Game Day Crows V Weagles 21 Feb

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

With Jack playing the final 6 games of 2011, hard to say we dropped him once we were out of finals contention.

Except he'd decided to leave by then

Too little, too late.

And he only got those games after the coach was punted.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

We know the reason VB and Mackay get picked all the time. They do every single thing the coaches ask of them and then some.

They are elite trainers, never miss a session, good energy, good voice. Their diet and skin folds would be outstanding. They look after themselves well. They are elite runners on the track - front of the field every preseason. No doubt encouraging the newcomers, setting standards. They know our game plan inside out. Could recite it in their sleep, no doubt help the youngsters to understand their role. Show leadership during team meetings, probably study the opposition well, put forward interesting and thoughtful ideas and observations. Dedicated to their recovery. Bust their arse every training session until they're absolutely spent. Unbelievable work ethic. Probably go out of their way to welcome interstate draftees. Provide detailed, helpful and insightful feedback to the coaches about training sessions/coach performance.

The coaches preach to the whole squad that you need to do x, y, z, a, b and c well in order to be a good AFL player. If these guys are doing x, y, z, a, b and c not just well but exceedingly well... then what does it say if we don't pick them? Is that stuff actually not that important? What are the coaches on about then?

Dropping VB and Mackay would undermine everything the coaches stand for, every value they hold, every philosophy they preach.

When it comes to actually playing football - both are extremely average players and wouldn't make Hawthorn's 2nds. They play because we value things that aren't valuable.

Plus we generally fear playing youngsters. "Imagine what we'd look like without them?" Neil squealed way back in 2011, of his beloved oldies. It still echoes around the change rooms today.

 

[Sanders]

We know the reason VB and Mackay get picked all the time. They do every single thing the coaches ask of them and then some.

They are elite trainers, never miss a session, good energy, good voice. Their diet and skin folds would be outstanding. They look after themselves well. They are elite runners on the track - front of the field every preseason. No doubt encouraging the newcomers, setting standards. They know our game plan inside out. Could recite it in their sleep, no doubt help the youngsters to understand their role. Show leadership during team meetings, probably study the opposition well, put forward interesting and thoughtful ideas and observations. Dedicated to their recovery. Bust their arse every training session until they're absolutely spent. Unbelievable work ethic. Probably go out of their way to welcome interstate draftees. Provide detailed, helpful and insightful feedback to the coaches about training sessions/coach performance.

The coaches preach to the whole squad that you need to do x, y, z, a, b and c well in order to be a good AFL player. If these guys are doing x, y, z, a, b and c not just well but exceedingly well... then what does it say if we don't pick them? Is that stuff actually not that important? What are the coaches on about then?

Dropping VB and Mackay would undermine everything the coaches stand for, every value they hold, every philosophy they preach.

When it comes to actually playing football - both are extremely average players and wouldn't make Hawthorn's 2nds. They play because we value things that aren't valuable.

Plus we generally fear playing youngsters. "Imagine what we'd look like without them?" Neil squealed way back in 2011, of his beloved oldies. It still echoes around the change rooms today.

I do not believe we value things that are not valuable.

It is just not enough for those values to be embodied in guys who can't play.

We need those values to be championed by good players.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

They aren't playing cause they are not good enough to usurp "mediocre" players. If they were good enough they would have long before now.

Do you honestly for one second believe that our organization purposely sits players that are better than others? For what end?

If they were purposely doing so you would have your wish and we would sink into the nether regions of the league table.

5th-8th may not have won a Premiership but I like their chances a whoooole lot better than 9th-18th.

Some of the players you mentioned are the ones most guilty of horrible mental lapses in judgment. Last I checked none of them is without physical errors either. Combining those two things on a regular basis would guarantee being out of the 8.

Might one of them pan out--sure as players can develop later in careers than others.

But to say just play them because finishing 5-8th is nothing worth worrying about? Sorry no way is that a good idea.

A perfectly good argument if you start from the premise that we are a better team with these guys than without.

But that premise isn't supported by the evidence. They don't make us worse, but they don't make us better either. In which case, why not play guys with some upside?

 

[Jack is Back]

You did suggest that it was unfortunate that we don't bottom out

No I didn't.

What I said was
"Since 97 and 98 our club has had the attitude that if we can sneak into the eight every year then we will eventually win a flag.
- We will never bottom out.
- We will play our best 22 every single match.
Unfortunately this means we will have to be the first team in the modern era of the AFL to win a premiership without a top 10 draft pick."

If you check my posts over many years you will not find me advocating that we bottom out. My point was that no team has won the premiership in the modern era without top 10 draft picks (and/or Father Son picks which most commentators believe would have been top 10 picks).

We need to beat the odds to win our third flag. IMHO we must make the tough decisions to play young players who may be 5% less effective than the ageing journeymen (Mackay, van Berlo) or even older players who were top players but are in decline (Johncock, Porplyzia, Rutten in recent years). This won't mean we will be competing with Carlton and Essendon for the wooden spoon.

It could be argued that we would not have won a final last year if we hadn't drop players like Wright, van Berlo and Mackay and given Riley Knight a chance to show what he has to offer.

 

[DJ75]

We know the reason VB and Mackay get picked all the time. They do every single thing the coaches ask of them and then some.

They are elite trainers, never miss a session, good energy, good voice. Their diet and skin folds would be outstanding. They look after themselves well. They are elite runners on the track - front of the field every preseason. No doubt encouraging the newcomers, setting standards. They know our game plan inside out. Could recite it in their sleep, no doubt help the youngsters to understand their role. Show leadership during team meetings, probably study the opposition well, put forward interesting and thoughtful ideas and observations. Dedicated to their recovery. Bust their arse every training session until they're absolutely spent. Unbelievable work ethic. Probably go out of their way to welcome interstate draftees. Provide detailed, helpful and insightful feedback to the coaches about training sessions/coach performance.

The coaches preach to the whole squad that you need to do x, y, z, a, b and c well in order to be a good AFL player. If these guys are doing x, y, z, a, b and c not just well but exceedingly well... then what does it say if we don't pick them? Is that stuff actually not that important? What are the coaches on about then?

Dropping VB and Mackay would undermine everything the coaches stand for, every value they hold, every philosophy they preach.

When it comes to actually playing football - both are extremely average players and wouldn't make Hawthorn's 2nds. They play because we value things that aren't valuable.

Plus we generally fear playing youngsters. "Imagine what we'd look like without them?" Neil squealed way back in 2011, of his beloved oldies. It still echoes around the change rooms today.

I suspect this is all very, very accurate.

VB and Mackay are professionals. They do everything right. Unfortunately they don't get it done on match day. If premierships were won based on training, they would be first picked. Unfortunately, premierships are won due to on-field ability. Hence they should not be playing.

The Neil Craig comment is very accurate. This mindset must have been a very strong belief at the Crows - you can still hear it whenever Bickley talks. I imagine Noble has the exact same philosophy as well. Until all remnants of that is cleared out, we are stuck in neverland.
It is in fact a great example of Closed Minded thinking. Perhaps the coaches should look at an Open Mindedness course to allow them to see possibilities, rather that being stuck in the same thinking traps.

 

[VSTone]

You'll love the AFC then!

Never gifting games, always playing to win this week, always pick your strongest side, kids will get games when they're ready, make the eight and anything can happen etc

That's us in a nutshell and has been for a decade.

When do we cash in on this culture we've created? When is the pay off?

what's not to love?

 

[AmericanCrow]

You'll love the AFC then!

Never gifting games, always playing to win this week, always pick your strongest side, kids will get games when they're ready, make the eight and anything can happen etc

That's us in a nutshell and has been for a decade.

When do we cash in on this culture we've created? When is the pay off?

You act like I never followed the Crows before last season. You don't like a culture that mandates you play to win the game in front of you? Don't like doing everything possible to make Finals and give yourself a chance?

You will LOVE the Cleveland Browns. Come on up next season and I will treat you to that show.

 

[AmericanCrow]

what's not to love?

You are welcome as well. Game and beers are on me.

Tell me how much fun you are having watching a team that puts kids out there, dumps vets, gets high draft picks.

 

[Elite Crow]

Have I missed something? Are we talking about replacing half the team with kids or replacing 2 average players with kids who have shown promise and that they can play?

 

[AmericanCrow]

A perfectly good argument if you start from the premise that we are a better team with these guys than without.

But that premise isn't supported by the evidence. They don't make us worse, but they don't make us better either. In which case, why not play guys with some upside?

I trust that three different head coaches in three years have a better idea of why they play them in lieu of others.

Unless you are in the locker room, team meetings, and practices you don't have all the facts you need to draw conclusions as to why the players being bantied about don't play more.

But I am certain no head coach purposefully sits kids for no good reason. That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[VSTone]

Have I missed something? Are we talking about replacing half the team with kids or replacing 2 average players with kids who have shown promise and that they can play?

ummm.... pre-season cobwebs, just brushing the dust off our keyboards i think...

 

[Jack is Back]

I trust that three different head coaches in three years have a better idea of why they play them in lieu of others.

Unless you are in the locker room, team meetings, and practices you don't have all the facts you need to draw conclusions as to why the players being bantied about don't play more.

But I am certain no head coach purposefully sits kids for no good reason. That makes absolutely no sense.

These are the same coaches that said Matty Wright was doing a great job playing his ono-statistical role in the team - Then de-listed him.
They said van Berlo and Mackay were playing their role very well - and then dropped them.

The same posters who couldn't see why we should bring in Knight and Atkins in the last third of the 2015 season to see what they had to offer, now want Milera to put in a solid month in the SANFL (they do realise he has already done this as a 17 year old ). If fit, I also believe that we must play Menzel, Seedsman and Hampton.

I agree that we will have a relatively young and inexperienced team (not as young or inexperienced as the Bulldogs last year) so no doubt the justification for retaining van Berlo and Mackay will be the experience they provide (just like in the Hawthorn Final).

Please prove me wrong Mr Pyke.

 

[Wright Away]

When the experience you have to offer is being shit under pressure and losing finals, you have no experience to offer, unless the experience you're offering is the experience of being picked when you shouldn't be as a cautionary tale to selection committees.

 

[VSTone]

 

[GrommoT]

...
Unfortunately this means we will have to be the first team in the modern era of the AFL to win a premiership without a top 10 draft pick.
...
We need to beat the odds to win our third flag. IMHO we must make the tough decisions to play young players who may be 5% less effective than the ageing journeymen (Mackay, van Berlo) or even older players who were top players but are in decline (Johncock, Porplyzia, Rutten in recent years). This won't mean we will be competing with Carlton and Essendon for the wooden spoon.

So sticking with a non-bottoming-out policy, we rely on top notch recruiting/development departments to get players as good as top 10 draft pick players.

And as traumatic as the recent Voldemort experience was, it shows that maybe we should embrace opportunities if other clubs are willing to part with top 10 picks for our players (if they're keen to leave) as the recent case which brought in to us Milera, Gore and Menzel (and probably could have brought more in had we not locked ourselves in with the number of contracted players that we couldn't free up enough list spots). I guess the way in which we got Brouch (& Brown) is another example of this happening also.

So we slowly build up to the point where we have a very good list with sudden jumps when we get little bonuses like this preseason just gone by.

 

[1970crow]

You'll love the AFC then!

Never gifting games, always playing to win this week, always pick your strongest side, kids will get games when they're ready, make the eight and anything can happen etc

That's us in a nutshell and has been for a decade.

When do we cash in on this culture we've created? When is the pay off?

The pay off is every week. Sending a full strength team out West in a dead rubber the week before finals to watch your captain get rubbed out in search of 4 meaningless points.

 

[1970crow]

Have I missed something? Are we talking about replacing half the team with kids or replacing 2 average players with kids who have shown promise and that they can play?

This simple fact is lost in the hysterics of those who embrace the virtues of playing mediocre, experienced plodders. They lose the premise of the discussion very quickly.

 

[1970crow]

I trust that three different head coaches in three years have a better idea of why they play them in lieu of others.

Unless you are in the locker room, team meetings, and practices you don't have all the facts you need to draw conclusions as to why the players being bantied about don't play more.

But I am certain no head coach purposefully sits kids for no good reason. That makes absolutely no sense.

The reason is the same as what you've been espousing. An experienced player provides a greater likelihood of consistent performance, regardless of the actual level. That's why they are selected despite poor b&f voting. Our club has been risk averse for quite some time. Load up on solid citizens, make the 8 and anything can happen. There's also the fact that successful teams carry a certain amount of experience. However, VB wouldn't have played 200 games at Hawthorn, he would have been moved on 3-4 years ago. You shouldn't mortgage future benefit by playing average experience, but we have and still do. It's a culture ingrained in our footy dept and it's why we tread water, no more, no less.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

The reason is the same as what you've been espousing. An experienced player provides a greater likelihood of consistent performance, regardless of the actual level. That's why they are selected despite poor b&f voting. Our club has been risk averse for quite some time. Load up on solid citizens, make the 8 and anything can happen. There's also the fact that successful teams carry a certain amount of experience. However, VB wouldn't have played 200 games at Hawthorn, he would have been moved on 3-4 years ago. You shouldn't mortgage future benefit by playing average experience, but we have and still do. It's a culture ingrained in our footy dept and it's why we tread water, no more, no less.

My only hope is that now that Talia and smith are hitting the 100 game Mark, they are now considered "experienced" and therefore Mackay and VB are set aside.

 

[maxlilly]

Lets hope Pyke has a different way of thinking when selecting teams.

I think one of the major issues is when your football director who only recently, endorses a captain like VB and gives Mackay a four contract, has troubles saying I got it wrong. So he wont cut his losses with those past decisions and still tries to justify those decisions with the player selections.
So how does a new coach come in and overide those decisions of the football director and board ? Its a hard task and one a coach needs to tread carefully.
It was a brave decision by Walshy to drop VB from the captaincy and replace with Tex in his first year.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Blight didn't share this view when he kicked a jarman, McDermott and McGuinness to the curb and played the young guys. That worked out ok...

Different teams. We are not an experienced side. last season we were one of the most inexperienced sides already. Changes are never made in a vacuum. just chanting 'play the kids' without an understanding of the list as a whole is beyond obtuse.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Different teams. We are not an experienced side. last season we were one of the most inexperienced sides already. Changes are never made in a vacuum. just chanting 'play the kids' without an understanding of the list as a whole is beyond obtuse.

Sloane in a way backed this up today in talking about the newbies to the leadership group. He said that you don't want just seven leaders out there, you want about 12 to 14 leaders on the field during game time to assist and that is what they have been trying to develop at Adelaide. There are 7 in the leadership group, but there are more 'leaders' overall on the field.

Lever's leadership stands out purely because of his age. In order for the kids to thrive they need experienced support around them to help them out. As you said, it is a balance that needs to be considered and there is never just one simple reason or policy that will work all the time.

 

[1970crow]

Different teams. We are not an experienced side. last season we were one of the most inexperienced sides already. Changes are never made in a vacuum. just chanting 'play the kids' without an understanding of the list as a whole is beyond obtuse.

Whose chanting that? The discussion is about dropping under performing players and replacing them with guys burning it up in the 2's. That our worst performers last year were among our experienced group is irrelevant. As is the age of the guys in form in the 2's. But you continue with your deliberately false point of view that you're arguing against. It doesn't exist but as long as it makes you feel right then it's no skin off anyone's nose.

You do realise the coaches eventually dropped those players don't you?

 

[1970crow]

Sloane in a way backed this up today in talking about the newbies to the leadership group. He said that you don't want just seven leaders out there, you want about 12 to 14 leaders on the field during game time to assist and that is what they have been trying to develop at Adelaide. There are 7 in the leadership group, but there are more 'leaders' overall on the field.

Lever's leadership stands out purely because of his age. In order for the kids to thrive they need experienced support around them to help them out. As you said, it is a balance that needs to be considered and there is never just one simple reason or policy that will work all the time.

You're reading a fair bit into that. I doubt it has anything to do with keeping out of form players in the team just because they've cracked an arbitrary number of games. Did we perform better without Wright, Dmac and VB? That's what football is about, winning. Which we did equally as easy without out of form experience as we did in form youngsters. Some would argue it was easier with the latter.

I find it hard to understand how supporters can forget these guys were dropped and we smashed teams without their so called valuable experience.