Preview Round 1 team

[candiehappy]

Every game we have lost since 2004 can be attributed to Josh Hunt.. I can't believe he still gets a game.

and I thought that it was all Mench's fault?

I really like having J Hunt in the backline. He has faults and oddes, but fair go. He is a solid performer who plays his role, and generally very well

 

[vinum coupe]

Hunt had a good year in 2010 considering it was his first season back after a knee op.

 

[Partridge]

Hope you are right - if he surpasses Selwood and Bartel we will all be pleased. Agree the kid has potential and needs game time.

On the subject of Josh I really like his time around the middle in NAB round 1. With his tackling technique and 100kg body he has serious potential to do major damage. Get him to do a job on opposition MF's early on and see how they run the game out ?

He played the other night and was barely sighted. If he has a role in the team it's as a defender.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Go back and read my posts regarding Josh taking a key defensive role, something that Taylor Hunt to my knowledge has never done at all, let alone at AFL level.

Tip: Learn a bit more about the game. Individual players have jobs to do, it's not just 22 blokes running around and winner is the quickest.

Josh Hunt
-Excellent one on one defender, underrated. Takes the best opposition small forward every week and(last year) beat just about all of them.
-Best field kick in our team. Kicks out. Flat hard kicking is a great way to break the current defensive zones while our ball is in defense(every team is zoning like Collingwood).
-Strong, fast... serviceable overhead.
-150 games
-Played 24 of 25 games in 2010 post knee reco

Taylor Hunt
-Quick?
-7 games
-Unproven. Average NAB cup without 'name' players present.

Like I said earlier, have some respect for the senior players who have built this dynasty. Unless you're happy blooding youngsters and finishing out of the eight? That's exactly what will happen if we do.. I GUARANTEE IT!

No..I know this is a foreign concept to you but most of us want to blood youngsters (at least a couple who are showing they are in the best 22 anyway) because it will actually INCREASE our chances of winning. We want the best team picked based on form not names, unfortunately you do not understand that concept, as I have shown in the highlighted portions above. I'm guessing that when Otto is on a walking frame you'll still think he's a better option than Simpson because 'zomg he's played so many games and Simpson is soooo unproven...never mind that he can't get off the ground, he's so superior to Simpson, with Simpson we'll finish 12th zomg show some respect people!'.

I'm grateful for all that our champions have done for us, but everybody diminishes over time and eventually their time has to come. I know that might be hard for you to accept, but most of us are realistic enough to accept it.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I recognize the contradiction PO but I did stress that is wasn't the ideal scenario. I just think we might need to play Brown in the cage until Pods and Moons are fit again that's all. A position that Motlop can and will fill in time isn't currently as strong a moot point as FF because we have more options there for Round 1

I know what you mean but it's a virtual suicide mission. Kid showed some nice signs on Saturday night but up close you could still see how slight he is, and obviously a lot of youngsters are slight when they come in (although guys like Duncan and THunt etc are not so slight), but to play CHF, the hardest position on the ground, where you'll really cop a battering, I think is too big an ask.

If he was playing as the third or fourth tall not as much of an issue but to plonk him at CHF is a bad move this early. I wouldn't play him round 1 unless all the other options are injured, which they're not, we've still got a couple there.

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

I know what you mean but it's a virtual suicide mission. Kid showed some nice signs on Saturday night but up close you could still see how slight he is, and obviously a lot of youngsters are slight when they come in (although guys like Duncan and THunt etc are not so slight), but to play CHF, the hardest position on the ground, where you'll really cop a battering, I think is too big an ask.

If he was playing as the third or fourth tall not as much of an issue but to plonk him at CHF is a bad move this early. I wouldn't play him round 1 unless all the other options are injured, which they're not, we've still got a couple there.

We desperately need a look at Vardy to see if he is an option to boost our ailing KPF's.
Let's hope he gets on the park soon.

 

[maxy87]

I know what you mean but it's a virtual suicide mission. Kid showed some nice signs on Saturday night but up close you could still see how slight he is, and obviously a lot of youngsters are slight when they come in (although guys like Duncan and THunt etc are not so slight), but to play CHF, the hardest position on the ground, where you'll really cop a battering, I think is too big an ask.

If he was playing as the third or fourth tall not as much of an issue but to plonk him at CHF is a bad move this early. I wouldn't play him round 1 unless all the other options are injured, which they're not, we've still got a couple there.

By cage I mean the goalsquare.. Completely agree he'd be no good at CHF just yet but FF could be an option..

Vardy may be ready but hasn't been involved in any match situations as of yet so is doubtful for R1; I see Ben Johnson is named in the side for Friday so he might get a go. Otherwise there's Lonners who has played in the forward lines before

 

[PatrickBateman]

No..I know this is a foreign concept to you but most of us want to blood youngsters (at least a couple who are showing they are in the best 22 anyway) because it will actually INCREASE our chances of winning. We want the best team picked based on form not names, unfortunately you do not understand that concept, as I have shown in the highlighted portions above. I'm guessing that when Otto is on a walking frame you'll still think he's a better option than Simpson because 'zomg he's played so many games and Simpson is soooo unproven...never mind that he can't get off the ground, he's so superior to Simpson, with Simpson we'll finish 12th zomg show some respect people!'.

I'm grateful for all that our champions have done for us, but everybody diminishes over time and eventually their time has to come. I know that might be hard for you to accept, but most of us are realistic enough to accept it.

Realistic?? Pfft..

I can rebut this by REPEATING what I said earlier. On the basis that our side finished in the top 4 in 2010, every player who is FIT should be picked. I can't make it any clearer than that. That is of course based on the premise that 2011 is not a rebuilding year for the club.
If senior player form drops off at any stage while the youngsters are burning it up in the VFL, sure, give them a game. But this is the round 1 team being discussed here. Why people think Taylor Hunt should get a game over Josh Hunt or Motlop over Byrnes etc makes no sense at all. None of the youngsters showed signs that they could handle sustained AFL game time at this stage anyway(Duncan perhaps the exception).

It's a fine line when teams start to decline. Geelong will inevitably start losing, senior players will get dropped, then the youngsters will come you'll likely lose even more games. This new batch will not be the difference between us winning a flag or not in the next couple of years though, I assure you. Either the senior guys do it this year with a new structure or it's unlikely for many, many years. How's that for a dose of reality?

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Realistic?? Pfft..

I can rebut this by REPEATING what I said earlier. On the basis that our side finished in the top 4 in 2010, every player who is FIT should be picked. I can't make it any clearer than that. That is of course based on the premise that 2011 is not a rebuilding year for the club.
If senior player form drops off at any stage while the youngsters are burning it up in the VFL, sure, give them a game. But this is the round 1 team being discussed here. Why people think Taylor Hunt should get a game over Josh Hunt or Motlop over Byrnes etc makes no sense at all. None of the youngsters showed signs that they could handle sustained AFL game time at this stage anyway(Duncan perhaps the exception).

It's a fine line when teams start to decline. Geelong will inevitably start losing, senior players will get dropped, then the youngsters will come you'll likely lose even more games. This new batch will not be the difference between us winning a flag or not in the next couple of years though, I assure you. Either the senior guys do it this year with a new structure or it's unlikely for many, many years. How's that for a dose of reality?

It's a poor dose of reality. You don't say simply because we finished top 4...let'd pick the same side, this is the side, no other side can win! You can talk top four all you like, but there was a massive gap between us and the sides that played the grand final, and the games we played against them showed clearly that part of that gap was poor team selection on our part. Now yes, a game plan change may help, and a pre season may have freshened up certain people's bodies, but if you actually think we selected the right side then, and we should keep selecting it now, then no, you don't understand much reality. I'd suggest you watch the tapes of some of our finals games and then hopefully that reality will become clear to you.

I will agree that young players need to show some form before they push senior guys out, and that will take time this year and they need to prove it, but you have to have an open mind. If I'm a young player and I read your bolded point, frankly I'd barely bother pushing myself. It's clear you have the Thompson mindset that kids are replacements for the here and there games, and even then won't have a sustained impact. It's ridiculous to say none of the youngsters showed they could handle sustained AFL game time when they were never given the sustained game time to prove you right or wrong, it's an inherent contradiction. What you actually have to do is accept that you must pick the fittest side in the best form (taking into consideration structural needs an opposition) and you have an open mind as to who that includes. Unfortunately you do not have said open mind as your post indicates. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion fair enough, but I hope to goodness our coach doesn't think the same way. I don't particularly want older players out of the side, I just want the side picked on form and fitness, not based on some deluded mindset that playing for success means your older players are inherently a better option and your younger players won't make any sort of real difference/impact.

 

[vinum coupe]

On the basis that our side finished in the top 4 in 2010, every player who is FIT should be picked.

 

[PatrickBateman]

there was a massive gap between us and the sides that played the grand final, and the games we played against them showed clearly that part of that gap was poor team selection on our part.

Disagree here. I'd like to hear specifically how the club could have performed marginally better with the same structure and different players, well? Our club was so hell bent on one style that it had a HUGE effect on our ability to overcome the opposition... No plan B, no hope sums us up in 2010.

Now yes, a game plan change may help, and a pre season may have freshened up certain people's bodies, but if you actually think we selected the right side then, and we should keep selecting it now, then no, you don't understand much reality. I'd suggest you watch the tapes of some of our finals games and then hopefully that reality will become clear to you.

So what? Explain to me how these young player(most < 10 games) are going to make a difference against Collingwood and StKilda? i can tell you that the senior players with a new structure is a far better proposition.

What you actually have to do is accept that you must pick the fittest side in the best form (taking into consideration structural needs an opposition) and you have an open mind as to who that includes. Unfortunately you do not have said open mind as your post indicates.

Form, what form? What part of ROUND 1 do you not understand for Christ sake? Talk about a contradiction... the youngsters didn't perform well in the NAB cup and finished 12th in the VFL!! The senior players made top 4 in 2010. By your own definition I'm right.

I just want the side picked on form and fitness, not based on some deluded mindset that playing for success means your older players are inherently a better option and your younger players won't make any sort of real difference/impact.

Exactly, and if the seniors are fit... T.Hunt, Motlop etc, don't get a game because none have shown form at any stage to push the seniors out. I think you're actually starting to understand, good work Einstein.

 

[PatrickBateman]

You know you're right vinum coupe... We should play Mackie(dropped for finals in 2010 and garbage all year) and a bunch of underweight youngsters against the Saints for round 1. I'm delirious?

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Disagree here. I'd like to hear specifically how the club could have performed marginally better with the same structure and different players, well? Our club was so hell bent on one style that it had a HUGE effect on our ability to overcome the opposition... No plan B, no hope sums us up in 2010.

The structure was wrong, re overuse of the footy, particularly at the back, we know that. But to answer your bolded, we could have done better by removing the players who were not fit, replacing them with ones who were, and paying some attention to form too. None of which we did. The only thing we did right as regards that finals team was omitting Mackie, but even that was about 10 weeks too late.

So what? Explain to me how these young player(most < 10 games) are going to make a difference against Collingwood and StKilda? i can tell you that the senior players with a new structure is a far better proposition.

You can only tell me that because you've predetermined that is so. Plenty of players can make a difference if given an opportunity, youth isn't an impediment to that.

What part of ROUND 1 do you not understand for Christ sake?Form, what form? Talk about a contradiction... the youngsters didn't perform well in the NAB cup and finished 12th in the VFL!! The senior players made top 4 in 2010. By your own definition I'm right.

What form? You do actually realise we've been playing matches for 2 weeks don't you? Or maybe you haven't been watching them, which would explain your ignorance as to what team should be picked.

Exactly, and if the seniors are fit... T.Hunt, Motlop etc, don't get a game because none have shown form at any stage to push the seniors out. I think you're actually starting to understand, good work Einstein.

Absolute rubbish. Some have shown form last year, and the start of this year, that is more than good enough to play. I think I'll revisit this thread in about 2016 when you've eventually understood that.

 

[vinum coupe]

I'm not sure about Mackie.
When he's good he's good. When he's bad...............

I do like how he backs himself to out mark his opponent. But I am not sure Scott is going to put up with it if he spills too many.

But yes, you are delirious

 

[year of the cat]

No..I know this is a foreign concept to you but most of us want to blood youngsters (at least a couple who are showing they are in the best 22 anyway) because it will actually INCREASE our chances of winning. We want the best team picked based on form not names, unfortunately you do not understand that concept, as I have shown in the highlighted portions above. I'm guessing that when Otto is on a walking frame you'll still think he's a better option than Simpson because 'zomg he's played so many games and Simpson is soooo unproven...never mind that he can't get off the ground, he's so superior to Simpson, with Simpson we'll finish 12th zomg show some respect people!'.

I'm grateful for all that our champions have done for us, but everybody diminishes over time and eventually their time has to come. I know that might be hard for you to accept, but most of us are realistic enough to accept it.

Couldn't agree with you more. Significant game time can be given to the likes of T.Hunt, Duncan, Menzel, Gillies, Motlop etc at different times of the year; obviously not all at one time; which will I am quite sure have a POSITIVE effect on our performance.

Our team last year come finals time looked tired, lethargic and in need of an injection of youth and enthusiasm. Thompson's blind loyalty to the older crew may not have prevented us from winning the flag but it definitely affected our performances later in the year.

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

[quote=PatrickBateman;20298959

So what? Explain to me how these young player(most < 10 games) are going to make a difference against Collingwood and StKilda? i can tell you that the senior players with a new structure is a far better proposition.


If you have your way we will never know because you don't have a plan or strategy. You argue that we should introduce youth if they are in form and the senior guys aren't. We perform poorly against the Saints and abysmally against the Pies and do you go for youth - no !! - you want to try a new game plan with the group that failed in 2010. What do you do if that fails - try another game plan?
Here's a thought , why not freshen up the team with a sensible blend of youth and experience and match this with a revised game plan , and select all players based on merit not reputation.
Are you related to General Custer or someone else who fails to see the bleeding obvious?

 

[Jobe3votes]

Geelong coach Chris Scott said last week that both Cameron Ling and James Podsiadly were doubtful starters for round one. Cameron Mooney, Paul Chapman and Joel Corey are expected to play in the final NAB Challenge game next week.

 

[maxy87]

Better not get offside with patric Bateman, he might chop ne up with an axe whilst wearing a raincoat...

Both sides of the argument have merit though I'm leaning toward PO on this one...

Agree PO structurally our defence was a shambles last year. Overuse if the ball is an understatement and enough of these silly little 1-2 handballs. It's almost as if they have a quota and need to reach it per game in order to get their match payment..
If the circumstances require it, use your highly skilled handball game. But if the opposition are actively trying to suffocate this part of the gameplan (and succeeding) then put it away and use foot and carry. Too many players sold their team mates into trouble at times last year handballing aimlessly

 

[Partridge]

Disagree here. I'd like to hear specifically how the club could have performed marginally better with the same structure and different players, well? Our club was so hell bent on one style that it had a HUGE effect on our ability to overcome the opposition... No plan B, no hope sums us up in 2010.

Happy to oblige.

1. Replace Lonergan with Taylor Hunt. That immediately makes our backline less top heavy, and adds speed. Seemingly everyone has forgotten Hunt and Wojo looked pretty useful together in Round 20 against the Dogs. The 100 point winning margin may have hinted at that also.

2. Drop one of Mooney or Hawkins, and replace them with a proper ruckman. Let's say Dawson Simpson. Now we've got 2 ruckmen and 2 key forwards, instead of 1 and 3.

3. Drop Stokes for Mitch Duncan. Duncan has good skills, excellent composure, works hard, and looks to be improving rapidly. Stokes always underperforms against quality opposition, and has appalling defensive skills, which is simply not acceptable in the modern game.

That's only 3 changes, but it rectifies imbalances in the forward line, ruck, and backline, and made the side younger and faster. I would back that side to get a lot closer to the one from the Prelim Final.

 

[PatrickBateman]

The structure was wrong, re overuse of the footy, particularly at the back, we know that. But to answer your bolded, we could have done better by removing the players who were not fit, replacing them with ones who were, and paying some attention to form too. None of which we did. The only thing we did right as regards that finals team was omitting Mackie, but even that was about 10 weeks too late.

This is where will have to agree to disagree I'm afraid. Our structure and inability to adapt to change cost us ultimately in 2010. Our list of players is still as good as any(or was with Ablett). Collingwood is living proof how a working team structure is ultimately successful in AFL football. On paper I'd challenge anyone to say they were as good as Geelong or StKilda in 2010.

You can only tell me that because you've predetermined that is so. Plenty of players can make a difference if given an opportunity, youth isn't an impediment to that.

Agree with you here... although not at the expense of fit/performing senior players purely for the purpose of 'blooding'.

What form? You do actually realise we've been playing matches for 2 weeks don't you? Or maybe you haven't been watching them, which would explain your ignorance as to what team should be picked.

By saying "what form?", I meant an absence of form. Apologies. Most of our young players have not shown prolonged dominant spells in the AFL or VFL.

Absolute rubbish. Some have shown form last year, and the start of this year, that is more than good enough to play. I think I'll revisit this thread in about 2016 when you've eventually understood that.

Good enough to play you say? So what? That isn't good enough I'm afraid. Are we contenders this year or not? If players aren't showing spells of dominance in the VFL then they are hardly useful at AFL level at the expense of a senior. I'm still going to maintain that our best chance of winning in 2011 is when our senior players(who have done it twice) are fit and on the field. Their adoption of a new structure will decide our fate in 2011, not the youngsters.

 

[Cataholic]

This is where will have to agree to disagree I'm afraid. Our structure and inability to adapt to change cost us ultimately in 2010. Our list of players is still as good as any(or was with Ablett). Collingwood is living proof how a working team structure is ultimately successful in AFL football. On paper I'd challenge anyone to say they were as good as Geelong or StKilda in 2010.

You will recall though that Collingwood made some hard calls on a few of their senior players (ie Lockyer,Fraser etc) early on in the year and dared to play some youngsters in their place. The rest is history.

And yes, Collingwood were better than Geelong and St Kilda because they won the premiership. That's the only measure of success.


Agree with you here... although not at the expense of fit/performing senior players purely for the purpose of 'blooding'.

Performing is the key word here. A senior player can maintain fitness, while his athletic ability fades. Much like a fast bowler in cricket who can be as fit as the next person, but his pace slowly and surely drops away.

By saying "what form?", I meant an absence of form. Apologies. Most of our young players have not shown prolonged dominant spells in the AFL or VFL.

Maybe not, but with some of our stars fading players like Simpson, Hunt and Duncan have shown enough in recent times to suggest they can at least equal the contribution of some of their peers at senior level. In that instance, they must play, as they are the future of our club and the sooner we blood them the better.


Good enough to play you say? So what? That isn't good enough I'm afraid. Are we contenders this year or not? If players aren't showing spells of dominance in the VFL then they are hardly useful at AFL level at the expense of a senior. I'm still going to maintain that our best chance of winning in 2011 is when our senior players(who have done it twice) are fit and on the field. Their adoption of a new structure will decide our fate in 2011, not the youngsters.

Again, fitness must be matched by performance. Every selected player must be able to match the intensity and pace of the opposition for the entire game. If a player is unable to do so, no matter how fit he is, he simply must be replaced.

If we are to be successful this year and beyond the club must carefully start blending the experience of the playing group with the enthusiasm and daring of youth.

 

[you pick one]

You sure Jolly didn't come in for Fraser and some one had to go for that other kid Ball.

 

[you pick one]

I hear what you're saying, but do you think Ling was a wise choice for the captaincy, given the game has started to pass him by?

The only way he's in the starting 22 now is if they re-invent him as a forward, and if he proves capable and better in that position than someone else.

Don't get me wrong - as a person and past player I believe Ling makes an excellent captain, but I also think the captain simply has to be in the best 22, and right now I'm not convinced he is any more.

Umm joining date December 2009 are you Kane Tenace

 

[g-thing]

I know it's all hypothetical and everyone is wanting to discuss options... but isn't there 3 weeks until round 1 .. so who knows who will be available then..

but just a few quick observations from last week..

impressed by motlop at times ...also Simpkin ..and Duncan mostly except for a couple of clangers.. and even Simpson

a bit disappointed in T Hunt and Menzel .. I'd expect they'll find their feet

I think the criticism of Hawkins is a bit much and I thought he showed some good signs

Selwood slick and Byrnes professional ..

over and out

 

[meto]

Because of our weakness in the big man dept, Hawkins will have to make do with Josh Walker this weekend.
Probably not a bad thing for young Josh, throw him in the deepend, but gee it sure underlines our want of power forwards and tall defenders.
At least Tomahawk won't be left on his own as happened last week against the monster Saints defence, playing a ruck up forward is to throw a bandaid at the problem, its no answer, we need to find some big guys not just skinny kids like Mitch Brown.
I hope Mitch develops futher this year.

As for Round 1.
Taylor Hunt could never replace the likes of Mackie, he's almost a head shorter than him to start, I thought Mackie got alot of the ball last week, and his ariel work is vital to our defence, especially with no Taylor.
I'd like to use him as a marking forward while we try to find a big key player for the future, cause Mitch Brown isn't advanced enough for the job, unfortunately.