Why did the kids not play last night?

[saint tash]

Maybe the younguns r being saved for Sandy's tilt at the finals series.

[Sobraz]

It was said by many on here that we didn't play the kids cos we were 'trying to win' last night..

Whatever that means..

As expected, as per round 1, this is the wrong way forward..

Some kids should've played, but Ross erred, again..

Sippos could've been our Menzel..

[VERDUN]

Sobraz - exactly!!!!

[Junction Oval]

It is very clear that Ross now has "the opportunity, without recriminations" to find out who amongst the young guys, can come on.

There are 10 games to go, so let's roll a few through these games - get plenty of games into Sipposs, Simpkin, Ledger, Winmar.

"Try" Stanley, Walsh, Archer, Heyne, Lynch, Smith.

Release Gram, Clarke, Gamble, Polo, Baker, Schneider, Ray, Blake, McQualter.

I am not saying - "everyone out at once," but let's try "several" new players each week.

[saintsRrising]

the Geelong players have not been there for 4 years - they have a lot of new young guys running around Hunt, Menzel etc

Do you actually think they may be better or maybe because all Geelong's good players are doing well it makes them play better.

Indeed...as I posted in another thread...it is our underperforming "stars" that are our real problem at present.

[Red]

Siposs was only averaging 6.5 possessions over his 5 games. I'm not sure

at this stage he is the answer.

[python]

Doesn't matter if our expectations of the youngsters is a'complete fantasy', as we know exactly what the experienced guys of Gram, Peake, Raph et al are going to give us... Consistent performances which aren't up to standard.

What do we have to lose by playing Siposs, Ledger, Simpkin over those guys? The worst that can happen is that we find out that they're are no good- which is unlikely from 10 games. The experience gained can only improve these players, players which may be able to provide good footy next year and beyond. Why persist with experienced guys who can't kick to a target and turn the ball over constantly? What is there to gain? They're not going to improve any more, we know what their best is. They aren't up to AFL standard, at least by playing the young kids, we may find someone who is.

And even if we don't, we're still in the same scenario, bit tried something new, which still makes it a better scenario that what I saw last night.

And Jones may find a lot of the ball, but he has the worst skills in the league.

[saintbob]

Because like the G/final replay, RL will pick unfit and so called "tried and proven" players rather than play the kids in big games.

And we all know how good that s**t decision turned out!!!

[saint58]

It is very clear that Ross now has "the opportunity, without recriminations" to find out who amongst the young guys, can come on.

There are 10 games to go, so let's roll a few through these games - get plenty of games into Sipposs, Simpkin, Ledger, Winmar.

"Try" Stanley, Walsh, Archer, Heyne, Lynch, Smith.

Release Gram, Clarke, Gamble, Polo, Baker, Schneider, Ray, Blake, McQualter.

I am not saying - "everyone out at once," but let's try "several" new players each week.

Saturdays artical in the Herald sun saints abandon youth policy so we wont see the young guys i suspect. I hope iam wrong about this.

Only changes would be Gardi,blake,joe,mini in thats not looking good for 2012 if thats the case.


I Would love Ross play some young guys like Archer (but is playing as a back for sandy not a forward needs to be a forward plent of defenders)
Walsh,johnson all have done really well for Sandy as forwards and walsh in the ruck,and Stanley can play forward or back ruck.

Lynch and ledger,sippos all did well when they played but again most only got 2 gmes to prove themsleves,Winmar jury still out.

[desertsaint]

...possibly RL still had dillusions....

don't know if you meant that - but it sums it up pretty well!

[SainterK]

Look at little Jack Steven and how his TOG has slowly increased, was playing only 50 something % earlier this year, but slowly has built up his gametime over the last few months.

That is because he has had groin problems, and the club would not be rushed.

I certainly don't know how the first year players are feeling at this point, certainly I see GC suns rotating the kids quite regularly.

I agree that the Lynches, Winmars, and the likes have been in the system for a long time now, and a discussion could be had about how when and where they should be accomodated in the side.

But fair go, some of these guys are skinny 18 year olds, and they are not to be compared with the 20 - 21 year olds that are getting games at opposition clubs surely?

[kalsaint]

Look at little Jack Steven and how his TOG has slowly increased, was playing only 50 something % earlier this year, but slowly has built up his gametime over the last few months.

That is because he has had groin problems, and the club would not be rushed.

I certainly don't know how the first year players are feeling at this point, certainly I see GC suns rotating the kids quite regularly.

I agree that the Lynches, Winmars, and the likes have been in the system for a long time now, and a discussion could be had about how when and where they should be accomodated in the side.

But fair go, some of these guys are skinny 18 year olds, and they are not to be compared with the 20 - 21 year olds that are getting games at opposition clubs surely?

I think the kids needed a good break to provide solid value in the second half of the season. They will get 2 weeks off with the bye and will be far better off for this. Good thinking by Ross in my opinion given that Geelong are bigger bodied and the Saints could have completely ran out of legs with younger players and we could have sufferred a large percentage loss.

On the poor kicking by the team I cannot understand why they kick so short with lofted, slow high balls. This enables the opposition to close down the run and ultimately does not enable quick long kicks to the next option unless the team talk is strong. Saints looked good when the ball was moved quickly. When the kicks were short ball movement was pressured and poor and scores didnt eventuate much.

[Thinline]

ok beba

answer me the question - do you think Siposs should have played or any others and do you think Geelong are better off by playing their kids?

The thread is one that is there because I'm interested in our list and discussing it not just bagging everything for the sake of it.

Armitage, Stevens, McEvoy are now established because they have been given a run.

This weeks selection was different to previous ones and was definitely conservative therefore worth discussion i would have thought!

Established after being given SPORADIC runs during their 'junior' development.

Exactly what's happening now with the current batch of youngsters.

[gringo]

The young guys find it hard in their first season to keep their bodies up for extended periods. Siposs was great in one game and looked less involved by the week, playing his confidence down doesn't fast track development. Guys that are in that next group are Johnson a tallish forward, we went with Gamble who is smaller and knows how to play guys at his former club. Walsh not played yet so unknown quantity against an unbeaten side. Lynch coming back from a broken finger and chasing a backline spot which we don't have open and then Simpkin, Cahill, Smith, Stanley etc. who all haven't demanded a spot yet. Only spot that was a waste was Montagna who must have convinced that he was right when he wasn't, he could have given his spot to another mid. Guys like Crocker, Ledger and Cripps were always unlikely to take a mid field post in their first season so that mid field spot probably would have gone to Mc qualter.

[Johnny Member]

These "play the kids" threads are getting extremely boring, as they are based on a complete fantasy in the minds of the posters of how "the kids" are going to play if selected.

I think, finally I've conceded, that we can't win the flag this year. We're just not good enough.

By now, regardless of where you are on the ladder, you need to have shown you can beat a really good team and prove that your gun players are really guns, and that your game plan is sound.

We haven't shown that this year.


So even if we snuck in to the 8, we're just not good enough (in my opinion of course).


So losing games now, is irrelevant. Every 2 hours each weekend needs to be used to practice a new style of play, to give young blokes experience, as a litmus test for some young blokes, and as a test for others to prove they should be on the list next year.

Saturday night was disappointing in as much as we wasted 2 hours. Maybe, just maybe, Lyon was using that game as a 'last straw' for the current team.
Maybe he said 'righto, this is it. We've been in Ok form recently, Geelong are on top, we'll put in our 'best' team this weekend and try to win as if it's a final. If we win, we're back on track - but if we lose then we genuinely start again with this team and rebuild it'.

If that's the case, then it wasn't a waste of 2 hours. We know where we stand. I have my suspicions that that's what the selections were about.


But, back the 'play the kids' thing. We have no choice but to play them. Why wouldn't you play them?
I don't believe in playing them all at once, but every week we should be have at least 3-4 guys in the team in their first or second year. We need to give them experience, and need to learn more about them.

Whether they're any good or not, is irrelevant right now. They are on the list, and if we do rebuild in any way, they will be playing for the club until we draft someone better.
So it's sort of a case of 'play Gram every week and lose, or play a young bloke every week and lose'.

The decision is simple.

[Johnny Member]

Established after being given SPORADIC runs during their 'junior' development.

Exactly what's happening now with the current batch of youngsters.

I don't know about that man.

It's up for debate as to whether or not in this day and age, it's neccessary to baby young players all the time.

For some, you have to. But not for all.


And I sometimes think we seem to have a 'once policy fits all' thing going on for our young guys.

Don't know whether that's Misson's call, or Lyon's. But either way, as a supporter it's certainly debatable as to whether or not Steven or McEvoy could have been doing what they're doing now, last year had they been given more time to early on.

[SainterK]

I think, finally I've conceded, that we can't win the flag this year. We're just not good enough.

Funny, the Geelong game had the opposite effect on me.

I don't the scoreboard reflected the contest at all, for various reasons, including how many goals Geelong scored from free kicks directly in front.

I think we are good enough, but may of left the run a little too late.

[saint58]

The young guys find it hard in their first season to keep their bodies up for extended periods. Siposs was great in one game and looked less involved by the week, playing his confidence down doesn't fast track development. Guys that are in that next group are Johnson a tallish forward, we went with Gamble who is smaller and knows how to play guys at his former club. Walsh not played yet so unknown quantity against an unbeaten side. Lynch coming back from a broken finger and chasing a backline spot which we don't have open and then Simpkin, Cahill, Smith, Stanley etc. who all haven't demanded a spot yet. Only spot that was a waste was Montagna who must have convinced that he was right when he wasn't, he could have given his spot to another mid. Guys like Crocker, Ledger and Cripps were always unlikely to take a mid field post in their first season so that mid field spot probably would have gone to Mc qualter.

Lynch came to the club as a forward and at 192 should play there.Granted he is not a big frame,but in one of his games this year he started at ff i think so why play him as a back for Sandy.

Simpkin has played really well for Sandy before he got into the team for a number of weeks but you are right there is not a backline spot open.

Unless we play Zack as a ff or CHF where he did a lot at Box Hill I think he had a bag of 8 goals in a game,and yes i know it is only the VFL but you can only perform where you are playing.
He is a great kick and not a bad mark and has size on his side that would allow us to play gilbert,or simpkin,Lynch at FB.

What of Archer i thought he did ok is a big lad and can mark is a bit slow but looks a prospect but it is hard tell when he doesnt get games 2 only,but we will never know i guess.

Ross has given up on his youth policy from the articial in the HS saturday and today he thinks we dont have any key position talent coming through.I dont know how you could make a judgment in only a 2 game stretch for Archer,johnson,Stanley this year and walsh who has been staring for sandy in the ruck/forward.

[plugger66]

The young guys find it hard in their first season to keep their bodies up for extended periods. Siposs was great in one game and looked less involved by the week, playing his confidence down doesn't fast track development. Guys that are in that next group are Johnson a tallish forward, we went with Gamble who is smaller and knows how to play guys at his former club. Walsh not played yet so unknown quantity against an unbeaten side. Lynch coming back from a broken finger and chasing a backline spot which we don't have open and then Simpkin, Cahill, Smith, Stanley etc. who all haven't demanded a spot yet. Only spot that was a waste was Montagna who must have convinced that he was right when he wasn't, he could have given his spot to another mid. Guys like Crocker, Ledger and Cripps were always unlikely to take a mid field post in their first season so that mid field spot probably would have gone to Mc qualter.

Lynch came to the club as a forward and at 192 should play there.Granted he is not a big frame,but in one of his games this year he started at ff i think so why play him as a back for Sandy.

Simpkin has played really well for Sandy before he got into the team for a number of weeks but you are right there is not a backline spot open.

Unless we play Zack as a ff or CHF where he did a lot at Box Hill I think he had a bag of 8 goals in a game,and yes i know it is only the VFL but you can only perform where you are playing.
He is a great kick and not a bad mark and has size on his side that would allow us to play gilbert,or simpkin,Lynch at FB.

What of Archer i thought he did ok is a big lad and can mark is a bit slow but looks a prospect but it is hard tell when he doesnt get games 2 only,but we will never know i guess.

Ross has given up on his youth policy from the articial in the HS saturday and today he thinks we dont have any key position talent coming through.I dont know how you could make a judgment in only a 2 game stretch for Archer,johnson,Stanley this year and walsh who has been staring for sandy in the ruck/forward.

Walsh has played one game as a forward ruck. Hardly enough to say he is staring in that position. Then you want to move Zac, our best FB so you can play 3 guys who will never make it as a FB. Makes no sense. And one of those you want at FB, Lynch, earlier you say he should be a forward so where should he play?