- Thread starter
- #126
The Essendon game, the team Nicks put out on the field was clearly cooked. We simply couldnt match Essendon in intensity and it was only in the last quarter we were able to put a score on the board.
What happened? The excuse that was rolled out by the club for lack of selection opportunities to Sanfl players was we were gunning for finals and the lack of injuries to force changes.
Opportunities were there though. We simply chose to play in the comfort zone of the selecting the players every week.
Worrell who consistently has been one of our better defenders since he came into the side was a forced selection in rounds 11 and 13. Had an opportunity in round 11 against a top 4 team with which we won and with which he played well but was immediately ommitted for Hinge and Smith for the GC game. The same game we lost badly. From round 13 until Round 17 we simply spent the time rotating between Schoenberg, Sholl and McHenry as sub regardless of the teams performance.
It wasn't until the loss against Essendon that it dawned on the selection committee the side was cooked and we brought in fresh players. Soligo and Michalanney were managed, McHenry was dropped, Sholl was dropped and we've seen the side become revitalised and more energetic as Nankervis, Cook, Borlase, McAdam, Schoenberg, Keane etc. entered the side. Not to mention Crouch who was a proven ball winner who was unfairly pigeon holed as the face of the slow midfield. When in fact it can be argued Sloane should have been the face all along.
So the question is, what were the KPI indicators? Surely there were indicators. A side simply doesnt become cooked over night. Its a slow process. The blind freddy obvious cooked part happens right at the end when the signs have been ignored.
Either Nicks outright ignored the data and advice from Burgess, or Burgess was not managing the players workload based on the data he collects. Results wall paper over the cracks; the thumping's of WCE and Nth Melbourne (we were not once convincing in that match either, only class and experience were the difference) and the honourable loss to Collingwood provided pretty decent wallpaper. Not to mention the 50/50 win loss ratio and beating teams like St Kilda, Brisbane and Port.
From all appearances, Nicks was simply letting results dictate selection rather then KPI data and individual player performance.
The obvious conclusion I can make is..
The squad is clearly good enough including the players in the Sanfl and I believe our selection policies and neglect and mismanagement of the Sanfl players and best 22 players have clearly cost us an easy finals birth.
My earlier assessments were based on where our squad sits based on the GWS game and how mediocre we looked. But clearly, I believe this squad probably should be sitting top 5 now pushing top 4.
But you know, Nicks was saddled with teenagers and inexperience and never had the cattle.
Clearly we have the Cattle and Nicks ****ed up.
What happened? The excuse that was rolled out by the club for lack of selection opportunities to Sanfl players was we were gunning for finals and the lack of injuries to force changes.
Opportunities were there though. We simply chose to play in the comfort zone of the selecting the players every week.
Worrell who consistently has been one of our better defenders since he came into the side was a forced selection in rounds 11 and 13. Had an opportunity in round 11 against a top 4 team with which we won and with which he played well but was immediately ommitted for Hinge and Smith for the GC game. The same game we lost badly. From round 13 until Round 17 we simply spent the time rotating between Schoenberg, Sholl and McHenry as sub regardless of the teams performance.
It wasn't until the loss against Essendon that it dawned on the selection committee the side was cooked and we brought in fresh players. Soligo and Michalanney were managed, McHenry was dropped, Sholl was dropped and we've seen the side become revitalised and more energetic as Nankervis, Cook, Borlase, McAdam, Schoenberg, Keane etc. entered the side. Not to mention Crouch who was a proven ball winner who was unfairly pigeon holed as the face of the slow midfield. When in fact it can be argued Sloane should have been the face all along.
So the question is, what were the KPI indicators? Surely there were indicators. A side simply doesnt become cooked over night. Its a slow process. The blind freddy obvious cooked part happens right at the end when the signs have been ignored.
Either Nicks outright ignored the data and advice from Burgess, or Burgess was not managing the players workload based on the data he collects. Results wall paper over the cracks; the thumping's of WCE and Nth Melbourne (we were not once convincing in that match either, only class and experience were the difference) and the honourable loss to Collingwood provided pretty decent wallpaper. Not to mention the 50/50 win loss ratio and beating teams like St Kilda, Brisbane and Port.
From all appearances, Nicks was simply letting results dictate selection rather then KPI data and individual player performance.
The obvious conclusion I can make is..
The squad is clearly good enough including the players in the Sanfl and I believe our selection policies and neglect and mismanagement of the Sanfl players and best 22 players have clearly cost us an easy finals birth.
My earlier assessments were based on where our squad sits based on the GWS game and how mediocre we looked. But clearly, I believe this squad probably should be sitting top 5 now pushing top 4.
But you know, Nicks was saddled with teenagers and inexperience and never had the cattle.
Clearly we have the Cattle and Nicks ****ed up.
