Game Vs. Kangaroos

[marcmurphy3]

On average we're having 126 points getting kicked against us each game. That is unbelievably bad.

 

[Bluebear]

I was.

But no one was complaining because we were winning, so positions were irrelevant until they stopped working. When you have a winning formula you stick to it, if it stops working then you need to change it.

And regardless, moves should've been made. When things aren't broken, don't fix them - but if you're losing the game... it is a different matter entirely.

I thought O'hAlpin in the ruck, Gibbs/Walker in a back pocket and Houlihan on Grant were bad moves in the first place, and it showed in the 2nd half.

Options?

 

[Thrawn]

But what moves do you think we should have made?

For one thing, O'hAlpin at FB where he is best suited to. Walker and Gibbs being allowed some freedom, letting them play in the midfield and winning their own ball.

Perhaps you are satisified with some of the coaching moves, I am not.

If things are going tactically wrong in terms of ground positions, make an effort to fix them. If something isn't working, try something else - don't remain static.

We have easily the worst defence in the league and lack depth to shuffle players around.

That is true.

But it does not invalidate the point I'm making. Play your players in the positions they are meant to play. It will do better for their development than putting them isolated on a back pocket where they have the legs and the nous to contribute elsewhere.

 

[Stig O'Hara]

Options?

For a half we are Starsky and Hutch,
second half..................

New plan,
New coach.

Kinda, sorta easy.
The list is there,
lets not **** their heads up now.

Have been at one of these clubs,
and kids are impressionable.

 

[Thrawn]

Options?

O'hAlpin at FB, give Gibbs and Walker some freedom in the midfield. As far as I'm concerned the latter two are wasted playing in a back pocket.

And as for our ruck options, keep Ackland in there and bring another ruckman in for support. O'hAlpin isn't a ruckman and he hasn't been groomed nor developed to play there - and it was indeed in that position that hurt us the most today.

 

[marcmurphy3]

Blackwell played a great game tonight. Should never have been dropped and looks a long term prospect. Unlike most our players he can hit a target by foot.

 

[juzza316]

For one thing, O'hAlpin at FB where he is best suited to. Walker and Gibbs being allowed some freedom, letting them play in the midfield and winning their own ball.

Perhaps you are satisified with some of the coaching moves, I am not.

If things are going tactically wrong in terms of ground positions, make an effort to fix them. If something isn't working, try something else - don't remain static.



That is true.

But it does not invalidate the point I'm making. Play your players in the positions they are meant to play. It will do better for their development than putting them isolated on a back pocket where they have the legs and the nous to contribute elsewhere.

Who do you replace Gibbs and Walker in the backline with though? Im not saying these are their best positions i just dont know who you expect to replace them in the back six with?

I'm sure before the year is out we will see players such as Gibbs and Walker playing up the ground more, which will be good for them.

For the record I'm neither pro nor anti Pagan, I'm really just disappointed with how we are performing in general and I think that's a little of everyone's (players and coaches) fault that we struggle to run out games.

 

[Bluebear]

O'hAlpin at FB, give Gibbs and Walker some freedom in the midfield. As far as I'm concerned the latter two are wasted playing in a back pocket.

And as for our ruck options, keep Ackland in there and bring another ruckman in for support. O'hAlpin isn't a ruckman and he hasn't been groomed nor developed to play there - and it was indeed in that position that hurt us the most today.

And move hoops out of the backline as well...............

This is just my point.

All pre-season (and most of last year) we had to put up with "Give Walker a run in the middle", despite the fact that he was our best small defender by a country mile.
He has been given runs in the middle, and has been patchy at best..........
but lets say you get you're wish, and Tex, Gibbs, and also hoops are moved up the ground........are you just hoping the small forwards will follow them?

Its all very well to say play X up the ground, but you have to have an option (hence my post) to replace them.
I would love Setanta to stay at FB, but this would mean bringing up his brother or Hamspon, neither of whom are up to it........options?
Who goes back to replce Gibbs, Walker and Hoops?

 

[Thrawn]

Who do you replace Gibbs and Walker in the backline with though?

We have a few players who are yet untried, perhaps they can do a similar job if not better. Either way, it would free those two players up, and we know how damaging they can be.

I'm sure before the year is out we will see players such as Gibbs and Walker playing up the ground more, which will be good for them.

Too little, too late.

I think that's a little of everyone's (players and coaches) fault that we struggle to run out games.

Yep.

 

[Silvagnis]

Who do you replace Gibbs and Walker in the backline with though? Im not saying these are their best positions i just dont know who you expect to replace them in the back six with?

I'm sure before the year is out we will see players such as Gibbs and Walker playing up the ground more, which will be good for them.

For the record I'm neither pro nor anti Pagan, I'm really just disappointed with how we are performing in general and I think that's a little of everyone's (players and coaches) fault that we struggle to run out games.

I'd drop Bentick to bring Anderson into the backline to mind the small forwards since he has the size, legspeed and aggression to play that role. Move Gibbs up the ground to best use his skill and vision on the wing of HFF rather than taking him out of the play.

The other coach probably breathes a sigh of relief when he sees Gibbs run to the backline.

Christ, I'd even prefer to see a shitkicker like Bannister playing on these hacks than a number one pick!

Russell needs to be played on the wing or the HBF rather than tagging to get some confidence back. A four quarter game in the VFL for a week or two wouldn't hurt him and his game needs to be rejigged if he is to make it.

Houlihan should be moved up the ground like Gibbs because he is best used running forward kicking goals and hitting teammates like he did before Pagan arrived. If you search for Houlihan videos on youtube it looks like a completely different player than the one we have now.

Pagan is taking the attacking edge of all our younger players and using them in positions they're just not suited to.

Would it hurt to have Gibbs or Walker go head to head with Harvey, Simpson or Swallow and have them push forward?

 

[AlecDuncan]

But what moves do you think we should have made? We have easily the worst defence in the league and lack depth to shuffle players around.

Because of course if we concede a lot of goals it must automatically be the defence's fault.

It's the midfield. Listen again. It's the midfield. It was the midfield against Brisbane and St.Kilda. It'll be the midfield again next week against Adelaide and it'll be the midfield again against the Bulldogs. Our midfield isn't up to four quarters against nearly any AFL side, and it won't be for the rest of this year. I'm amazed we did as well as we did with Murphy only getting 6 touches.

We need Stevens back, we need another mature on-baller, a good ruckman, and we need to pump the required aerobic fitness into these kids so that four quarter performances are the norm.

And the other reason for high scores is an attacking, man-on-man game plan (for which I congratulate the coaching panel). What would you prefer? Flooding? That slows opposition floggings but is useless for the education of young players. I'd rather go down by 17 with guns blazing than give up on winning a game. I think the players would too.

 

[juzza316]

It's too easy to play Keyboard Coach on these forums.

 

[Thrawn]

All pre-season (and most of last year) we had to put up with "Give Walker a run in the middle", despite the fact that he was our best small defender by a country mile.

He never was a small defender.

Pre-season means squat all, I wouldn't read too much into it. In the pre-season:

Lance Whitnall was the best CHF
Callum Chamers was a handy player
Ian Prendergast kicked vital goals
Waite was a consistent CHB

He has been given runs in the middle, and has been patchy at best..........

He has only been patchy because that's exactly the amount of time he's been used in there - in patches. Simply not enough time, give him a full game there and see what he does.

but lets say you get you're wish, and Tex, Gibbs, and also hoops are moved up the ground........are you just hoping the small forwards will follow them?

You get other players to play on them. Players that are either untried so are worth the risk or the defensive types who cannot hurt the opposition through offensive play.

Its all very well to say play X up the ground, but you have to have an option (hence my post) to replace them.

Read above.

I would love Setanta to stay at FB, but this would mean bringing up his brother or Hamspon, neither of whom are up to it........options?

They're not up to it?

How do you know if you haven't even tried them yet?

Who goes back to replce Gibbs, Walker and Hoops?

Bower, Young, Russell... as I said, any untried option. Could they do any worse, or better? Regardless, it will allow the three to be creative in at attacking capacity - something we do miss.

You have to experiment some of these young players if they don't have a defined spot they excel in, try out how they will go in various positions and stick them in the ones they are best suited to. Eventually we'll draft these kind of small defenders which will allow us to play them up the ground, but I say go and see how some of our other youngsters will go back there.

Put your best kids in the positions where they can do the most damage, not the other way around!

 

[marcmurphy3]

I'd drop Bentick to bring Anderson into the backline to mind the small forwards since he has the size, legspeed and aggression to play that role.

How can you say you;d drop Bentick. He was one of our best tonight. Was really hard at the ball, got a lot of contested possesions and tackled really hard. Is one of the last guys I'd drop.

 

[juzza316]

Because of course if we concede a lot of goals it must automatically be the defence's fault.

It's the midfield. Listen again. It's the midfield. It was the midfield against Brisbane and St.Kilda. It'll be the midfield again next week against Adelaide and it'll be the midfield again against the Bulldogs. Our midfield isn't up to four quarters against nearly any AFL side, and it won't be for the rest of this year. I'm amazed we did as well as we did with Murphy only getting 6 touches.

We need Stevens back, we need another mature on-baller, a good ruckman, and we need to pump the required aerobic fitness into these kids so that four quarter performances are the norm.

And the other reason for high scores is an attacking, man-on-man game plan (for which I congratulate the coaching panel). What would you prefer? Flooding? That slows opposition floggings but is useless for the education of young players. I'd rather go down by 17 with guns blazing than give up on winning a game. I think the players would too.

Well make that the midfield too. Regardless of whether our number one problem is defence or midfield, both midfield and defence would probably be bottom 4 in the comp (Forwardline would be horrendous too without Fev). At least until players start showing more improvement.

Agree on your points regarding attacking gameplan.

 

[Thrawn]

It's too easy to play Keyboard Coach on these forums.

It's also too easy to sit back and say these kind of things when there are actually constructive ideas and comments being thrown around.

I'm not just going to sit back and take it, I am going to dish out criticism when it is required.

 

[Silvagnis]

How can you say you;d drop Bentick. He was one of our best tonight. Was really hard at the ball, got a lot of contested possesions and tackled really hard. Is one of the last guys I'd drop.

Does he hurt the opposition when he has the ball and create a lot of goals for Carlton?

I said it after the St Kilda game, Blackwell has better footwork and creates more opportunities since he's football quick like Murphy. Kouta, Carrazzo, Blackwell, Murphy and Bentick on the ball will never run the opposition off their legs and hurt them on the rebound.

 

[Bluebear]

He never was a small defender.

Looked a lot like one last year. Up until this year he has not had the finishing skills to play in the middle. This is improving slowly.

You get other players to play on them. Players that are either untried so are worth the risk or the defensive types who cannot hurt the opposition through offensive play.

Bower, Young, Russell... as I said, any untried option. Could they do any worse, or better? Regardless, it will allow the three to be creative in at attacking capacity - something we do miss.

Bower was tried and failed. young is playing well as an attacking player, why change this?
Russell is tagging and as you say...........he is not a defender.
Anderson - looked lost.
Maybe try Flint, but really none of the younger guys are banging down the door.

You have to experiment some of these young players if they don't have a defined spot they excel in, try out how they will go in various positions and stick them in the ones they are best suited to. Eventually we'll draft these kind of small defenders which will allow us to play them up the ground, but I say go and see how some of our other youngsters will go back there.

Put your best kids in the positions where they can do the most damage, not the other way around!

I agree that Gibbs, hoops and Tex should be played in more attacking positions, and that we need true defenders to shut down the likes of Harvey and Grant, but these players do not exist at our club, so as you say, they need to either be drafted or developed from within.

 

[AndyWalkersGirl]

Looked a lot like one last year. Up until this year he has not had the finishing skills to play in the middle. This is improving slowly.



Bower was tried and failed. young is playing well as an attacking player, why change this?
Russell is tagging and as you say...........he is not a defender.
Anderson - looked lost.
Maybe try Flint, but really none of the younger guys are banging down the door.



I agree that Gibbs, hoops and Tex should be played in more attacking positions, and that we need true defenders to shut down the likes of Harvey and Grant, but these players do not exist at our club, so as you say, they need to either be drafted or developed from within.

Bower has had three games. IF we were going by this logic, we would have gotten rid of Fevola and Simpson long ago.

 

[AlecDuncan]

It's too easy to play Keyboard Coach on these forums.

Guilty as charged.

 

[Horsebox]

Because of course if we concede a lot of goals it must automatically be the defence's fault.

It's the midfield. Listen again. It's the midfield. It was the midfield against Brisbane and St.Kilda. It'll be the midfield again next week against Adelaide and it'll be the midfield again against the Bulldogs. Our midfield isn't up to four quarters against nearly any AFL side, and it won't be for the rest of this year. I'm amazed we did as well as we did with Murphy only getting 6 touches.

We need Stevens back, we need another mature on-baller, a good ruckman, and we need to pump the required aerobic fitness into these kids so that four quarter performances are the norm.

And the other reason for high scores is an attacking, man-on-man game plan (for which I congratulate the coaching panel). What would you prefer? Flooding? That slows opposition floggings but is useless for the education of young players. I'd rather go down by 17 with guns blazing than give up on winning a game. I think the players would too.

I was actually going to say the same thing. This applies to any field sport. If a team has midfield dominance and can supply unlimited, quality ball to their attackers, the defence is on a hiding to nothing. If the ball is coming in that good and that fast to the likes of Fraser or J Brown, who do you blame? The full back in his first full season, or the midfielders who are not applying pressure out the field? Look at the teams with outstanding full backs like Adelaide, West Coast and Geelong. They all have quality midfield departments too. If you took that away, do you honestly think the likes of Scarlett and Glass would be able to limit the scoring ability of the oppositions best forward to the same degree?

 

[Bluebear]

Bower has had three games. IF we were going by this logic, we would have gotten rid of Fevola and Simpson long ago.

Thats the difficulty of being coach.
If you persist with young players that are developing, but not performing you get bagged for not dropping them to the two's to "find some of the footy" or to "get some confidence" (The Josh Kennedy arguement).

If you drop a young player for not performing after only one or two games, "he hasn't been given a go"........some guys take longer to develop (The Simpson arguement)...........

At the end of the day people who want to bag the coach will choose a player and argue one of the above to make a point...........and they are both right and wrong at the same time...........

So kennedy goes back and is BOG in the two's........did he really not have confidence?
I doubt confidence was an issue. The fact is he is too good for VFL. Has shown it on numerous occasions last year and now this year. He needs to play in the seniors to figure out how to work in with the forward structure that we have........and probably would have been very handy when Fev had his corky.

My point with Bower is that he is not "untried", and when you are on the fringe you need to make every post a winner.

Fev showed pockets os superstardom.
Had simpson been on the list now for his first season, and producing what he did back then, then its likely he would be coping an aweful hiding on these boards, would be sent to the twos and possibly delisted.
He is lucky our list was so bad when he joined that as a young bloke he earned a repreive.

 

[OEGB]

im woried about gibbsy pagan is dentering his confidence playing im in the pack pocket on smaller faster types he is not that quick and should not be played in the back pocket. i think he should played half forward...
pagan slaughters our yougstars. get rid of him past his used by date...