Roast Vent Here

[Bicco]

It was a good point very poorly made. The coaches mostly know what they're doing. Over the years I've seen posters including myself whinge and complain about a player not getting a fair go only for that player to be delisted or traded and actually not go on to be any good. The coaches know much more than us to start with but also have the advantage of knowing the player and having witnesses every minute of every game they've played, and every training session they've done.

And, I also dispute your call about there not being enough data for anyone to make the call on Sturt. He's played a heap of games since being with us and sometimes data isn't needed, it's a gut feel from just watching those games. It's an opinion rarely made on data or stats, both rating a player good or bad. You yourself are rating him good enough to be playing more league games.

I have to respectfully disagree.
Let's start with 'the coaches know what they're doing'. We've multiple threads contesting this point. We're currently 14th on the ladder having only just beaten a team 1 spot above us on the ladder and an Eagles team that couldn't field a full side by the end of the game. We also have what we as fans and many members of the media consider to be one of the worst game plans in the competition. So I'll leave that point there.
As to playing/not playing players. Well I'm about 50/50 on this point. I can distinctly remember a whole bunch of us (@eshed being one I remember) in this forum bemoaning the continued non selection of Langdon, Weller and Blakley during our worst years under Lyon. Simply to see what they were capable of given the incumbents were performing so poorly. You can make your own decisions as to the success of their careers. Young players need to be given a decent 'run at it' to see their worth. Mick Malthouse once said that a player needs at least 3 games in a row at AFL level after being promoted from the WAFL so they can get used to the pace. Malthouse is a more successful coach than we've ever had, so I would think that to be good advice.
Next let's look at the the Sturt data. We'll he's achieved a Rising Star nomination in his 1st game, so we know he has the ability in him.
But let's look at the position he's playing, that of the medium forward. Undoubtedly one the most difficult positions on the field to 'look good' in. So what does success look like in this position? Well Charlie Cameron is probably the current poster boy for these players. His career stats? After 7 games he averaged 1.3 goals and 8.9 possessions per game. Sturt is on 1.1 goals 6.8 possessions. For Cameron's career he's at 1.7 goals and 11.6 possessions. He's statistically half a goal and 5 possessions better.
But we know statistics don't tell the whole picture. There's also the 'eye test', but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And you're correct, there are those that think he has something and the coaching staff that doesn't. But to me and others, given Sturt has received a Rising Star nomination and is statistically on par with the best in the competition in his position, added to the fact we're in dire need of success in any forward line position, this is absolutely grounds for persisting with him and giving him more games. If he can increase his output by 5 possessions and half a goal a game, he will be elite by any standards. And that is something worth persisting with. We're performing so poorly we literally and figuratively have nothing to lose.

 

[Scham]

I have to respectfully disagree.
Let's start with 'the coaches know what they're doing'. We've multiple threads contesting this point. We're currently 14th on the ladder having only just beaten a team 1 spot above us on the ladder and an Eagles team that couldn't field a full side by the end of the game. We also have what we as fans and many members of the media consider to be one of the worst game plans in the competition. So I'll leave that point there.
As to playing/not playing players. Well I'm about 50/50 on this point. I can distinctly remember a whole bunch of us (@eshed being one I remember) in this forum bemoaning the continued non selection of Langdon, Weller and Blakley during our worst years under Lyon. Simply to see what they were capable of given the incumbents were performing so poorly. You can make your own decisions as to the success of their careers. Young players need to be given a decent 'run at it' to see their worth. Mick Malthouse once said that a player needs at least 3 games in a row at AFL level after being promoted from the WAFL so they can get used to the pace. Malthouse is a more successful coach than we've ever had, so I would think that to be good advice.
Next let's look at the the Sturt data. We'll he's achieved a Rising Star nomination in his 1st game, so we know he has the ability in him.
But let's look at the position he's playing, that of the medium forward. Undoubtedly one the most difficult positions on the field to 'look good' in. So what does success look like in this position? Well Charlie Cameron is probably the current poster boy for these players. His career stats? After 7 games he averaged 1.3 goals and 8.9 possessions per game. Sturt is on 1.1 goals 6.8 possessions. For Cameron's career he's at 1.7 goals and 11.6 possessions. He's statistically half a goal and 5 possessions better.
But we know statistics don't tell the whole picture. There's also the 'eye test', but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And you're correct, there are those that think he has something and the coaching staff that doesn't. But to me and others, given Sturt has received a Rising Star nomination and is statistically on par with the best in the competition in his position, added to the fact we're in dire need of success in any forward line position, this is absolutely grounds for persisting with him and giving him more games. If he can increase his output by 5 possessions and half a goal a game, he will be elite by any standards. And that is something worth persisting with. We're performing so poorly we literally and figuratively have nothing to lose.

Haha, I was one bemoaning Langdon, Blakely and Weller not getting a run and was probably the most vocal on it, but they were 19yo. No comparison to Sturt who is much more mature and has had opportunity at AFL level to prove himself. And they were all going extremely well at Peel, again not like Sturt. Not a valid comparison nor conclusive as to who was right, us or the coaches.

The teams performance is a seperate issue. Do you know for sure that our performance this year is due totally to our coaches decision making? No.

No question or debate from me re Sturts ability. But just because he's got more ability than Banfield and Sturt or Pearce or Schultz etc, doesn't mean he should be selected every week. He has to use that ability, consistently to a higher level, every time he plays even at Peel. I think he's being developed to do that but not quite getting it.

Re Sturts position being hard to consistently be good at, do you, like others on here think that Banfield plays that same position to Sturt? Is he then not allowed the same leeway as Sturt and I don't know the answer but who's AFL career looks best, Sturt or Banfield? In any case, like I said in my post, we're favouring experience and they know Banfield will try and give them what they want and need and his development is over, whereas Sturt is still being developed for our next flag push years away.

I totally agree with the last part of your post but perhaps unlike you think the ball is in Sturts court to make it happen. Good luck to him tomorrow and for the future, I was stoked we drafted him and I desperately want him to succeed but clearly he's not doing what's expected of him from our head coach and our much lauded forward line coach.

 

[Bicco]

Haha, I was one bemoaning Langdon, Blakely and Weller not getting a run and was probably the most vocal on it, but they were 19yo. No comparison to Sturt who is much more mature and has had opportunity at AFL level to prove himself. And they were all going extremely well at Peel, again not like Sturt. Not a valid comparison nor conclusive as to who was right, us or the coaches.

The teams performance is a seperate issue. Do you know for sure that our performance this year is due totally to our coaches decision making? No.

No question or debate from me re Sturts ability. But just because he's got more ability than Banfield and Sturt or Pearce or Schultz etc, doesn't mean he should be selected every week. He has to use that ability, consistently to a higher level, every time he plays even at Peel. I think he's being developed to do that but not quite getting it.

Re Sturts position being hard to consistently be good at, do you, like others on here think that Banfield plays that same position to Sturt? Is he then not allowed the same leeway as Sturt and I don't know the answer but who's AFL career looks best, Sturt or Banfield? In any case, like I said in my post, we're favouring experience and they know Banfield will try and give them what they want and need and his development is over, whereas Sturt is still being developed for our next flag push years away.

I totally agree with the last part of your post but perhaps unlike you think the ball is in Sturts court to make it happen. Good luck to him tomorrow and for the future, I was stoked we drafted him and I desperately want him to succeed but clearly he's not doing what's expected of him from our head coach and our much lauded forward line coach.

Where I think we differ is that I'm seeing us playing some of the worst football I can remember with a completely dysfunctional forward line and think we need to take some calculated risks to change that. I'm not happy playing the incumbents just because.
I've played and coached enough sport to know that if a player has talent, you sometimes need to give them a chance to show it. I'll be honest and say it is a fault IMO of many coaches in modern AFL to have so many boxes that need ticking by players. Players are inviduals and should be treated and such. Some respond to discipline, others to praise, others confidence. Do you think Sturt has confidence right now? I would suggest not.
The club has completely stuffed up the rebuild, we're still debating our best 18 6 years in. I have very little faith in our coaches decision making.

 

[estibador]

Why sub Treacy ffs? The game was already won, it didn't need to be a tactical sub.

Never mind that there was a guy out there clearly sore with no benefit to him staying out. Never mind that we're crying out for forwards and it was the perfect opportunity for him to find some confidence with the ball living in our forward half. Never mind that it was the best our forward line has looked all year with Jackson having the opportunity to roam around freely.

No wonder Treacy snatches at his marks, he can feel the cold breath of his football mortality down his neck every time he goes near the ball. Twice in two years now he played a single game in R1 and was then promptly banished to the WAFL for weeks. No doubt he will now be dropped next week after yet again only getting one game.

Every other player (even Sturt!) gets given a run of games to find their feet, but Treacy gets treated differently. He's expected to dominate like a seasoned key forward the instant he comes in otherwise he gets the arse instantly.

How many marks did Jackson drop in his first month ffs? Did we banish him to the WAFL or give him time to find his feet and build his confidence? And look at him tonight! Treacy never gets that opportunity. I can't remember ever seeing a player's development as mismanaged as we've done to him.

 

[BeinPurplenGreen]

Sturt, Treacy and Ras are being grossly mis managed, yet Banfield just locked himself in for another uninterrupted 5 week run of games with a pathetic effort against a pathetic side that is tanking.

The fact people think this game somehow shows we are on the right track just speaks volumes for how few actually watch the development of structures, gameplan and real input to the key moment on the field.

This team selection approach is just disgusting and hurts us for the next 3 years.

 

[EastcoastDocker]

Why sub Treacy ffs? The game was already won, it didn't need to be a tactical sub.

Never mind that there was a guy out there clearly sore with no benefit to him staying out. Never mind that we're crying out for forwards and it was the perfect opportunity for him to find some confidence with the ball living in our forward half. Never mind that it was the best our forward line has looked all year with Jackson having the opportunity to roam around freely.

No wonder Treacy snatches at his marks, he can feel the cold breath of his football mortality down his neck every time he goes near the ball. Twice in two years now he played a single game in R1 and was then promptly banished to the WAFL for weeks. No doubt he will now be dropped next week after yet again only getting one game.

Every other player (even Sturt!) gets given a run of games to find their feet, but Treacy gets treated differently. He's expected to dominate like a seasoned key forward the instant he comes in otherwise he gets the arse instantly.

How many marks did Jackson drop in his first month ffs? Did we banish him to the WAFL or give him time to find his feet and build his confidence? And look at him tonight! Treacy never gets that opportunity. I can't remember ever seeing a player's development as mismanaged as we've done to him.

Treacys hands are Taberneresque. I've never seen a KPF with such terrible hands.

 

[Footskill]

Sturt, Treacy and Ras are being grossly mis managed, yet Banfield just locked himself in for another uninterrupted 5 week run of games with a pathetic effort against a pathetic side that is tanking.

The fact people think this game somehow shows we are on the right track just speaks volumes for how few actually watch the development of structures, gameplan and real input to the key moment on the field.

This team selection approach is just disgusting and hurts us for the next 3 years.

 

[BeinPurplenGreen]

I feel your frustrations with Hughes and Banfield - they're not at a suitable level to be best 22 in a top 8 team, but that's just it, we're not a top 8 team so it makes sense that they are playing as the coaches must think they're the best for their role and position. Sturt is in the same boat except he's young enough in experience that he can still be developed, whereas we all know that Banfield and Hughes are at their ceiling. That's the only explanation I can come up with on what the coaches are thinking and as I said, we need to accept that they are much, much better than us to make these calls.
The ball is once again in Sturts court, he needs to go back to Peel and make himself a best 22 player.
One thing that Banfield and Hughes are is good clubmen. They get involved in club causes, they are active in training showing determination and leadership and they're getting the absolute best out of their ability.
Not sure the same can be said for Sturt.

You are actually going to slander Sturt's role as a club person??

You would never have posted this garbage if you knew the slightest facts about what drama off field Banfield and Hughes have created in the past.

 

[BeinPurplenGreen]

Two pathetic emojis is the best you have??

Check back in in four years, I've watched Bell poison this place for five years, playing favourites with player agents and off field sponsors.

 

[Footskill]

You are actually going to slander Sturt's role as a club person??

You would never have posted this garbage if you knew the slightest facts about what drama off field Banfield and Hughes have created in the past.

Are you Sturts friend or family? Right I ask, since I get accused of this lol You seem overly invested...

Enlighten us what off field drama Banfield and Hughes have caused in the past before you slander them lol

 

[Spirit Level]

Two pathetic emojis is the best you have??

Check back in in four years, I've watched Bell poison this place for five years, playing favourites with player agents and off field sponsors.

Don't bother, you can't argue with stupid

 

[s_wd6]

Sturt, Treacy and Ras are being grossly mis managed, yet Banfield just locked himself in for another uninterrupted 5 week run of games with a pathetic effort against a pathetic side that is tanking.

The fact people think this game somehow shows we are on the right track just speaks volumes for how few actually watch the development of structures, gameplan and real input to the key moment on the field.

This team selection approach is just disgusting and hurts us for the next 3 years.

Now now Banfield was quite good today. He won’t be for another 8 weeks but give him some credit.

 

[Waterhouzin]

Pinched all the red jelly babies at 3/4 time, indefensible.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Footskill]

Two pathetic emojis is the best you have??

Check back in in four years, I've watched Bell poison this place for five years, playing favourites with player agents and off field sponsors.

Yep, cause the saltiness pre game was feverish, and you still carrying on after when they both played well lol

 

[BeinPurplenGreen]

Are you Sturts friend or family? Right I ask, since I get accused of this lol You seem overly invested...

Enlighten us what off field drama Banfield and Hughes have caused in the past before you slander them lol

I've never accused you of being related to anyone, your posts just speak volumes about you.

I've been involved on this board for many many years, I've never had any relationship to any Freo player, coach, administrator, player manager, medical doctor, treating professional, "media consultant" or otherwise.

The fact you are suddenly out here with multiple posts as if a "win" against the tanking Hawks somehow vindicates your theory of the failings of STurt and Treacy says everything, Peter.

 

[Footskill]

Don't bother, you can't argue with stupid

Who you calling stupid, stupid lol not everyone has to agree with you. It's ok

 

[BeinPurplenGreen]

Yep, cause the saltiness pre game was feverish, and you still carrying on after when they both played well lol

If you think either of Banfield or Hughes "played well" after that game then I'm not the one that is delusional.

 

[Footskill]

If you think either of Banfield or Hughes "played well" after that game then I'm not the one that is delusional.

Pretty sure most of the other detractors wouldn't deny that..ok..they definitely played better than treacy

I like Treacy and I like the setup they had in 1st quarter. But it's either him or Fyfe really..

 

[G Mus]

Nice paper over the cracks patchwork game tonight

Game plan was still a hot mess, just bypassed some traffic cones that let us do what we wanted

Probably felt like one of our preseason match sims

 

[AFL Nut]

I find it strange that they subbed Treacy out. When you are trying to build confidence leave him out there. He hadn’t actually done a great deal wrong

 

[blue shark]

Why sub Treacy ffs? The game was already won, it didn't need to be a tactical sub.

Never mind that there was a guy out there clearly sore with no benefit to him staying out. Never mind that we're crying out for forwards and it was the perfect opportunity for him to find some confidence with the ball living in our forward half. Never mind that it was the best our forward line has looked all year with Jackson having the opportunity to roam around freely.

No wonder Treacy snatches at his marks, he can feel the cold breath of his football mortality down his neck every time he goes near the ball. Twice in two years now he played a single game in R1 and was then promptly banished to the WAFL for weeks. No doubt he will now be dropped next week after yet again only getting one game.

Every other player (even Sturt!) gets given a run of games to find their feet, but Treacy gets treated differently. He's expected to dominate like a seasoned key forward the instant he comes in otherwise he gets the arse instantly.

How many marks did Jackson drop in his first month ffs? Did we banish him to the WAFL or give him time to find his feet and build his confidence? And look at him tonight! Treacy never gets that opportunity. I can't remember ever seeing a player's development as mismanaged as we've done to him.

Well the coach has admitted that he should have spoken to the players that didn’t feel appreciated, so maybe it’s the same with Treacy?
Wouldn’t surprise me that he is off after this year and he is getting the cold shoulder.
How many other clubs have 4 mature players leave a club after finals?
You can blame the Rats but if the ship has been white anted?

 

[Dockeroo]

Couldnt believe Treacy was subbed out either given how sore Schultz looked.
If he’s dropped for next week I’ll spew.
Fyfe needs to come back in for sure, but as the number one inside midfielder. Put him on 60% gametime if he’s still not fully fit - he will be no different to Mundy last year or Brodie when he’s in.
We need Fyfe at the SCG, on ball roving at Darcy’s feet.

If Treacy is dropped after one game then his agent will be on the phone to Richmond and who could blame him.

 

[Yato]

Brodie and Sturt would likely have been in a winning side this week if they weren't dropped. The confidence that they could have got from this game is now a missed opportunity. At least Erasmus got a game....

 

[mightymouse75]

Brodie and Sturt would likely have been in a winning side this week if they weren't dropped. The confidence that they could have got from this game is now a missed opportunity. At least Erasmus got a game....

Leaving treacey and Sturt in is the future.
Tabs isn't and shouldn't be coming back.
1 of these lads needs to be taking over from Banfeild not being delisted at the end of the year.
They both have really high ceilings.

 

[Kapow!!!]

Treacys hands are Taberneresque. I've never seen a KPF with such terrible hands.

Um...that's exactly why he should be left in for mine. Tabs was given time to develop to the point when even he was clunking those and became the Stop-gap KPF being able to clunk contested grabs and he had/has far fewer weapons than Treacy has. We only need Treacy to be a second tall and he has a far better footy IQ and defensive output. Once he gains the confidence to clunk those at the top level he'd be very dangerous, especially combined with Amiss and Jackson with Switta, Freddy and Schulz at their feet.

Instead he gets negatively reinforced and pressure added to get it right then and there. A lot of supporters are really poor at assessing the development of key talls and Treacy is a bloke whose very draft year was broken up by COVID not allowing him a chance to develop even at U/18 level unlike the other states who had some form of U/18s that year. Treacy, more than most, needed time and patience.

For the things we've done/we're doing right with a lot of players on the list this is one we're are f***ing up in a catastrophic way.