Coach Men's Senior Coach: Brad Scott

Remove this Banner Ad

Weideman has still been getting up the ground . The issue has been he gets to the contest but has not had an impact on them.
I will say it again. Voss may be 194cm but he is not a KPF. Very poor contested mark. Below average leap. Average pace so he struggles to get separation unless he gets the right match up. Not the smartest leading player. Yes he has averaged 3.4 tackles a game and this week he was good in that area but the tackle stats have been inflated by the games where he has played some half back.
I have seen all his games most of them live. His pressure has not always been great.
If he gets a game then we are playing 3 medium forwards. He is not a KPF.
It may not make sense but Scott has to stick to his guns structure wise. He can not sell a plan to the players and then say you know what lets not do that now. That is what ****ed Truck. Reading between the lines from the weekend Nick Cox may be in line to play the role. He is probably the next in line that has the attributes to play CHF like Scott wants.
I am not a fan of Weideman but I am not a fan of playing an average medium forward in his place.
Not disputing Weid is out of form but it also seems like the role he is playing is a bit of a thankless role in the current game plan. HJ was getting caned by everyone before he got injured whilst playing the same role and I recall similar discussions on here and twitter with people sticking up for him based on the km's he was clocking per game and the spread he was providing.
Problem is neither are taking the marks up the ground, if they gain their confidence back and start clunking the marks then Im not as fussed about goals kicked/not kicked as I think there is more to their role than that.
 
Not disputing Weid is out of form but it also seems like the role he is playing is a bit of a thankless role in the current game plan. HJ was getting caned by everyone before he got injured whilst playing the same role and I recall similar discussions on here and twitter with people sticking up for him based on the km's he was clocking per game and the spread he was providing.
Problem is neither are taking the marks up the ground, if they gain their confidence back and start clunking the marks then Im not as fussed about goals kicked/not kicked as I think there is more to their role than that.

role? What do you think his role is?

unless the role he is playing is to not take marks and apply pressure I'm unsure what his role has got to do with it. his job is to hit the score board period. if it's not that it's to mark the ball further up the field to build our attack structure.

The guy cannot take a constant mark and when the ball his the ground, i have seen cruise ships more mobile.

Jones has the exact same issues. He cannot mark in a contest but I'll give him the benefit that he needs another 6 - 8 KG. Weed doesn't.
 
role? What do you think his role is?

unless the role he is playing is to not take marks and apply pressure I'm unsure what his role has got to do with it. his job is to hit the score board period. if it's not that it's to mark the ball further up the field to build our attack structure.

The guy cannot take a constant mark and when the ball his the ground, i have seen cruise ships more mobile.

Jones has the exact same issues. He cannot mark in a contest but I'll give him the benefit that he needs another 6 - 8 KG. Weed doesn't.
The role is easy to understand. Whoever plays CHF has to cover the ground and keep leading up the ground to help create the space in behind. Playing it poorly does not change what the coach is trying to build structure wise . We need to build a set style in how we play. They will keep looking for the right player.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The role is easy to understand. Whoever plays CHF has to cover the ground and keep leading up the ground to help create the space in behind. Playing it poorly does not change what the coach is trying to build structure wise . We need to build a set style in how we play. They will keep looking for the right player.

I have zero issue with the strategy. And have no issues with the structure Brads playing.

Weed simply just can't do it.
 
I have zero issue with the strategy. And have no issues with the structure Brads playing.

Weed simply just can't do it.
And there is no one else on the list still standing that can either.
 
Brad doesn't like the Wild Card idea... Ohh the irony if we finish 9th 😅

I know this is a discussion for another thread but I think he misses the point here. The top 6 earn a finals spot. The next 4 fight for the last 2 spots in the finals. It is not really a wildcard round as such. They are not actually finals games. Is it unjust that a side the plays North and WC twice can earn a spot in the finals over a side that may play them once ? I think it actually evens things out a bit given we do not have a "fair" draw.
 
1. The structure is clearly 2 rucks + 1 Key forward.

Weed started as the key forward when Wright was out. The team experimented with most combinations via various injuries.

Now Bryan has earned the Ruck spot with Phillips set to play Ruck/forward in weeds place.

2. Whoever Cox comes in for likely doesn’t change the tall structure. If he plays forward it’s probably with Stringer getting a rest

3. It’s a bit rich for Brad Scott to poop on a “wild Card” system when that’s what already exists in the first week of the finals when 5 plays 8 and 6 plays 7

May as well expand it to 11 teams with top 5 getting week 1 off (and ditch the pre finals bye week)
 
yeah, i don't think that's accurate at all.
Who can do it ? Do not give me Voss . He does not play the same role .
Jones . Injured . Hunter. Injured . Stewart. Injured. Cox . Probably only in the frame now after being injured.
 
Who can do it ? Do not give me Voss . He does not play the same role .
Jones . Injured . Hunter. Injured . Stewart. Injured. Cox . Probably only in the frame now after being injured.

What ae you are talking about Ant.

Weed isn't delivering in the role, it matters sweet **** all what the role is if weed can't even do it at any type of acceptable level. You can literally put anyone in that role with a similar height, and they will do no worse than weed is. So who says Voss can't do it? Voss could likely do no worse.

I'd even give Baldwin a crack. Weed has had enough chances.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

What ae you are talking about Ant.

Weed isn't delivering in the role, it matters sweet * all what the role is if weed can't even do it at any type of acceptable level. You can literally put anyone in that role with a similar height, and they will do no worse than weed is. So who says Voss can't do it? Voss could likely do no worse.

I'd even give Baldwin a crack. Weed has had enough chances.
I give up. I really do.
Voss has been given a chance to do it in the VFL but he does not work up and back to hold the structure they want.

Baldwin has been playing defence because they identified he lacks the mobility to become an effective forward at the next level.

And I will say again. This is the first year of setting the game plan. You do not swing something different into it. The players are buying into what Scott is building. He has to stay true to the plan . I know it sounds like rubbish but listen to anyone who has coached and you will hear it.
It is not as simple as anyone can do a better job .
There was a reason they took a risk on a KPF in the mid season draft.

We will see what they do with Cox .

Weideman has been a minor issue as far as the big picture goes . Yes we need a CHF but we also need him to be a player that has the scope to play that role in the team . It can not be someone that forces you to change what you want to build until there is no one left .

Anyone who has had exposure to a lot of coaching will say the same.

We did not lose because our CHF is struggling.
 
I give up. I really do.
Voss has been given a chance to do it in the VFL but he does not work up and back to hold the structure they want.

Baldwin has been playing defence because they identified he lacks the mobility to become an effective forward at the next level.

And I will say again. This is the first year of setting the game plan. You do not swing something different into it. The players are buying into what Scott is building. He has to stay true to the plan . I know it sounds like rubbish but listen to anyone who has coached and you will hear it.
It is not as simple as anyone can do a better job .
There was a reason they took a risk on a KPF in the mid season draft.

We will see what they do with Cox .

Weideman has been a minor issue as far as the big picture goes . Yes we need a CHF but we also need him to be a player that has the scope to play that role in the team . It can not be someone that forces you to change what you want to build until there is no one left .

Anyone who has had exposure to a lot of coaching will say the same.

What you’re saying makes sense but at this point we are doing a disservice to Weideman by playing him in the AFL. You can see how much he’s struggling mentally with his goal kicking.

If he’s any chance of turning his form around he needs to get back to the VFL and give someone else a crack in the AFL even if they are destined to fail.
 
I give up. I really do.
Voss has been given a chance to do it in the VFL but he does not work up and back to hold the structure they want.

Baldwin has been playing defence because they identified he lacks the mobility to become an effective forward at the next level.

And I will say again. This is the first year of setting the game plan. You do not swing something different into it. The players are buying into what Scott is building. He has to stay true to the plan . I know it sounds like rubbish but listen to anyone who has coached and you will hear it.
It is not as simple as anyone can do a better job .
There was a reason they took a risk on a KPF in the mid season draft.

We will see what they do with Cox .

Weideman has been a minor issue as far as the big picture goes . Yes we need a CHF but we also need him to be a player that has the scope to play that role in the team . It can not be someone that forces you to change what you want to build until there is no one left .

Anyone who has had exposure to a lot of coaching will say the same.

dude what game are you watching?

Thats is exactly what weed is! he is as un mobile as the titanic and he cannot mark.

Again, it has NOTHING to do with the game plan. The game plan is not the issue. It is weeds complete lack of ability to do it.

You are literally saying we shouldn't give Voss a chance because he hasn't proven he can do it. Yet you are willing to keep giving weed a chance, who has also proven he can't do it. I can 100% see Baldwin doing no worse.

i think you are way off here.

For all the pros you have said to keep weed in, the cons are worse. It re enforces shit football = senior football games. Something no good team does.
 
dude what game are you watching?

Thats is exactly what weed is! he is as un mobile as the titanic and he cannot mark.

Again, it has NOTHING to do with the game plan. The game plan is not the issue. It is weeds complete lack of ability to do it.

You are literally saying we shouldn't give Voss a chance because he hasn't proven he can do it. Yet you are willing to keep giving weed a chance, who has also proven he can't do it. I can 100% see Baldwin doing no worse.

i think you are way off here.

For all the pros you have said to keep weed in, the cons are worse. It re enforces s**t football = senior football games. Something no good team does.
IMO Voss has done nothing in that past couple of months that deserves a call up, regardless of position.

There are a few ahead of him warranting a call up.
 
IMO Voss has done nothing in that past couple of months that deserves a call up, regardless of position.

There are a few ahead of him warranting a call up.

thats fair, i also suggested Baldwin
 
thats fair, i also suggested Baldwin

Baldwin may do a comparable, or potentially better job than Weid in this role at present.

But you’re worried about what message it sends the team about continuing to play Weid..

What kind of message does that send to Baldwin and our other young guys when we’ve clearly said to Baldwin “Okay, we don’t think you’re up to the standard as a forward, let’s see how you go down back”, he’s really thrived down back, and we come to him and say “Yeaaaahhhh, nice work on that defending role, but our CHF is struggling. We know it’s not your role moving forward, but can we get you to try?”
 
Baldwin may do a comparable, or potentially better job than Weid in this role at present.

But you’re worried about what message it sends the team about continuing to play Weid..

What kind of message does that send to Baldwin and our other young guys when we’ve clearly said to Baldwin “Okay, we don’t think you’re up to the standard as a forward, let’s see how you go down back”, he’s really thrived down back, and we come to him and say “Yeaaaahhhh, nice work on that defending role, but our CHF is struggling. We know it’s not your role moving forward, but can we get you to try?”

lol what? the message is you do what the team needs you to do. Like it is with every player. Baldwin wouldn't be asked to be the next CHF. Like you said Weed is struggling and we need someone to get in and have a crack, whilst weed goes and works on him self in the 2's.

You think a young 21 year old kid trying to bust through on a Senior list is going to give a rat's arse where you play him?

Kaine is 21 years old. If you think for a second someone at our club has had any type of discussion with him that would tell him he is not up to a certain position or he is limited to a certain role, then my man you are dreaming. There is clearly a plan around playing him in a defensive position. but that is no way shape or form a message to say he's not up to a forward role, if that's what we need him to do at a given time.
 
Last edited:
Weed was the backup ruck cover as they like Wright to play forward only.

Another slow forward instead of a Guelfi/Snelling/Menzie/Davey/Tippa type doesn’t seem to work.

The one time they tried Flip/Draper/Weed/Wright it was far too slow.

Flip coming in for Weed is the obvious change, and Bryan is in front of Baldwin for that extra tall spot due to his ruck skills.

I think Baldwin has been really good in the back half. I think that’s where he finds his opportunity. Even if it takes some more time.
 
dude what game are you watching?

Thats is exactly what weed is! he is as un mobile as the titanic and he cannot mark.

Again, it has NOTHING to do with the game plan. The game plan is not the issue. It is weeds complete lack of ability to do it.

You are literally saying we shouldn't give Voss a chance because he hasn't proven he can do it. Yet you are willing to keep giving weed a chance, who has also proven he can't do it. I can 100% see Baldwin doing no worse.

i think you are way off here.

For all the pros you have said to keep weed in, the cons are worse. It re enforces s**t football = senior football games. Something no good team does.
You do not get it so there is no point.
 
lol what? the message is you do what the team needs you to do. Like it is with every player. Baldwin wouldn't be asked to be the next CHF. Like you said Weed is struggling and we need someone to get in and have a crack, whilst weed goes and works on him self in the 2's.

You think a young 21 year old kid trying to bust through on a Senior list is going to give a rat's arse where you play him?

Kaine is 21 years old. If you think for a second someone at our club has had any type of discussion with him that would tell him he is not up to a certain position or he is limited to a certain role, then my man you are dreaming. There is clearly a plan around playing him in a defensive position. but that is no way shape or form a message to say he's not up to a forward role, if that's what we need him to do at a given time.

Okay, hypothetical for you.

We drop Weid for Baldwin this week.

Baldwin plays CHF and really struggles. I won't say worse than what Weid has been doing, but as bad as.

Meanwhile, we send Weideman back to the VFL, and play him solely in defense, where he played the last quarter last week. And he dominates. Like, 3x BOGs, looks really comfortable etc...

4 straight games of Baldwin being awful, the fans are demanding a change.

Are you bringing Weideman back in to play CHF in that situation?

(This might seem like a random and pointless hypothetical for you, but what I've described above is literally what you're pretty much suggesting should happen, just in reverse. Guy in the AFL, poor form, "anyone else" calls. Guy not playing the same position but in the VFL, in good form doing something else, bring him in).
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Coach Men's Senior Coach: Brad Scott

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top