Autopsy Round 1 v Richmond - Blues go down by 43

[Cutz]

Would be difficult to make a worse offer than they did last year.

How insulting was their form last year..He plays for Carlton, & hes contracted..Why would you hold a press conference announcing Bryce Gibbs wants to come to Adelaide WITHOUT speaking to Carlton first. They tried to treat us with absolute contempt.

Enter SOS..Gave them a week to come up with something. Something .....

FAILED. They took the heat for it within their own state and rightly so..

Sorry If Ive carried on about this ..But it pissed me off at the time..and showed me how others in the AFL world may perceive us.

 

[MC_Doggy_Frog18]

Doc's and Simmo's Supercoach scores were pretty good which is weird considering they butched the ball.

 

[thylacine60]

I actually want him as a midfielder who supports the defence, maybe sending him deep if we really need speed to help corral some counter-attacking threats from the opposition.

I think his work around the stoppage, and taking the footy from wing to F50 is underrated. He blazes the odd kick trying to make 50 metre passes and 60 m shots at goal, but when he looks for the mid-range pass he regularly hits them. Also uses it very well by hand and doesn't seem to lose sight of the football in traffic.

If he was 6'3", you'd stick him in at the stoppage all day and not bat an eyelid. He should be supporting SPS & Murphy so that we've always got one of them managing defensive coverage.


Check out the downhill skiers for Richmond in the final quarter...


3 contested marks, two goals, and I'm guessing a whole host of pressure acts and a decent amount of hitouts to advantage, because his stats are otherwise shitful.

On the relative simple CD stats sheet on the AFL site, you'd think Kreuzer played the better game by a country mile, and that's how I saw it with my eyes as well.


We had 5 tall defenders (you can wax lyrical about height ranges, but Marchbank, White and Plowman don't play on quicker types), I was keener on dropping the number down to 3. That's pretty simple, as is my post in terms of language (if not length), which was covering about 25 pages of posts where people were talking about the same 5 points over the top of each other.

The problem with the volume in the match threads is that every 5 pages the discussion starts again. It's a by-product of success I suppose, but the nature of discourse has slowly sprawled out over ttime and now seems unwieldy to deal with. Is there somewhere I can go to make forum plugin suggestions to help?

cc Aphrodite The Old Dark Navy's?

gotta remember there are folk who don't haunt this place like you, me and others - reckon they might be happy to dip in and out of the long threads

 

[Aphrodite]

List Management belongs in this thread:-

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2017-list-management-discussion.1152736/page-89#post-49277614


This is the Rnd 1 Autopsy thread!

 

[Jimmae]

gotta remember there are folk who don't haunt this place like you, me and others - reckon they might be happy to dip in and out of the long threads

I agree, but after the third or fourth pass they're basically in an echo chamber while everyone saunters by.

A plugin that can collate some highlights (mod-tagged or high-like posts) on the first page might get people into the current line of discussion. It's curation, but with some of the XenForo plugins you can make it very straight forward to do so.

 

[thylacine60]

sounds complicated but I hear what you are suggesting and it would be interesting to see it functioning

 

[ESKIE]

So easy to pot the loosing team... lazy journalists

 

[Pafloyul]

Unfortunately I have to agree with these comments

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/ton...n/news-story/4441638fee807f706c6f4ef4859bba28

I really thought it would be strength on Thursday but it was as bad an effort as I have seen from us under Bolton

I'd rather we had a few less of those stop gap-players and a few more kids, tbh. Lamb, Sumner, Palmer, Silvagni, to name the most pertinent names, are all surplus to our needs. Most of the draftees we may have picked up instead probably wouldn't have made it but perhaps one would and it would have forced us to play more of our most promising youngsters. It might not change the end result of games in the short term but it helps keep the rebuild on track.

 

[thylacine60]

is there any fair dinkum proof that kids thrown to the wolves early on who suffer big losses are actually permanently damaged as players? probably hard to gauge - I reckon a young player's development might be set back - not entirely sure - thoughts?

 

[Jimmae]

I'd rather we had a few less of those stop gap-players and a few more kids, tbh. Lamb, Sumner, Palmer, Silvagni, to name the most pertinent names, are all surplus to our needs. Most of the draftees we may have picked up instead probably wouldn't have made it but perhaps one would and it would have forced us to play more of our most promising youngsters. It might not change the end result of games in the short term but it helps keep the rebuild on track.

Lamb, Palmer and Silvagni cost us nothing and are injury insurance, and additionally in the case of the former two, makeweights to get kids for a bigger discount.

If we have cap space to use, would you rather we ate up some of that to free up more draft selections, or would you rather we have less valuable picks and have to sign more DFAs and mature draft picks so we actually have fall back plans at multiple positions.

I don't agree with what they've done with our ruck stocks but, as far as I can tell, all of them are out of contract this year. Lamb and Silvagni will probably go at the end of the year, while Palmer may stay on for a season or two on shit-all salary.

If we were putting these guys on 3-year deals, I'd be ropeable, but right now they are on the fringes of the side and we showed Thursday night that we'll give the kid a go if it's a close call. Silvagni won't see a game unless Plowman, Rowe and Macreadie all go down injured.

 

[Soapy V]

is there any fair dinkum proof that kids thrown to the wolves early on who suffer big losses are actually permanently damaged as players? probably hard to gauge - I reckon a young player's development might be set back - not entirely sure - thoughts?

I can only "assume" it depends on the individual? I would expect a guy like Weitering would step up and keep fighting. Cripps would be the same, Marchbank & SPS as well.

Why I think most can is SOS has made it clear that he has focussed on "character" when selecting players. No softies or mental weakness. Guys who will work hard and do what it takes. That's why I don't agree with people calling for the to be "protected". When I see and hear people like SOJ Charlie SPS Weitering Polson Williamson Cuningham McKay talk I have no fear that they will handle whatever is thrown at them. They really are an impressive group of kids

 

[ESKIE]

is there any fair dinkum proof that kids thrown to the wolves early on who suffer big losses are actually permanently damaged as players? probably hard to gauge - I reckon a young player's development might be set back - not entirely sure - thoughts?

Reckon it depends on how it's handled internally by coaching staff, expectations etc

Worse for example Richmond last year who where tipped for top 4 and bombed out big time

Just my take on it

 

[passmark]

is there any fair dinkum proof that kids thrown to the wolves early on who suffer big losses are actually permanently damaged as players? probably hard to gauge - I reckon a young player's development might be set back - not entirely sure - thoughts?

Not sure about AFL examples. I'm sure there's a bit of gut feel about it but there's a library of books written about learned helplessness and it's effects on performance and development.

For me too many kids too early means greater floggings and less hope and poorer development.

There's not just on-field development at stake, you also get the threat of players not buying in and seeking opportunities elsewhere . This can mean you lose them or have to pay more to keep them. It can cripple your list management strategy.

Nobody wants to admit it but clubs are also a commercial enterprise. Hopelessness affects memberships, sponsorship, revenue and coverage. It cost us Friday night footy.

So, on balance, i'm comfortable with the club approaching the re-bulid in a measured and responsible manner.

We'll still see every kid worth a cracker this season.

 

[M_I_G]

Doc's and Simmo's Supercoach scores were pretty good which is weird considering they butched the ball.

simmo 5 frees for helps

 

[thylacine60]

fine response right there, pm

 

[ESKIE]

fine response right there, pm

What about mine sheesh

 

[M_I_G]

is there any fair dinkum proof that kids thrown to the wolves early on who suffer big losses are actually permanently damaged as players? probably hard to gauge - I reckon a young player's development might be set back - not entirely sure - thoughts?

zac dawson turned out ok right?

 

[thylacine60]

in my traditional manner I omit esky from all acknowledgments.......

 

[thylacine60]

zac dawson turned out ok right?

that bloke just suffered and suffered........biggest coach favourite since sheedy and kevin walsh.......

 

[ESKIE]

We'll win soon precious

 

[Deep Blue]

From the outside looking in Bolton seems to nice, needs to crack the wipe.

Not sure if the "crack the whip" style coaches are the best way to go anymore? You can be assertive, yet empathetic and inclusive. With a teenage daughter I had to change my ways recently - "cracking the whip" was just counter-productive!

I think Bolton is fine - similar to Beveridge in many ways except that Bolton comes across as more of a "corporate-speak" type spruiking a mantra, compared with Beveridge's "whacky pseudo-philosopher" persona.

We have a side that has undergone radical changes two years in a row and I'm sure we'll have one more big change at the end of this year. Yes, we now have a much younger side, but more importantly we have a side with very little combined playing experience - we're in a state of flux! The cycle is: change --> relative stability --> prosperity --> decline. The decline phase is a result of a combination of hubris and a reluctance/inability to change/adapt. Bringing in a heap of new (most young and with promise) players is good for the future but not team stability - that now has to be developed.

 

[happydude]

is there any fair dinkum proof that kids thrown to the wolves early on who suffer big losses are actually permanently damaged as players? probably hard to gauge - I reckon a young player's development might be set back - not entirely sure - thoughts?

DeLuca?

 

[RudyBlue]

is there any fair dinkum proof that kids thrown to the wolves early on who suffer big losses are actually permanently damaged as players? probably hard to gauge - I reckon a young player's development might be set back - not entirely sure - thoughts?

Probably aren't many academics willing to put time into an exhaustive study on such a matter...



David King?

 

[thylacine60]

hd, there are lots of players who failed at carlton over the past 20 years - do we know if it was because they were thrown in too soon though? plenty here might suggest a hack is a hack regardless of when he first plays

 

[thylacine60]

Probably aren't many academics willing to put time into an exhaustive study on such a matter...



David King?

if there was any chance carlton would come out of it looking worse than norf he'd be seeking funding for sure.........