Preview R10: Changes v GWS

[potatoe]

How many gun players leave clubs that are hunting down success and are well run (before they actually taste it like Buddy, Abblett, Judd). We can all find excuses for why we have a drain of gun players unparalleled anywhere in the league. You can say its Adelaide the city. But its not. Port doesn't bleed players. You can say "ah that was a one off event for reason X" and "that was a one off event for reason Y" but you're kidding yourself. Its a trend. When you have a trend the final trigger of each individual event becomes less meaningful. Its the underlying root cause of the trend that is the problem.

Its a cultural issue. We accept mediocrity. Success is not as important to key personnel as looking after old mates at the club and we are reminded of this almost every Thursday night. We would rather be comfortable than cut throat. The club is a gravy train for under-performers. Honestly look at the contracts we hand out to blokes other clubs would delist without a second thought. Look at all the old favourites Geelong has unceremoniously moved on (including to us) in order to remain competitive and make space for the next generation. Is our head of football anywhere near that ruthless in his pursuit of success? Unfathomable that he would've let Thommo go to Richmond or North or GWS while legarms could still walk unaided.

And who has been steering the football department throughout that trend of losing gun players over half a dozen years? Think about it seriously. Remember when Tippet left Dangerfield got frantic about us going nowhere. He was even in the press saying he is constantly talking to Noble trying to find out the direction of the club. How long do you think it took? How many conversations with Noble before he realised and made the decision?

Ohhhhh, I like this and I like it a lot. Is it just me that is being asked whether I 'actually want to like this post' on here or not?

 

[1970crow]

What annoys me the most is the week we decide to rest Matt Crouch is the one week in three that our SANFL side actually has a game. Yes he wasn't great against Geelong (was reasonable against WB) but Thompson and Douglas were even worse and we backed them in another week in the hope they'd find form. If he truly was worth dropping, why didn't he play SANFL last week and take this week as an opportunity to rest up?

Lyons was pretty good against GC, but why is it all of a sudden him vs M. Crouch for a spot in the side? We played our best football with both in the side.

Why the change?

VB was shuffled in, we won, so VB can't be shuffled out.

 

[1970crow]

He didn't really say that did he

Said it last week. It didn't bother me too much because I thought it was saying he was backing Dougie in. But when it turned out to be as much about giving VB a chance I immediately remembered this bloke started his coaching career under Neil Craig. Looking like he's a perfect fit for same old same old. Hope not.

 

[Cap]

Debuted McGovern as well.

As said, I don't think it's Pyke this, as Walsh had the same issues. It has to fall on the heads on the advisers here, that's where it's rotting.

This isn't Pykes squad ( nor was it Walshs').

He can only pick what he has.

Picking McGovern and keeping him in has been imo a pretty big call.

We have to get through to the end of the year and see what we delist and what we bring in.

In 2 years time we are going to have a better view of Pykes vision for the team I guess.

 

[1970crow]

Matt Crouch didn't play last week because he was hurt. Pretty sure if he was 100% healthy he would be in the 22.

And yet he's an emergency. Last week we had 2 mids out, 1 dropped and 1 rested. They were replaced by Lyons and VB which necessitated a shuffle. Prior to selection I posted that they wouldn't reverse the shuffle and have VB make way for the returning sore player. It's not hard to predict what our selection panel will do, but just because they're easy to predict, doesn't make them right.

M Crouch is right to go, but they've chosen the shuffle and VB ahead of him. The shuffle did get Rat and CC around the stoppages a bit which I liked, but only a moron would argue that you can read anything into beating GC at the moment. Based on recent results we were about 3 goals off the pace.

 

[hey shorty]

Said it last week. It didn't bother me too much because I thought it was saying he was backing Dougie in. But when it turned out to be as much about giving VB a chance I immediately remembered this bloke started his coaching career under Neil Craig. Looking like he's a perfect fit for same old same old. Hope not.

You are like a dog with a bone. Seriously he had 2 years under Craig and you talk as if he's learnt EVERYTHING off of him.

Give it a rest.

 

[1970crow]

I agree it does not necessarily need to be synonymous but then again VB appeared only after the club lost 2 in a row and 3 of 4. It is not bad for the coaching staff to demand consistent output by players. Bottom line, changes were made because of performances.

If the team gets destroyed Saturday night--they won't be dropping the Betts and Walkers, it will be the VB's that go.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. Had no issue when VB was dropped after round 1 and said back then it would be the last you ever see or hear of him if the kids played consistently decent (not even good or great). That is what is so funny to me--team loses 3 of 4 changes are made and the screaming begins.

Wonder if VB had stayed up...and the team had same record if swapping him out with a SANFL player in form would have met such resistance.

VB didn't get in due to performances, do you take any notice at all? Laird was injured and replaced by Hendo. B Crouch was dropped and replaced by Lyons. M Crouch was rested and instead of replacing him with another mid like CEY or Wigg for a certain thrashing, they shuffled to get an old favourite in. It's just more of the same that we've seen over and over and over. They'll try and hold VB to the Saints game where he can be ok against an awful side again. Us getting smoked tomorrow will pave the way because it won't have been any one player at fault and they'll back in the guys who got the job done against the Suns.

 

[1970crow]

To your first point---I do not have an issue with not rewarding players for poor performances that result in the club losing 3 out of 4 games. The standards you expect from players young or old also form the backbone of a winning culture. Anyone honestly think VB, etc.. are up in the 22 if we had won 3 out of those 4?

If the Crows get pumped as some seem to believe is a near certainty this weekend, VB should not be rewarded for poor play if indeed he plays poorly.

I have zero problem with that.

To your second point---more than one poster has suggested we are primed for an apparent 50 plus point loss this Saturday. Why? Because VB is playing? Certainly no one appears to want to place the blame for that kind of loss on the Betts and Walkers and Jenkins of the world. Why? Our elite players are immune to blame?

Those kinds of posts speak for themselves---I was just calling a spade a spade. I understand you disagree.

We were primed for the loss prior to selection. Not because of VB but because their midfield will destroy in transition. We'll go close to 50:50 at the stoppages, but get smoked everywhere else. The angst about VB is that he doesn't improve us know and he's got no future. Plus with SANFL bye, Wigg not playing last week, it's inlijely that any of the guys with a future will be genuinely considered next week. It's shit management.

 

[hey shorty]

We were primed for the loss prior to selection. Not because of VB but because their midfield will destroy in transition. We'll go close to 50:50 at the stoppages, but get smoked everywhere else. The angst about VB is that he doesn't improve us know and he's got no future. Plus with SANFL bye, Wigg not playing last week, it's inlijely that any of the guys with a future will be genuinely considered next week. It's shit management.

Im not sure about that last bit. Alot of clubs, including ours, seem to place way too much importance on training form. If we do get smoked and I'm not sure we will, there will be changes.

 

[1970crow]

You are like a dog with a bone. Seriously he had 2 years under Craig and you talk as if he's learnt EVERYTHING off of him.

Give it a rest.

2 of how many years coaching in total?

 

[1970crow]

You are like a dog with a bone. Seriously he had 2 years under Craig and you talk as if he's learnt EVERYTHING off of him.

Give it a rest.

I wasn't concerned at all until he made that comment. It was only then that I thought about his coaching journey and the fact he is very inexperienced and what experience he has at the highest level was half under Neil Craig. I'm hoping he isn't a coach that favours old plodders for past deeds. But it's what he said and it's being borne out at selection.

What I really hope is that he was just expressing the sentiment of the selection committee and he will be the agent of change. But all I've done is post simple facts that are irrefutable in the context of the original post. What's your problem with that, not enough wainbows and wowiepops for your tastes?

 

[Cockwomble]

Does anyone know how the team selection committee works, does everyone get a vote? are some votes louder than others? could the coach get out numbered?
The Brad dropping smells of something other than on field related. .
Not sure why Wigg didn't come in for Rory as he is like for like, can offer defensive midfield support. So many questions. .

 

[Southerntakeover]

Thanks. His biceps are his only reedeming quality and we know you salivate at the sight of them.

The intended insult being of course that because you don't agree with my opinion I'm a homosexual and people should think poorly of me for such.

Why do you think this particular brand of archaic homophobia is:

a) Socially acceptable; and

b) an effective insult in the slightest?

 

[Southerntakeover]

Not shocked that VB is still in the side, I called it last Thursday. I honestly believe that VB was brought in specifically for the GC game because the club thought it would be an easy way to slide him back into the team. On the back of an easy victory it will give him a 3 or 4 week window in the hope that he can cement a spot back in the side.

To be completely honest, our selections over the last few weeks have not sat right with me at all. Far too conservative, no creativity or foresight at all and is giving us nothing to suggest that the club is building toward future success.

What happened to Phil's mantra of building and developing the list towards a future premiership ? We debuted five players last year and invested significant time into CEY and we went on to make the finals and won our first final in Melbourne in 13 years. This year so far we have only debuted Milera and McGovern (thanks Golumless) and have ignored perfect opportunities to debut players such as Wigg and the club appears to have fallen back into the trap of relying on guys like VB and Henderson who have been below AFL standard for a number of years.

People might think I am being too negative, but over the last few weeks I am beginning to have some concerns about Pyke's ability to manage and develop our list. Yes it's early days, but if he thinks that Hendo and VB are the answer then he's asking the wrong questions.

Phil of course did play van Berlo for the bulk of games that he coached us (if not all of them).

 

[Ramify]

I trust your evaluation of SANFL games--the next time I watch one will be the first. I also agree it is a balancing act. But again, we had dropped 3 of 4 when bigger changes were made. I simply do not consider that to be unreasonable or symptomatic of a selection process gone awry.

The short term pain/long term gain presupposes that Crouch, etc..will all be very good and/or elite players in the future. I simply think this team is good enough to win 15 plus games this year. When that is the situation I am not in favor of short term pain. I understand everyone has their own opinion but I am always, always, about winning today.

Tomorrow is tomorrow to me when you have a team capable of beating every team in the league and yes I believe the Crows have the talent to beat every single team.

Are you are assuming that dropping certain guys for younger less experienced guys is going to cause us certain pain? I think the general school of thought is that these younger, less experienced players could at the very least match the output of the guys we are selecting.

 

[hey shorty]

I wasn't concerned at all until he made that comment. It was only then that I thought about his coaching journey and the fact he is very inexperienced and what experience he has at the highest level was half under Neil Craig. I'm hoping he isn't a coach that favours old plodders for past deeds. But it's what he said and it's being borne out at selection.

What I really hope is that he was just expressing the sentiment of the selection committee and he will be the agent of change. But all I've done is post simple facts that are irrefutable in the context of the original post. What's your problem with that, not enough wainbows and wowiepops for your tastes?

No what you've done is draw an incredibly long bow that doesn't need to be drawn.

There is an obvious issue with selection, most of us can see that but it wouldn't be solely down to Don.

 

[Swooping Crow]

One thing that stands out as a little contradiction on this board is the critique of the selection of Henderson. The board constantly says that the old heads around Pyke are clouding his vision when it comes to selection; well why should he listen to them when they say Henderson is no good? Perhaps Pyke didn't want to take their word for it and wanted to judge him with his own two eyes and he will eventually make a judgement based on that?

I may be wrong, but is that not at least possible and exactly what we've asked for? That Pyke make up his own mind.

How hard is it to make to a judgment on Hendo? He can't tackle, his defensive pressure is non-existent, and rarely do I see his run and kicking hurt an opposition.

He's not AFL standard. He may rack up 20 odd disposals but what impact does this have on the game? He's fine in the SANFL, but he offers nothing in the AFL and is a reflection of the club's conservative mediocrity.

Watch him closely against GWS when the pressure is on. Comedy show.

 

[AmericanCrow]

Are you are assuming that dropping certain guys for younger less experienced guys is going to cause us certain pain? I think the general school of thought is that these younger, less experienced players could at the very least match the output of the guys we are selecting.

I am assuming that when the team drops 3 out of 4 changes happen. I am assuming the coaching staff and selectors try to win the game ahead of them. I am assuming they also break down the film in detail, that they are privy to the assignments of each and every player, and that they have a game plan for the upcoming opponent.

So yes, sometimes that means young players will be dropped in favor of older players because they think that gives the team the best chance to win that next game.

I also believe that it works in reverse and that younger players are brought up in favor of older players that are also underperforming/not giving the team the best chance to win in the eyes of the selectors and coaching staff.

The nature of this list is always fluid...and always will be.

 

[Barneythecrab]

I am feeling somewhat conflicted tonight. As the instigator of the "Play the Kids" Campaign in 2012 and led the charge against the Snivelling Sycophant, I should be ranting and raving with the best of them. Unfortunately I represent 50% of the posters who predicted a Crouchless weekend.

I believe that The DON's selections are quite predictable and logical.
1) When Laird was injured the next best medium/small defender in the SANFL was Henderson (the other candidates were either injured (Shaw, Kelly, Hampton) or were playing in another position (Wigg, Grigg)
2) The DON discovered that Hendo was NaBA (he should have taken the word of BigFooty experts) so he moved him onto the wing and brought in the next in line = NvB.Next week order will be restored when Lairdy returns.
3) We can only afford to have 2 slowish inside midfielders (once again The DON should have consulted BigFooty). That means picking 2 from Thommo, Matty Crouch, Lyons, CEY and Grigg. Lyons was given more minutes in the midfield last week and performed well so it meant Matty or Thommo. After an 8 day break, an improved game against the Sunlites and a bit of sun and surf Thommo got the nod (but his spot next week will depend on a good performance on Saturday night).
4) Since Sloaney is a lock, the last inside mid spot was between Dougie and Brad. Dougie wins by a short half hair.

I am not willing to bet my house on a win this week (it is yet another 50/50 game) but if we win I am confident we will finish in the top four.

Saturday night will be a fight to the death between the MOB and the Snivelling Sycophants, probably almost as exciting as the game.

Great post.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Lever already flagged Cheney sitting on SJ

This could give us a good indication as to whether Cheney is worth persisting with. Did a good job on danger, but can he perform on the tricky Stevie j?

 

[1970crow]

Im not sure about that last bit. Alot of clubs, including ours, seem to place way too much importance on training form. If we do get smoked and I'm not sure we will, there will be changes.

Won't be easy, the 3 emergencies feature a guy who couldn't play last week in the 1's due to match conditioning that wasn't able to force his way in and will now have a week off. Another who will have had 2 weeks off and the other one game back from a few weeks off and off another week without a game. The travelling emergency from last week will be 3 weeks without a game. Laird, if he does come straight in, which is not certain at our club, will be a bit underdone, so we're unlikely to risk any more that may also be. Plus, it will be St Kilda, so an ideal opportunity for any favourites who embarrassed themselves to beat up on shit opposition again or be neither here nor there again.

 

[1970crow]

Does anyone know how the team selection committee works, does everyone get a vote? are some votes louder than others? could the coach get out numbered?
The Brad dropping smells of something other than on field related. .
Not sure why Wigg didn't come in for Rory as he is like for like, can offer defensive midfield support. So many questions. .

What's strange is that when Laird went down for minimum 3 weeks they continued to play Wigg in the midfield where right now there are 2 Crouch's ahead of him and CEY about equal with Grigg probably not vastly different. If Brown didn't come up and Kelly had a shocker last week we'd be staring at VB and Hendo as our 2 dedicated small defenders. I like Hendo on a wing and out in space, even in traffic in the midfield, but a genuine defender he is not. It belies belief that we wouldn't play Wigg in defense for a game or 3.

 

[1970crow]

No what you've done is draw an incredibly long bow that doesn't need to be drawn.

There is an obvious issue with selection, most of us can see that but it wouldn't be solely down to Don.

So you don't think that coaches are influenced by those that they've worked under. That contradicts most people's thoughts on the matter when looking at who they want. I'm well aware that he's walked into our existing culture and as I said, I hope he's an agent of change. But it's hope and only hope. Considering what he said last week I have reason to be concerned. That he's spent half his AFL coaching career under Craig does nothing to allay that concern. But yes, we saw Campo, Clarke and Noble reach for comfort in VB and Mackay last year when finals came and they are still a big part of our footy dept.

 

[FullyBigKPro]

The frustrating point for me is that this reeks of the old typical Adelaide model... Beat up on soft teams, paper over glaring deficiencies, let average players like VB/Hendo et al look good and then BAM.

Reality check.

Happy to be proved wrong but we have all seen this before.

 

[Paladin]

This could give us a good indication as to whether Cheney is worth persisting with. Did a good job on danger, but can he perform on the tricky Stevie j?

Agree in my eyes career defining game for Cheney.

In the coach's eyes he could be locked in for as far as the eye can see but i doubt it.