Preview R10: Changes v GWS

[1970crow]

You're a loon. Of course a professional footballer who wants to continue a career talks favourably of himself. The suggestion that he should do otherwise is entirely unreasonable. It's utter utter lunacy to suggest that anyone would talk down their value.

Who's mentioned wanting him to talk down his value? I just posted the exact opposite view to that. I know you're a fan and struggle to see this objectively. But there is a range between honest assessment and confidence/delusion/cockiness/wishful thinking etc. In my view VB crossed the acceptable threshold in his AA interview last night. Came across as sounding entitled to my mind.

Anyway, you're incredibly wrong. What he said on radio last night is for public consumption and his own ego only. His continuing career has nothing to do with what he says on radio but rather the frank and honest conversations he has at the club with the coaching group. Don't be such an idiot.

 

[Southerntakeover]

I don't think that someone who's spent an excessive amount of time trying to make some sort of negative story about a complete non event can attack someone else's objectivity.

There is absolutely no problem with anything he said. Your expectations are completely nuts. It wouldn't matter what he said, or did, even the slightest reminder that the guy exists leads to you coming in here pissing bile around.

 

[Scrotes2000]

surely the coaching & selection panel have a far greater insight into what is happening behind closed doors that we do.

I think lots of people underestimate the information gap, and you combine that with strong emotions/passion and we get a fair bit of group think going on. I love hearing different ideas and arguments that are against the norm, even if I don't agree with them (yes, even Vader)

I believe there could be a difference in selection strategy between the club and the BF supporters. As fans, we want our club to win a premiership. This may require long term thinking and premature ending of players careers. On the other hand members of the selection group may be thinking of getting wins for renewal of their contract. They are also closer to the players and may well be biased towards or against certain players. We need to keep up the good work by criticising their selections where we believe it is not best.

Some good points.

Humans aren't really built for thinking long term. I'd sacrifice some years if it meant increasing our chances at a flag - I reckon lots of fans would if you explained it to them properly. We've always been around the middle mostly - not quite bad enough to write off making the finals and winning some games, and not quite good enough to be a proper threat.

Do we need to bottom out and get a quality batch of high draft picks to launch from?
Can we do something like Geelong and seemingly skip the bottoming out bit?

I think if the guys at the top are a bit more flexible and allow more room for creativity in our coaching/selections it'd be a good thing. We shouldn't have a quota of games to win each year - the only goal should be adding a flag, even if that means taking some risks and dropping some games to blood youth/fringe players.

We should invest heavily in research and development. Find out what 20-somethings want from a club and build a system, facilities and culture that will beat out the 'go home' factor - something that'll make us more attractive to coaching talent too.

 

[Vader]

It's not 50/50, that's more of your ageist rubbish that you continually get wrong. There's a pattern to his performances and your own postings of the coaches votes is showing it is repeating. I know you don't want to see it, I don't know why, it shows how Thommo is still able to be a valuable player, but also that he can't do it for 22 straight weeks, which at 33 and with the way he's deployed his body over nearly 300 games, completely unsurprising.

How about you address the method and data that I used and provide an explanation as to why you consider it be imagination or flawed, especially considering it predicted his current form slump. I'd like to hear it so it can show that this isn't just your continued blind faith in the old or desire for me to be wrong.

He was also our best player during the first month of the season, and managed properly (i.e. rested every 5-6 weeks) should be able to produce that form again in 2017.

I expect that it will be his decision, whether or not to retire. I think the club will be perfectly willing to offer him a new contract, if he wants to continue playing. The only question is whether or not the fire is still burning inside of him at the end of the year. Right now, I think he's probably leaning towards playing on.. but that could change between now and the end of the season. 50/50.

 

[Ramify]

He was also our best player during the first month of the season, and managed properly (i.e. rested every 5-6 weeks) should be able to produce that form again in 2017.

I expect that it will be his decision, whether or not to retire. I think the club will be perfectly willing to offer him a new contract, if he wants to continue playing. The only question is whether or not the fire is still burning inside of him at the end of the year. Right now, I think he's probably leaning towards playing on.. but that could change between now and the end of the season. 50/50.

Mate, you can see that, I can see that, the selection panel don't seem to be able to see it and this is why the criticism quite rightfully arises. Not only that, but the complete lack of phasing out the reliance on Thompson around stoppages is shithouse coaching and poor player management.
Again I will use the Bulldogs and Matthew Boyd as a prime example of how we should have been dealing with Thommo from last season onwards.Im quite sure Boyde could easily still rack up 35-40 posies a match, but the Bulldogs are playing it smarter than us and seem to have taken future seasons into account.
Are we simply relying on recruiting a gun midfield for next season? Or should we have contingencies in place which utilise the younger players on our list a bit better? Or are we not really that serious about having a crack in the next couple of years and just simply follow the path we always go down by running our plodders into the ground then bandaid tactics when that doesn't pan out?

 

[hendo8888]

So, of the 73 people who answered the poll, only 2 of them agree with the selectors.

 

[NTRabbit]

So, of the 73 people who answered the poll, only 2 of them agree with the selectors.

Polls reflect opinion, not right or wrong

 

[Vader]

Mate, you can see that, I can see that, the selection panel don't seem to be able to see it and this is why the criticism quite rightfully arises. Not only that, but the complete lack of phasing out the reliance on Thompson around stoppages is shithouse coaching and poor player management.
Again I will use the Bulldogs and Matthew Boyd as a prime example of how we should have been dealing with Thommo from last season onwards.Im quite sure Boyde could easily still rack up 35-40 posies a match, but the Bulldogs are playing it smarter than us and seem to have taken future seasons into account.
Are we simply relying on recruiting a gun midfield for next season? Or should we have contingencies in place which utilise the younger players on our list a bit better? Or are we not really that serious about having a crack in the next couple of years and just simply follow the path we always go down by running our plodders into the ground then bandaid tactics when that doesn't pan out?

I agree that we should not be so dependent upon an aging warhorse. It's not healthy for the future of the team.

The problem is that we don't have anyone to phase in as his replacement. Matt Crouch was doing as much as he could handle, until he was dropped due to soreness (and poor form). Lyons does as much as he can handle, when selected. There isn't anyone else on the list (don't even think about suggesting CEY).

It's a list management failure more than a selection & player management failure.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Polls reflect opinion, not right or wrong

Sure, but ignore overwhelming opinion at your peril!

 

[WaynesWorld19]

It's a list management failure more than a selection & player management failure.

Dangerfield leaving is a list management failure?

 

[Vader]

Dangerfield leaving is a list management failure?

The failure to have a plan for his replacement is.

Twelve months before the Scum left for Sydney, they went out and recruited JJ, LJ and Lynch - three tall forwards to replace the defective pond scum. That was good list management.

When Dangerfield left they recruited a bunch of outside flankers - Menzel, Seedsman and Hampton. They also picked up Gore, but he's a way off being ready. You can argue that Matt Crouch was the succession plan for Thompson. There was no succession planning for the defection of Dangerfield, and they knew that there was always a strong chance that this would happen. This was poor list management.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

The failure to have a plan for his replacement is.

Twelve months before the Scum left for Sydney, they went out and recruited JJ, LJ and Lynch - three tall forwards to replace the defective pond scum. That was good list management.

When Dangerfield left they recruited a bunch of outside flankers - Menzel, Seedsman and Hampton. They also picked up Gore, but he's a way off being ready. You can argue that Matt Crouch was the succession plan for Thompson. There was no succession planning for the defection of Dangerfield, and they knew that there was always a strong chance that this would happen. This was poor list management.

No there wasn't .....because the club genuinely felt Dangerfield would stay & that he was going to cost a chunk of TPP, which would have prevented us having a direct replacement anyway

Tippett, they always suspected he was on the move .....very different situations

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Sure, but ignore overwhelming opinion at your peril!

is that called consensus?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

is that called consensus?

Now you get the concept.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Dangerfield leaving is a list management failure?

No!

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Now you get the concept.

 

[mistylake]

You couldn't possibly believe this .....that we would ultimately lose a game to prove a point to two players ? ........did you do the same lines as deaneus ?

No I'm a failed comedian.

 

[Sanders]

We'll beat GWS next week.

4 goals the margin

go me

 

[FR0GGY]

go me

But but it wasn't 4 goals

 

[Methusellah]

Mate I was shaving twice a day at 5

Again, you sure you're not a Port supporter!?

 

[Methusellah]

You don't hear abaci often enough!!

Saying it out loud is an on the spot wedgie in my book...

 

[Sanders]

But but it wasn't 4 goals

Oh you rascal you

 

[Coopers]

Coopers where are you?

I am so sorry, I totally forgot.

 

[baldandbroke]

The failure to have a plan for his replacement is.

Twelve months before the Scum left for Sydney, they went out and recruited JJ, LJ and Lynch - three tall forwards to replace the defective pond scum. That was good list management.

When Dangerfield left they recruited a bunch of outside flankers - Menzel, Seedsman and Hampton. They also picked up Gore, but he's a way off being ready. You can argue that Matt Crouch was the succession plan for Thompson. There was no succession planning for the defection of Dangerfield, and they knew that there was always a strong chance that this would happen. This was poor list management.

Why was the plan a failure exactly?

Last night as an example against the hottest team in the comp being glorified for it's inside mids and contested game - we won:

• the centre clearances 15 to 11
• the stoppage clearances 23 to 16
• the contested possessions +10

Against Sydney, another inside clearance contested machine and top4 team, we won:

• the centre clearances 15 to 13
• the stoppage clearances 27 to 26
• the contested possessions +3

We have Hampton, Menzel and Gore working to get fitness and opportunity from last year's trade - and Milera and Seeds playing already. Add in the Crouch boys getting healthy ... How about we give the executed plan post_PD some credit ?

I said it before the season, and I'll say it again - we are better team in 2016 without Danger than we were in 2015 with him.

 

[1970crow]

I don't think that someone who's spent an excessive amount of time trying to make some sort of negative story about a complete non event can attack someone else's objectivity.

There is absolutely no problem with anything he said. Your expectations are completely nuts. It wouldn't matter what he said, or did, even the slightest reminder that the guy exists leads to you coming in here pissing bile around.

No quote? At least what you've posted above isn't completely moronic. I mean, you didn't really think that what he said on radio had any impact on his future as a player. Ha, ha, a plea to the list managers was it? Let's hope they were listening. Seriously though, at least you're not still suggesting that absurdity in defence of your man. Anyway, your personal attack aside, it's just an opinion in a discussion forum, no big deal. I thought the same when Hampton talked himself up in an interview. Just overcooked it a bit, big deal, still worth a page of discussion for those interested.