Preview R10: Changes v GWS

[Jars458]

Does feel that we're always starting from scratch. Need to see the same players flounder in another doomed finals campaign to maybe make some changes next season.

That's the rub isn't it. Players like VB and McKay have been awful in finals for years and it won't change this year. Hendo I am not so sure about as he does give us long kicking and a bit of run. Whether that makes up for his relative lack of hardness at the contest and poor disposal under pressure, I dont know. Well I probably do.

 

[Golumless]

None of this 9.18 crap that we're used to seeing from the Crows in recent seasons. Need to make the most of our opportunities on Saturday night. It'll most likely be a high scoring affair, just like the Dogs final last season. Crows to get up in a close one

Without wanting to jynx it, we have been quite accurate this season in front of the big sticks.

Of course, you're occasionally just going to have days that every player looks dumbfounded in front of the sticks, but for the most part we've been very good in this area this season.

 

[Harris Pilton]

Great post. And now that I've calmed down I can also see logic in the selection. I don't necessarily think it's a great decision for the long term. But it's probably the best we can hope for with current form/injuries.

It Laird was fit he would be in. That pushes out Henderson. If Crouch x2 were fit and in form they would also be in. That pushes out VB and the worst performing of the other mids. That gives us:

OUT: Henderson, VB, Douglas/Lyons/Thommo for a rest

IN: Crouch, Crouch, Laird.

I'd be happy with that team given our current list.

Get it done Crows. #PykeKart

Hey, what happened to the Heckle and Jeckle avatar? That picture always cracks me up.

 

[SloaneysDanger]

Can we not use big words in here like apropos I'm not that smart.

 

[JPetro83]

We choose not to play both M.Crouch and B.Crouch then rave on about wanting to gain a tough edge...

I reckon 1 of them will come in for Brown. Brown done stuff all this week on the track so I cant see him playing.

 

[SloaneysDanger]

Brows was passed fit so unless he hurts his ankle more before tomorrow he's playing.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Brows was passed fit so unless he hurts his ankle more before tomorrow he's playing.

Not necessarily

They might have taken the view that by Saturday night he's likely to have recovered sufficiently to play.

 

[hey shorty]

I reckon 1 of them will come in for Brown. Brown done stuff all this week on the track so I cant see him playing.

Our skipper barely trained for a month and still played..... sort of.

I do think we'll see a late change though.

 

[TexForPM]

To what?

What?

What is our selection apropos to?

It's very appropriate to a particular situation.

Aaaah.

Do you think it's an appropriate word?

It certainly could be. I just didn't know what you were referencing it to.

Our selection. This is our selection thread.

Yeah. The bit I didn't know was what you were saying the selection was apropos to.

thank you. I enjoyed that.

 

[SloaneysDanger]

So... much... apropos...

 

[BucketsNj]

I don't think the selection is unreasonable. If you're going to bring either of the Crouches in then who are you going to leave out?
It can't be VB or Henderson because they're defenders.
Can't be Sloane. Can't be Douglas he was in the Best Players last week.
Can't be Lyons he deserves his spot.
Dropping Thompson is tricky - there's got to be some leeway for someone approaching 300 games.
If you want to drop VB or Henderson then you've got to bring in a defender and they are the two best options.
Kelly and the Crouches are emergencies and Bob's your uncle.

 

[Golumless]

I don't think the selection is unreasonable. If you're going to bring either of the Crouches in then who are you going to leave out?
It can't be VB or Henderson because they're defenders.
Can't be Sloane. Can't be Douglas he was in the Best Players last week.
Can't be Lyons he deserves his spot.
Dropping Thompson is tricky - there's got to be some leeway for someone approaching 300 games.
If you want to drop VB or Henderson then you've got to bring in a defender and they are the two best options.
Kelly and the Crouches are emergencies and Bob's your uncle.

So, why was VB brought in for Matt Crouch then?

You also can drop a defender and select a midfielder... we did do the opposite a week ago, for some unknown reason.

Also lovely to know that we can't drop an underperforming mid who downhill skiied against a team that would struggle in the SANFL.

 

[Bicks]

It can't be VB or Henderson because they're defenders.

They are????

Many would debate that.......

 

[Pugsley]

thank you. I enjoyed that.

 

[1970crow]

VB on AA doesn't realise he got his game due to injury and nothing else. Talked about playing at half back this year and his midfield days being behind him. I think he's forgotten that he played half back a fair bit last year and was shit. Made sure he dropped in a reference to himself and Talia being the 2 leaders in defence.

 

[fabs33]

Apropos aside, here is my take on the situation;

In regards to Matt Crouch I believe the club when they say they see him as a big part of our midfield's future. I think the reason he's not back in the team yet is simply because they're trying to give him some time to recover from the effort of the first couple of months where he's faced some very strong opposition that would have had him flat out trying to keep up. We know he's not yet at the top level fitness wise and we can see the club's been trying to ease him into our midfield by carefully managing his game time so far. Contrary to the few here who continually try to downplay his talent I believe he has the potential to become a very good ball winner and so I don't want to see him burnout so early in season, and I suspect the club doesn't want to either so they've given him a couple of games to rest instead of just the one. If someone is a late withdrawal then he's still an option if need be.

On Brad I was hesitant about his early return and he didn't set the world on fire. That said the game against a weak injury ravaged Gold Coast presented us with an ideal opportunity to get him closer to match fitness whilst also giving him and his AFL level team mates some experience playing together without having a bearing on the outcome, an opportunity we missed. Further to that we are still heavily reliant on Thompson, we could have given him a rest in the lead up to a tough game against GWS and used his spot for Brad, two birds with one stone as it were. It's like we're back to Sando's "you try telling him he's not playing".

And then there is VB; he's done, we all know he's done, the club probably knows he's done too but yet here we are. We could've picked someone like Wigg, yes he's been playing midfield in the SANFL but it's not like he's a complete foreigner to defence, it hasn't even been a year since he last played in that position. We could've given him a debut game at no cost to the team's win/loss record but chose not to, why? I can only assume because the club wasn't confident on Laird returning in time to play against the Giants so they picked who they thought was better out of VB and Wigg to play against the Suns so they would have a week to practice their role with the rest of our defenders.

Overall I think our club has taken two steps forward and one step back this season when it comes to showing faith in the next generation. It's great to see guys like Atkins, McGovern and Milera being backed in by the coaches even when they have a quiet game, but we're still showing some of the old AFC when it comes to our reluctance to move away from those we have depended on for so long (see Thompson above). It's a trait I believe developed most at our club under Craig who once said something along the lines of "can you imagine what we'd look like without them" in regards to the old guard. The fear of the unknown that accompanies the young and unproven was that strong in him that if I remember correctly he even went as far as to play a debutante by the name of Otten for something like 5% of his first game because Craig thought it better to play with one player short on the bench than risk relying on a first gamer in a tight game. But with all that said I'm still hopeful that we're slowly moving away from that kind of thinking, maybe that hope is misplaced and I'm just a glutton for punishment. Either way I think it's prudent on our part to hold fire for the time being and take a look at the big picture, we're five and four, and we've had some tough opposition on our way there so it's not all bad, especially considering our expectations before the season started. So time will tell if Pyke really is the coach we hope he is, who is negotiating between implementing his own philosophies in selection and not wanting to put everyone else offside by completely throwing out the old ideas too soon, or whether he's more of the same.

Anyways, those are just my ramblings, and I'm not one to ramble a lot so this was quite rare from me.

 

[hey shorty]

Why wouldn't he be a leader ??

 

[MRB37]

 

[Scorpus]

So he doesn't know he's cooked yet does he? Which leads me to think the coaches don't think he's cooked yet either

 

[Sam_Malone]

Awesome.

 

[1970crow]

Does feel that we're always starting from scratch. Need to see the same players flounder in another doomed finals campaign to maybe make some changes next season.

Despite the upheaval we've maintained a lot of consistency over the last few years.

 

[xazos79]

He says anything else and he doesn't play again, so not really surprised he's taken that tact.

 

[1970crow]

Why wouldn't he be a leader ??

"I enjoy playing with Tails, the other leader down there". You're injury backup, you'll be embarrassed tomorrow night and most people understand we can't get you out of there quick enough. He didn't have to slip in a reference to his leadership status, why would someone do that? He was woeful in that interview. He could have referenced plugging away doing his job in the 2's and an injury to Laird and Crouch being rested giving him an opportunity. But no, he rambled on as if he'd won his spot back on merit alone.

 

[hunteyes]

I don't think the selection is unreasonable. If you're going to bring either of the Crouches in then who are you going to leave out?
It can't be VB or Henderson because they're defenders.
Can't be Sloane. Can't be Douglas he was in the Best Players last week.
Can't be Lyons he deserves his spot.
Dropping Thompson is tricky - there's got to be some leeway for someone approaching 300 games.
If you want to drop VB or Henderson then you've got to bring in a defender and they are the two best options.
Kelly and the Crouches are emergencies and Bob's your uncle.

Welcome to Bigfooty Don

 

[1970crow]

So he doesn't know he's cooked yet does he? Which leads me to think the coaches don't think he's cooked yet either

I got the feeling he thinks he can hold his spot and force another player out when Laird returns. He's got no idea, but I agree, nor does 3 of our key selectors, so he's probably right to come across cocky and full of his own ability.