FFS Lyon...

[The Fireman]

I have a theory..I know, it may sound a bit crazy but why doesn't the club play the players who deserve to play regardless of age.

I think that theory is excellent and has always been a great theory.

"What"..somebody has already thought of it..????.

[bigcarl]

I have a theory..I know, it may sound a bit crazy but why doesn't the club play the players who deserve to play regardless of age.

I think that theory is excellent and has always been a great theory.

hard to argue with that one.

[Johnny Member]

I have a theory..I know, it may sound a bit crazy but why doesn't the club play the players who deserve to play regardless of age.

I think that theory is excellent and has always been a great theory.

hard to argue with that one.

I disagree with it.

And I'll throw to the old 'Collingwood didn't play Lockyer, O'Bree etc. instead they played young guys' line to support it.


Lockyer, O'Bree and co. from all reports 'deserved' games just as much if not more than Beams, Sidebottom etc.

It's short sighted to play guys ahead of other guys regardless of their 'upside' (not neccessarily age) to the club.

Depending on where you are on the ladder and/or your 'premiership clock', the definition of 'upside' would change.

But right now, I'd say a guy like Tom Lynch or even Tom Walsh would have more 'upside' than Jason Blake.
Last year though, Blake may have more 'upside'.


So I don't think it's as clear cut as picking the guys who deserve it.



It's tough though, because as Lyon says you need to have strong selection integrity.

[The Fireman]

I have a theory..I know, it may sound a bit crazy but why doesn't the club play the players who deserve to play regardless of age.

I think that theory is excellent and has always been a great theory.

hard to argue with that one.

I disagree with it.

And I'll throw to the old 'Collingwood didn't play Lockyer, O'Bree etc. instead they played young guys' line to support it.


Lockyer, O'Bree and co. from all reports 'deserved' games just as much if not more than Beams, Sidebottom etc.

It's short sighted to play guys ahead of other guys regardless of their 'upside' (not neccessarily age) to the club.

Depending on where you are on the ladder and/or your 'premiership clock', the definition of 'upside' would change.

But right now, I'd say a guy like Tom Lynch or even Tom Walsh would have more 'upside' than Jason Blake.
Last year though, Blake may have more 'upside'.


So I don't think it's as clear cut as picking the guys who deserve it.



It's tough though, because as Lyon says you need to have strong selection integrity.

Any coach who doesn't play their best on form wouldn't be coaching for long, your number one team isn't a nursery.

[SainterK]

I have a theory..I know, it may sound a bit crazy but why doesn't the club play the players who deserve to play regardless of age.

I think that theory is excellent and has always been a great theory.

hard to argue with that one.

I disagree with it.

And I'll throw to the old 'Collingwood didn't play Lockyer, O'Bree etc. instead they played young guys' line to support it.


Lockyer, O'Bree and co. from all reports 'deserved' games just as much if not more than Beams, Sidebottom etc.

It's short sighted to play guys ahead of other guys regardless of their 'upside' (not neccessarily age) to the club.

Depending on where you are on the ladder and/or your 'premiership clock', the definition of 'upside' would change.

But right now, I'd say a guy like Tom Lynch or even Tom Walsh would have more 'upside' than Jason Blake.
Last year though, Blake may have more 'upside'.


So I don't think it's as clear cut as picking the guys who deserve it.



It's tough though, because as Lyon says you need to have strong selection integrity.

Ball took O'Brees spot, Jolly took Frasers.

[Johnny Member]

I have a theory..I know, it may sound a bit crazy but why doesn't the club play the players who deserve to play regardless of age.

I think that theory is excellent and has always been a great theory.

hard to argue with that one.

I disagree with it.

And I'll throw to the old 'Collingwood didn't play Lockyer, O'Bree etc. instead they played young guys' line to support it.


Lockyer, O'Bree and co. from all reports 'deserved' games just as much if not more than Beams, Sidebottom etc.

It's short sighted to play guys ahead of other guys regardless of their 'upside' (not neccessarily age) to the club.

Depending on where you are on the ladder and/or your 'premiership clock', the definition of 'upside' would change.

But right now, I'd say a guy like Tom Lynch or even Tom Walsh would have more 'upside' than Jason Blake.
Last year though, Blake may have more 'upside'.


So I don't think it's as clear cut as picking the guys who deserve it.



It's tough though, because as Lyon says you need to have strong selection integrity.

Ball took O'Brees spot, Jolly took Frasers.

Alot of people say that, but I don't recall O'Bree being an in and under player.


But anyway, why would Luke Ball deserve a spot more than O'Bree?


It's all about upside man.

[SainterK]

Just pointing out that Jolly, Ball and Krakouer are not young, man.

[Johnny Member]

Any coach who doesn't play their best on form wouldn't be coaching for long, your number one team isn't a nursery.

But that's why your ladder position and/or 'premiershp clock' dictates the selection policy I reckon.

If you have a coach who is so short sighted that he's picking the best players each week to win the 4 points, without regard for the future - then you're in trouble I think.

It's like Wallace at Richmond, and Pagan at Carlton. They were way too short sighted (and in reality pretty much coaching for their own resumes) and it set their clubs back 5 years.

[Johnny Member]

Just pointing out that Jolly, Ball and Krakouer are not young, man.

They don't have to be young, it's about upside and where your club is at.


I'm not an advocate for playing young guys just because they're young. And I'm equally not for playing guys just because they deserve it.


It's not as simple as either scenario in my opinion.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

No - old mate youa re wrong wrong wrong.

Apparently the brainstrust at SS believe that lyon is a fool and should stack the team with 18 y.o.s and lose every game.

Well they got that for rounds 1 to 8. Since then the kids who have DESERVED a game, Mac, Armo, and Steven have received games.

I know you're trying to be a smart ass and let everyone know how good you think you are, and beat your chest saying me, me, me, me, me, as if anyone here cares, but you might want to at least get your facts straight. I'm not sure if anyone else has pointed this out, as I haven't got time to read the whole thread, but he most certainly didn't "stack the team with 18 y.o.s. for rounds 1 to 8".
In fact the thing most were critical on here and elsewhere of, after round one, was that he had picked the "same old same old's" and it wasn't until we got off to the really bad start for the year that he did start really "playing the kids", because everything else he tried wasn't working. He certainly didn't resort to that because we were flying on all cylinders!
That then seemed to rejuvenate the side and since then they've gotten their mojo back and we have reverted back to mainly playing the older ones and the ones who most "deserve" a game, but I very much doubt we'd have gotten our year back on track if he hadn't shaken things up by "playing the kids". It has also created a lot more healthy competition for spots among the list. It has also helped unearth the likes of Jack Steven and as I saw someone else correctly mention, I expect Cripps and Ledger would both still be playing a part (or at least pushing hard for their spot back) if they hadn't gotten injured. Their pace, spark and goalkicking ability could be sorely missed if we go deep into the year.

[bobmurray]

No - old mate youa re wrong wrong wrong.

Apparently the brainstrust at SS believe that lyon is a fool and should stack the team with 18 y.o.s and lose every game.

Well they got that for rounds 1 to 8. Since then the kids who have DESERVED a game, Mac, Armo, and Steven have received games.

I know you're trying to be a smart ass and let everyone know how good you think you are, and beat your chest saying me, me, me, me, me, as if anyone here cares, but you might want to at least get your facts straight. I'm not sure if anyone else has pointed this out, as I haven't got time to read the whole thread, but he most certainly didn't "stack the team with 18 y.o.s. for rounds 1 to 8".
In fact the thing most were critical on here and elsewhere of, after round one, was that he had picked the "same old same old's" and it wasn't until we got off to the really bad start for the year that he did start really "playing the kids", because everything else he tried wasn't working. He certainly didn't resort to that because we were flying on all cylinders!
That then seemed to rejuvenate the side and since then they've gotten their mojo back and we have reverted back to mainly playing the older ones and the ones who most "deserve" a game, but I very much doubt we'd have gotten our year back on track if he hadn't shaken things up by "playing the kids". It has also created a lot more healthy competition for spots among the list. It has also helped unearth the likes of Jack Steven and as I saw someone else correctly mention, I expect Cripps and Ledger would both still be playing a part (or at least pushing hard for their spot back) if they hadn't gotten injured. Their pace, spark and goalkicking ability could be sorely missed if we go deep into the year.

Great post...all of it is on the money.....

[BigMart]

As nelson muntz would say.....

[Zac Attack]

I have a theory..I know, it may sound a bit crazy but why doesn't the club play the players who deserve to play regardless of age.

I think that theory is excellent and has always been a great theory.

hard to argue with that one.

I disagree with it.

And I'll throw to the old 'Collingwood didn't play Lockyer, O'Bree etc. instead they played young guys' line to support it.


Lockyer, O'Bree and co. from all reports 'deserved' games just as much if not more than Beams, Sidebottom etc.

It's short sighted to play guys ahead of other guys regardless of their 'upside' (not neccessarily age) to the club.

Depending on where you are on the ladder and/or your 'premiership clock', the definition of 'upside' would change.

But right now, I'd say a guy like Tom Lynch or even Tom Walsh would have more 'upside' than Jason Blake.
Last year though, Blake may have more 'upside'.


So I don't think it's as clear cut as picking the guys who deserve it.



It's tough though, because as Lyon says you need to have strong selection integrity.

O'Bree was finished a few years back but was kept around because a younger player didn't step up. Same with Lockyer. When the youngen's came on - then they were replaced.

[bobmurray]

[gringo]

Thomas, Sidebottom and Beames all came in and out in the first couple of seasons anyway. they were all pretty good at hitting the ground running too.

[skeptic]

yep nothing like taking a topic about continuing to play out of form players and turning it into something else entirely just to brag

[skeptic]

The critcism was never about RL not playing deserving kids like so many ppl like to twist the argument.

It was about continually playing players that were in poor form week after week.

McQualter is the example I'd use from last season.

This year it was watching guys like Jones, Dempster, Peake (to a lesser degree), Blake, Baker, Kosi and Gram all play when they were clearly out of form or underdone.

Now some of those guys came out of their slumps, some were dropped and came back, some are out and have stayed out.

By and large, RL and co are picking better teams atm.

I don't see y it's so hard to understand that supporters are frustrated watching Will Johnson play good footy at Sandy when...
-An underdone Kosi gets rushed back into th seniors after a long lay off and produce the type of games he does when he's underdone
-Jason Blake plays forward

[SainterK]

We have also been watching Roo, Goddard, Gilbert and the likes run around out of form.

[skeptic]

We have also been watching Roo, Goddard, Gilbert and the likes run around out of form.

You could mount a good argument that Gilbert should have dropped at 1 point or another this season... has been well down this season although seems to be coming out of his slump now

Goddard whilst down on form has still been pretty good

Roo has still played a few good games and has been the subject of extra attention and a decrease in midfield productivuty