Review Vs Wet Toast Half Glass full or Half Empty - Rd 7 2020

[Taylor]

I think the fact that people accept we've lost 10 in a row to that other lot is the problem.
Freo just accept mediocrity unfortunately

You're right. Not accepting it doesn't make the players fit to play. Or change past results, or future results. Maybe we can make it a club priority to beat West Coast next season. I don't mind if we lose to them every game except the grand final, as long as we win it.

Getting hung up on the past doesn't make the future better unless it carries some impetus to change.

 

[Purple_Turtle]

I think the fact that people accept we've lost 10 in a row to that other lot is the problem.
Freo just accept mediocrity unfortunately

Well, no.

The problem is our B22 is young, and filled with players we're banking on being good in a few years. 8 of the B22 are on the sidelines injured, leaving us with a significant structural issues (WCs key forwards kicking 6.4 on us because we have one developing KPD to cover them) and even more exposed on youth. And we have a new coach and gameplan that players are still trying to learn.

Combine that with a very settled opposition team that had 21 of their best 22 and is playing for a premiership this year and the result we got is probably about par. I could care less about the fact that it's against the mob up the road and there's a few more ferals on social media.

The immediate problem isn't a losing streak. It's that we're a developing side, and we need to go back to being in contention. We go back to being a top-4 side and we'll our own winning streak will follow.

 

[Greenery]

Half full:
Frustrating misses in key moments from Lobb and Taberner. They need to work on their finishing then they can become elite players.
Game plan with the tall forwards was positive to see as opposed to the past, where Mcgovern marks everything we did well in terms of getting good opportunities out of entries.
4th quarter nearly getting back into the game was pleasing to see although lack of composure/skill cost us any real chance.
Conceding from centre bounces are a real weakness, means teams can rally and kick consecutive goals to easily, hopefully it's a personnel issue with key defenders out but maybe centre tactics could change to a more conservative one to try and limit the damage from their clearances (more defensive set up, emphasis on keeping it in tight depending on game situation).

 

[tacopavlich]

Come on mate. Pearce, Hamling, Logue, Young, Conca out of the backs against one of the strongest attacks.
Hogan & Sturt out (2 of our most creative and best kicks) against a settle premiership defence.
Fyfe out of the middle/forward.
Conceding 2 years and 50 games per player on avge.
Longmuir's first season in the craziest year the competition has ever had up against a full strength recent premiership side.

I get that you are a Lyon fan and seem quite determined to lead the charge against Longmuir but fairs fair.
There has been some really good signs this year.

I think it's more the frustration of the inconsistency of this boards logic is the point. Injuries are allowed to be used as an excuse only when it's convenient lol. I think if every person was honest, concrete evidence had nothing to do with Lyon being sacked, people just wanted dramatic change because frustration needed to be vindicated. Now that frustration has been sated by axing somebody, suddenly rational explanations for a loss such as injuries and age are allowed in discourse again.

I don't really care anymore at this point but I get why others would be bemused by this and feel the need to point it out.

 

[Lach72]

No chip on my shoulder. Just sick of hearing Freo will be ok.
Didn't hear that much the last couple of seasons though.
It was sack , sack and more sack.


Depending which way you look at it getting stuffed could be a pleasant experience so thanks for the thought.

he had 4 years to get to the sack stage not 7 weeks. You blokes are off your heads

 

[tacopavlich]

he had 4 years to get to the sack stage not 7 weeks. You blokes are off your heads

3 years of a rebuild of a injury riddled side? unproven coaches get far more leeway than that.

 

[E Shed]

lot of water to go under the bridge but this side hasn't turned up their toes once yet. Lyon's teams in the second half of the last few years looked like they didn't care anymore. If you couldn't see that you weren't paying attention.
Also our style under Lyon was putrid and the players were focused on effort not skill.
We're currently a work in progress but the signs are very good so far.
Honestly if you think we should have signed up for more years of what Lyon's teams were dishing out I don't know what to tell you.
I'm enjoying the footy again, I almost gave up watching towards the end of Lyon.

 

[Bicco]

Side note.

Blake Acres directs traffic the whole game from the fat side, telling defenders to get closer to the contest and spacing the team out.

Well it didn't work.

 

[CapitalA]

What was up with Tucker? 7 touches is a pathetic return for a 5th year midfielder

Think he was half forward most of the game didn't notice him in many centre bounces...if any.

On SM-G973F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[tacopavlich]

lot of water to go under the bridge but this side hasn't turned up their toes once yet. Lyon's teams in the second half of the last few years looked like they didn't care anymore. If you couldn't see that you weren't paying attention.
Also our style under Lyon was putrid and the players were focused on effort not skill.
We're currently a work in progress but the signs are very good so far.
Honestly if you think we should have signed up for more years of what Lyon's teams were dishing out I don't know what to tell you.
I'm enjoying the footy again, I almost gave up watching towards the end of Lyon.

It's called selective evidence to fit a narrative. When Lyon's team last year did well, it's an exception to the rule and wait and see. When the team loses it's infallible proof he's no good. When Longmuir's team does poorly, it's because we are injured and young, what can be expected. When we win, it's an exciting display of his coaching prowess and good signs for the future.

It's human nature to do this, we make these cognitive errors constantly in our everyday lives. It's just funny to me how transparent it is on this particular debate.

 

[Square Peg]

It's called selective evidence to fit a narrative. When Lyon's team last year did well, it's an exception to the rule and wait and see. When the team loses it's infallible proof he's no good. When Longmuir's team does poorly, it's because we are injured and young, what can be expected. When we win, it's an exciting display of his coaching prowess and good signs for the future.

It's human nature to do this, we make these cognitive errors constantly in our everyday lives. It's just funny to me how transparent it is on this particular debate.

Hmm. You're being mightily selective in your comments too. I 100% agree the board were derelict to sack Lyon without a replacement that was demonstrably better than him lined up. That's what happens when the commercial equivalents to low rent meter maids like Alcock and Murphy are put in charge of your club - you get decisions based on image not substance.
But Lyon was done. He was becoming more and more hysterical in his defence of himself. He was micromanaging everything and achieving less and less because of it.

 

[GoFreo4eva]

I am in the half full camp albeit still a little disappointed given some missed opportunities both early and late. I think the game plan working effectively was on show in Q1. Take a look at the possession heat map and we were very much corridor focused, then look at the following quarters and you see the change to being pushed wide.

The result of this was obvious in the relative scoring opportunities created.

The lack of tall backs was always going to be a problem so the margin was about as good as I thought it could be pre game.Size and experience in the mids was also always going to be an issue that would tell eventually. Right now with the team we could select they were always going to win.

Positives for me were Tabs beating them in Q1 when supply was decent. Freddy getting his first goal, Luke Ryan, Sonny, Andy etc playing well. Even Darcy battling away was worth watching but NN too good.

Negatives were Aish and Schulz having their worst outings of the year so far and more of the same from Colyer, Banfield etc. I like Bailey but he needs to get his hands on the ball a bit more. Also still not sold on Betley. Contrast the clean pick up at pace from Freddy and goal with Bewley’s fumble and missed opportunity for a shot on goal in Q2. It’s that stuff that tells me he will never be elite.

Overall it went pretty much the way I expected but gee it was good to be back at the footy!

 

[Johnny Dalmas]

I havent watched the game on TV, only live and I'm sure my some of my opinions will change when I watch the replay, but I thought it was far and away the worst game we had played this year.

I'm leaning more to half-empty today. I still see way too many mediocre players out there. And I'm not talking about mediocre disposal (although there was plenty of that!), but talking about simply being in the wrong spot and taking far too long to react to the game.

I worry deeply that the bone-headed way we have gone about changing our list has meant that we have, once again, invested too many games into players who just aren't going to make it.

Do you know what is worse that recruiting a player who only plays 10 games for you before you delist after 2 years?

Recruiting a player who sits on your list for 5 or so years playing something like 50 or so average "he has potential but ..." games and who you still delist when you finally decide he isn't going to make it.

At least with the first player you failed early and moved on to the next guy with minimal opportunity cost. With the 2nd player you not only still have to move on to the next guy, but you have lost 3+ years of development in the process.

 

[Dockeroo]

I havent watched the game on TV, only live and I'm sure my some of my opinions will change when I watch the replay, but I thought it was far and away the worst game we had played this year.

I'm leaning more to half-empty today. I still see way too many mediocre players out there. And I'm not talking about mediocre disposal (although there was plenty of that!), but talking about simply being in the wrong spot and taking far too long to react to the game.

I worry deeply that the bone-headed way we have gone about changing our list has meant that we have, once again, invested too many games into players who just aren't going to make it.

Do you know what is worse that recruiting a player who only plays 10 games for you before you delist after 2 years?

Recruiting a player who sits on your list for 5 or so years playing something like 50 or so average "he has potential but ..." games and who you still delist when you finally decide he isn't going to make it.

At least with the first player you failed early and moved on to the next guy with minimal opportunity cost. With the 2nd player you not only still have to move on to the next guy, but you have lost 3+ years of development in the process.

Agree with your general point but interested in who the 50 gamers you are talking about are?

 

[Johnny Dalmas]

Agree with your general point but interested in who the 50 gamers you are talking about are?

Yikes, that's a hard one because I don't like to get into the "this guy isn't up to it" name-calling.

So I will preface this by saying I hope these guys make it and play in our first premiership team. These guys all seem to work hard and be good honest men. They could all easily play more footy as a "B22" type in an average team. But on the other hand, have any of them truly shown they are likely to have a role in a premiership calibre side:

- Tucker (yes he is improving year on year but at a pretty slow pace. And he only seems to really impact when things are going his way. You need to football when you are having a bad day as well. And you simply must find a way to get involved when you are on a flank.)

- Taberner (could you imagine a player making as many mistakes as he does on Grand Final day ... and his team winning? Yesterday wasn't a one-off, it's a chronic problem. You work so hard take your bloody chances man! Of, and also learn how to read the high ball better so you don't keep getting caught out of position)

- Hughes (you are often fighting beyond your weight division, which is a tough hand to be dealt. But you can't keep making routine mistakes in the back half)

- Cox (you can't play in a marking position unless you a ruthless at the contested mark situation. Dude you have just got to get the high ball to ground and stop being out-marked). I know Cox hasn't played 50 yet, but he fits this basic argument.

We also have a guy like Colyer who, although he didn't cost us anything in terms of player development, still doesn't seem to be a likely player in a genuinely good team.

Finally, we have the "new three amigos". Three mid-career players with the talent to play 200 games each but are currently in the mcgoos. If you aren't B22 at this stage of your career then best thing for the club to do is to cut you lose: Matera, Blakley, McCarthy.

 

[mightymouse75]

This is the last derby we lose for a while.
We played with intent today with a young side full of injuries & a new coaches gameplan..

 

[mightymouse75]

And the eagles are getting old.

 

[RonnieRaven]

Half full take barras McGovern darling and a couple more Out of the team to even up we would of won.
Even Richmond can’t execute a game plan without dusty astubury reivwolt.
I can’t believe people are kicking our coach and team from within.
I’m happy with everything except our injury list.
The teams at the top are injury free.
Hinkley hasn’t become a better coach in an offseason he just has his best 22 to work with every week.
Brisbane are near the pointy end because they have there best team out every week.
The teams at the btm have no cohesion because it’s a different team every week.
If we scoop the draft again so be it.
I truly believe if we can get 2 of our 3 key defender playing every week, have hogan or Fyfe at CHF and 2 of Henry young Sturt for young class playing we’re easy a top 8 team and if we got kissed on the dick like the lions with injuries we would be a top 4 team.

 

[eastfreo75]

I havent watched the game on TV, only live and I'm sure my some of my opinions will change when I watch the replay, but I thought it was far and away the worst game we had played this year.

I'm leaning more to half-empty today. I still see way too many mediocre players out there. And I'm not talking about mediocre disposal (although there was plenty of that!), but talking about simply being in the wrong spot and taking far too long to react to the game.

I worry deeply that the bone-headed way we have gone about changing our list has meant that we have, once again, invested too many games into players who just aren't going to make it.

Do you know what is worse that recruiting a player who only plays 10 games for you before you delist after 2 years?

Recruiting a player who sits on your list for 5 or so years playing something like 50 or so average "he has potential but ..." games and who you still delist when you finally decide he isn't going to make it.

At least with the first player you failed early and moved on to the next guy with minimal opportunity cost. With the 2nd player you not only still have to move on to the next guy, but you have lost 3+ years of development in the process.

On general note I agree.

We tend to keep players on our list too long.

New England Patriots cut like what you are saying. They do draft players who have played 4 years of college.

North has been our list for three years without a game.

Dixon fours years with only one gifted game.

 

[Fat Nyfe]

I havent watched the game on TV, only live and I'm sure my some of my opinions will change when I watch the replay, but I thought it was far and away the worst game we had played this year.

I'm leaning more to half-empty today. I still see way too many mediocre players out there. And I'm not talking about mediocre disposal (although there was plenty of that!), but talking about simply being in the wrong spot and taking far too long to react to the game.

I worry deeply that the bone-headed way we have gone about changing our list has meant that we have, once again, invested too many games into players who just aren't going to make it.

Do you know what is worse that recruiting a player who only plays 10 games for you before you delist after 2 years?

Recruiting a player who sits on your list for 5 or so years playing something like 50 or so average "he has potential but ..." games and who you still delist when you finally decide he isn't going to make it.

At least with the first player you failed early and moved on to the next guy with minimal opportunity cost. With the 2nd player you not only still have to move on to the next guy, but you have lost 3+ years of development in the process.

I think any club can afford to carry 2-3 players with limited abilities who are hard workers, but any more makes you look like a WAFL team punching above your weight against AFL teams.

I'd say out of this list, we want to keep 3 of these guys.

Colyer
Bewley
Banfield
Schultz
Conca
Crowden
Matera


Then you've got these guys sitting on the list not playing games. Some of them may have potential, but I'd be brutal about which ones stay and which are going, I'd be surprised if any of the following play 50 games for Fremantle.

North
Dixon
Carter
O'Reilly
Meek
Valente
Giro
Watson

Then there's the question marks. Guys who may have some talent, or are around the traps but have weaknesses in their game, or generally new to the club and have question marks whether they will play consistent footy for Freo.

McCarthy
Hogan
Acres
Cox
Switkowski
Blakely
Duman
Pina
Thomas

Then the kids, most have shown AFL potential, but none being the finished product yet.

Young
Serong
Henry
Frederick
Cerra
Brayshaw
Logue
Darcy
Sturt

That leaves I think ~ 15 players who have arrived at AFL level. Some are on the injury list (Pearce, Hamling, Fyfe..) or recovering from long term injuries (Hill) or generally getting on (Mundy). I count a total of 8 that played against the Eagles. Looking at WCE, they would have had 17-18 in this category on Sunday, with a couple of young guys and limited hard-workers.

It's not as depressing as it looks because a lot of the guys I've listed as not there yet, will get there. The young talent looks pretty strong - If say 7 out of those 9 become consistent AFL players, along with half of those with question marks, to join our list of ready-made players (sans Mundy) in the next 2 years, that team should be contending.

But it makes sense that we're not able to perform consistently with only a handful of AFL ready players on the park right now.

It also shows that our list turnover is not done yet, because there is more than a handful of for lack of a better term, 'list cloggers' that won't have much say in any future success.

 

[Johnny Dalmas]

On general note I agree.

We tend to keep players on our list too long.

New England Patriots cut like what you are saying. They do draft players who have played 4 years of college.

North has been our list for three years without a game.

Dixon fours years with only one gifted game.

Yes, absolutely. The Patriots (and other NFL teams) regularly cut guys in pre-season if they can't show something in training drills.

In contrast we let guys play multiple years of "ho-hum" state league footy before deciding they won't make it.

The crazy thing is that when Ross Lyon first came to the club, one of the best things he did in the first year was stamp the cards of some guys like Anthony and send an unfulfilled talent to the WAFL to decide if he wanted to make it. Walters repaid that hard-love decision.

Later Sylvia came in, wasn't gifted games and was retired mid-contract. Someone like Duffy kicked some goals in a very few games but the coaches decided he wasn't the guy and so he was moved on.

Since then we have become complacent in our handling of on-field performance. We seem to hope that somehow a player will make if we just give him enough games of footy.

 

[E Shed]

It's called selective evidence to fit a narrative. When Lyon's team last year did well, it's an exception to the rule and wait and see. When the team loses it's infallible proof he's no good. When Longmuir's team does poorly, it's because we are injured and young, what can be expected. When we win, it's an exciting display of his coaching prowess and good signs for the future.

It's human nature to do this, we make these cognitive errors constantly in our everyday lives. It's just funny to me how transparent it is on this particular debate.

Please. What you've written takes no account of the style of football being played, the nature of the losses (i.e. going down narrowly after a single uncompetitive quarter v getting trounced by 10 goals) & the messaging coming out of the club after losses.

If you're indifferent to how we play the game and see it as just either a win or a loss then I guess what you say is true.

 

[arsesmart]

Yes, absolutely. The Patriots (and other NFL teams) regularly cut guys in pre-season if they can't show something in training drills.

In contrast we let guys play multiple years of "ho-hum" state league footy before deciding they won't make it.

The crazy thing is that when Ross Lyon first came to the club, one of the best things he did in the first year was stamp the cards of some guys like Anthony and send an unfulfilled talent to the WAFL to decide if he wanted to make it. Walters repaid that hard-love decision.

Later Sylvia came in, wasn't gifted games and was retired mid-contract. Someone like Duffy kicked some goals in a very few games but the coaches decided he wasn't the guy and so he was moved on.

Since then we have become complacent in our handling of on-field performance. We seem to hope that somehow a player will make if we just give him enough games of footy.

I never like to be too harsh to judge. We generally don't have the full picture. Especially for guys in the 1-3 year bracket.

Also sometimes what seems like "list cloggers" in a developing team, can be the gems in a premiership year. See Richmond or any number of players during the Hawks 3 or 4 years contending GFs.

That may be due to their hard work and the wheel of fate timing, or skill and the wheel of fate turning at just the right time for them, or them being enthused and/or the penny dropping. They can be the rising tide for the team or dragged along by the team gelling. But for many premiership or contending teams it's a critical mass thing, where the when the balance of players have enough experience thereby allowing all the other bits and pieces to come to fruition.

 

[muckypup]

Half full with the proviso our injury list must improve. You expect a few injuries every season and even a crisis now and then but we seem to be in permanent crisis. Pivotal players out and out for extended periods. Harley Bennell playing footy? FFS.

 

[Voice of the G]

I never like to be too harsh to judge. We generally don't have the full picture. Especially for guys in the 1-3 year bracket.

Also sometimes what seems like "list cloggers" in a developing team, can be the gems in a premiership year. See Richmond or any number of players during the Hawks 3 or 4 years contending GFs.

That may be due to their hard work and the wheel of fate timing, or skill and the wheel of fate turning at just the right time for them, or them being enthused and/or the penny dropping. They can be the rising tide for the team or dragged along by the team gelling. But for many premiership or contending teams it's a critical mass thing, where the when the balance of players have enough experience thereby allowing all the other bits and pieces to come to fruition.

Tom North in his 3rd year at Fremantle and still no opportunity to play 1's .Surely after year 2 he should have been released to play else where in the AFL.