will always be a showboat if he doesn't have to earn his spot. Simpson is unlikely to drop Hutch while he's winning the ball for us and applying defensive pressure like he is at the moment, so you'll all have to watch the WAFL for that one good kick out of Wellers 12 possessions.
Of course it matters what you pay but once you pay the price and you have purchased you cant take him back for a refund so we have to grin and bear it. He should be picked on the merits of his form, not what he cost.
I agree that we can learn from it for the future.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,339
well that was a weird rant.
EDIT: from two posts ago.
EDIT: from two posts ago.
I get ya, misunderstood you. Personally don't believe he is clearly best 22 based on form this year but to each their own
The kid has had less than 20 games, and is regularly showing our so called superstars how to win the ball, lay a tackle and run from one end of the ground to the other to get the ball into our forwards. He's made a couple of mistakes here and there which you'd expect from someone of less than 50 games at the top level but so what? Luke Shuey couldn't kick 15 metres to hit up Gaff last week when they were in space and no one says a thing, and he's played more than a hundred games, but Hutch misses a kick and gets bagged out mercilessly.
Hutch got 28 possessions including hitting up several of our forwards for goals plus took a ripper mark off a MCGovern bullet pass and no one says anything complimentary, but Sharrod Wellingham has 12 possessions in a game with three shanks and the odd good kicks and everyone's calling for him to replace Hutch. Masto did very little last week again apart from one goal and then proceeded to get pushed out of every contest he was in but he's an automatic favourite.
You can wish for these so called superstars to be played every week in the hope they do something, but when they keep cruising around doing sweet f/a and getting paid big cash to do it, eventually any coach worth his salt is gonna say "**** it" and bring in the honest hard working kid who racks up 28+possessions a game because at least he gets it to your forwards. He may not have the silkiest of actions(or haircuts) but he can hit targets and will get better with time and games at AFL level, where as a showboat will always be a showboat if he doesn't have to earn his spot. Simpson is unlikely to drop Hutch while he's winning the ball for us and applying defensive pressure like he is at the moment, so you'll all have to watch the WAFL for that one good kick out of Wellers 12 possessions.
I'll pay Hutchings had a good game on the weekend. He actually impacted and his performance has improved the longer he's been in the side. He is a bit like Priddis in the sense that I don't think he's equipped to be part of a premiership midfield group but as you say, the way the 'talented' bunch are going at the moment he is justifying his place.
One game.
One solitary game.
A game in which he was also rotated back or "shuffled about".
And you're concerned about a "formula"?
How about his first game where he played well down back?
Should we not have f***ed with that "formula"?
We still don't know a) where he plays best at AFL level and b) where he can help us more, because he's only played two games and hasn't even had a set position over his WAFL career!
Answering those questions and then finding a "formula" is what should be the priority (especially with Glass now retiring), not basing position choices off one bloody game. For a player like McGovern, trying them in different roles is exactly what you should be doing in their first dozen-odd games, before making a decision and giving them consistency in terms of position.
Eastern Rangers
2015 Worsfold Medalist - Rowen Powell
I expect McGovern to be rotated forward depending on whats going on positionally for others. We can't play four defenders over 195cm in one game. Last week we were too tall defensively and it hurt us. McGovern will have to play forward at stages.
Rotational options.
Lycett and Naitanui (Ruck, Forward, Bench), Darling (Forward, Mid, Bench), Kennedy (Forward, Bench), McGovern (Forward, Back, Bench).
Rotational options.
Lycett and Naitanui (Ruck, Forward, Bench), Darling (Forward, Mid, Bench), Kennedy (Forward, Bench), McGovern (Forward, Back, Bench).
Delighted with the fact that Cox has been dropped for Lycett. Soreness my hat!
Can you believe every meatball on facebook, literally 90% of them, are crying that Lycett made it into the team ahead of Sinclair? **** Sinclair.
Only thing about our changes I don't rate is Wellingham. He was wasted as the sub last week and now gets dropped while we've got WAFL players like Hutchings getting a game. Or even Sheed. Sheed is going to have to get some exposure some time and he can't possibly do THAT much worse then Hutchings WAFL output.
We've done the right thing moving Cox on for Lycett, now lets get expose some more of the young breed.
Can you believe every meatball on facebook, literally 90% of them, are crying that Lycett made it into the team ahead of Sinclair? **** Sinclair.
Only thing about our changes I don't rate is Wellingham. He was wasted as the sub last week and now gets dropped while we've got WAFL players like Hutchings getting a game. Or even Sheed. Sheed is going to have to get some exposure some time and he can't possibly do THAT much worse then Hutchings WAFL output.
We've done the right thing moving Cox on for Lycett, now lets get expose some more of the young breed.
I think we're too tall for GC's fleet footed band of runners.
Brace yo'selves for some more cringe at the house of (self-inflicted) pain!
Brace yo'selves for some more cringe at the house of (self-inflicted) pain!
lmach
Naitanui2Yeo
Ever thought maybe it's people like you who're obsessed with his hair? You don't need to bring his hair or fashion sense into every single discussion about him. Get over it.So he can get 5 touches and look disinterested again? Oh but he has great hair, I forgot.
>Wellingham plays poor
>Must be because he's too focused on his hair
What's Hutchings excuse for playing poor? Oh wait, he has short hair and his face looks interested, so it's OK because at least he's trying.
