Zac to the rescue

[Spinner]

Scollop didn't suggest resting every senior player after r15.
He made a valid point .. strategically resting "tired" players (not all seniors at once - where did you come up with that?) would have benefited us come the GF and I totally agree.
Roo was just hobbling around come the finals .. what's the use of finishing top of the ladder in the home and away rounds and losing the GF ? - why not finish second in the H & A and win the flag instead ?

SO more rests would have equalled a flag.

Players need to play. If they are fit. They play. And the majority of senior players did get a rest in round 19.

They also got a rest for the second week of the finals.


Any more than that and you might as well rest them all for the second half of the season.

[Mr Magic]

Scollop didn't suggest resting every senior player after r15.
He made a valid point .. strategically resting "tired" players (not all seniors at once - where did you come up with that?) would have benefited us come the GF and I totally agree.
Roo was just hobbling around come the finals .. what's the use of finishing top of the ladder in the home and away rounds and losing the GF ? - why not finish second in the H & A and win the flag instead ?

SO more rests would have equalled a flag.

Players need to play. If they are fit. They play. And the majority of senior players did get a rest in round 19.

They also got a rest for the second week of the finals.


Any more than that and you might as well rest them all for the second half of the season.

I seem to recall that without Roo we would have lost the Prelim against WB in 2009.
His QF against Collingwood was also sensational.

He injured himself at the last training session before the GF.
He was not 'hobbling around' during the finals before that.

Seems to be some revisionism going on here trying to substantiate povs.

Anybody who thinks we lost that 2009 premiership from anything other than poor kicking at goal has, IMO, and agenda they're pushing.

Again IMO,
It had almost nothing to do with team selection, rotation, injuries on the day.
It had almost everything to do with 6 'gimmes' being missed by blokes who you'd have bet would nail them.

[skeptic]

Anybody who thinks we lost that 2009 premiership from anything other than poor kicking at goal has, IMO, and agenda they're pushing.

Again IMO,
It had almost nothing to do with team selection, rotation, injuries on the day.
It had almost everything to do with 6 'gimmes' being missed by blokes who you'd have bet would nail them.

Ur right to a point MM

doesn't mean however that we couldn't have been better prepared on the day. See to me, the selection of all of King, Gardiner and Dempster meant that we were likely to carry 3 passengers which we did (though Dempster did kick 1 very nice goal). Maybe if we put a few games into say Gwilt, he may have staked a claim and earned his spot... we konw what his disposal is like... maybe he'd play as a forward and sink a long goal that started a rally... got everyone fired up and confident... unnerve Geelong a little bit. Maybe a few more games to McEvoy and Gardiner would have been less lethargic... covered a bit of extra space, take an opportunity to put Ottens down (fairly) but hurt him.

I also disagree with that team rotations etc wouldn't have made a difference but that's beside my point

[SaintPav]

Ur right to a point MM

doesn't mean however that we couldn't have been better prepared on the day. See to me, the selection of all of King, Gardiner and Dempster meant that we were likely to carry 3 passengers which we did (though Dempster did kick 1 very nice goal). Maybe if we put a few games into say Gwilt, he may have staked a claim and earned his spot... we konw what his disposal is like... maybe he'd play as a forward and sink a long goal that started a rally... got everyone fired up and confident... unnerve Geelong a little bit. Maybe a few more games to McEvoy and Gardiner would have been less lethargic... covered a bit of extra space, take an opportunity to put Ottens down (fairly) but hurt him.

I also disagree with that team rotations etc wouldn't have made a difference but that's beside my point

Were you complaining about team selections in 2009 when we were on out biggest winning streak of all time? You must be having a lend.

Not that I disagreed with it at the time but what happened when we messed with the winning formula and rested some players? The rotations policy is only a recent thing and only started after 2009. It is becoming more important now. It wasn't invented in 2009 because no one probably thought of it and also the game has changed even since then.

BTW, Gardner had already spent quite a bit of time on the sidelines in the second half of that year.

[Spinner]

Anybody who thinks we lost that 2009 premiership from anything other than poor kicking at goal has, IMO, and agenda they're pushing.

Again IMO,
It had almost nothing to do with team selection, rotation, injuries on the day.
It had almost everything to do with 6 'gimmes' being missed by blokes who you'd have bet would nail them.

Ur right to a point MM

doesn't mean however that we couldn't have been better prepared on the day. See to me, the selection of all of King, Gardiner and Dempster meant that we were likely to carry 3 passengers which we did (though Dempster did kick 1 very nice goal). Maybe if we put a few games into say Gwilt, he may have staked a claim and earned his spot... we konw what his disposal is like... maybe he'd play as a forward and sink a long goal that started a rally... got everyone fired up and confident... unnerve Geelong a little bit. Maybe a few more games to McEvoy and Gardiner would have been less lethargic... covered a bit of extra space, take an opportunity to put Ottens down (fairly) but hurt him.

I also disagree with that team rotations etc wouldn't have made a difference but that's beside my point

Gwilt did get games into himself as a forward.

He wasnt any good.


If your upset at selection thats a totally different point. But I believe, and this was a while ago that your issue was resting players, and lack of development that year which is totally illogical IMO.

[bobmurray]

"...but at the end of the day you act your way in, act your way out."

same old s*** coming out of Lyon

Yep the stuff nearly everyone said was great for the last 5 years.

Why was it deemed great...we didn't win anything of note in the last 5 years, he
tried and failed...he was not the messiah...no need to lord him....

The filthy lucre

[skeptic]

Saint Pav
I wasn't as concerned with RL then as later... but was not happy with the GF team. Didn't like Demptser up forward (or in the team at all), thought both king and Gardy were out of form... felt that Ray and McQualter would give us nothing (although in fairness both [esp McQalter] had reasonable seasons and deserved their spots)

Spinner
Hmmm... think your memory has failed u. My issue (and the turning point of my opinon of RL) was his continued selection in 2010 of underperforming players like McQualter, Eddy, and pbly others. This grew substantially in 2011 when despite our identified need for a key forward, we chose to play an injured Roo ahead of Walsh, Cahill + Johnson who despite all having great patches at Sandy, played 1 game between them.

[vacuous space]

My issue (and the turning point of my opinon of RL) was his continued selection in 2010 of underperforming players like McQualter, Eddy, and pbly others.

Is there any argument against Eddy and Mini that doesn't revolve around possessions and goals? As if anybody playing in a forward line with the likes of Roo, Kosi, Schneider and Milne would ever be likely to put up big stats. Collingwood and Geelong small forwards put up numbers because they rotate through the centre. Eddy and Mini barely saw a centre bounce under Ross Lyon.

Eddy and Mini played their roles, won some ground level ball, passed off to more effective goalkickers and laid some tackles. Their replacements were supposed to be Gamble and Gilbert, one of whom is back in defence and the other is out of the league. For all the complaining about Eddy and Mini - and there was no end to it - we scored less without them and were more easily rebounded against. Now we've got Siposs and Stanley as the saviours of our forward line, taking the pressure off Roo. I'll believe it when I see it.

[samoht]

Scollop didn't suggest resting every senior player after r15.
He made a valid point .. strategically resting "tired" players (not all seniors at once - where did you come up with that?) would have benefited us come the GF and I totally agree.
Roo was just hobbling around come the finals .. what's the use of finishing top of the ladder in the home and away rounds and losing the GF ? - why not finish second in the H & A and win the flag instead ?

SO more rests would have equalled a flag.

Players need to play. If they are fit. They play. And the majority of senior players did get a rest in round 19.

They also got a rest for the second week of the finals.


Any more than that and you might as well rest them all for the second half of the season.

I seem to recall that without Roo we would have lost the Prelim against WB in 2009.
His QF against Collingwood was also sensational.

He injured himself at the last training session before the GF.
He was not 'hobbling around' during the finals before that.

Seems to be some revisionism going on here trying to substantiate povs.

Anybody who thinks we lost that 2009 premiership from anything other than poor kicking at goal has, IMO, and agenda they're pushing.

Again IMO,
It had almost nothing to do with team selection, rotation, injuries on the day.
It had almost everything to do with 6 'gimmes' being missed by blokes who you'd have bet would nail them.

Here are the facts below Mr Magic - he did not injure himself in the week before the GF !
As you can see Roo had a sore knee and got up gingerly clutching his knee and was limping vs North 2 weeks prior to the finals starting !!
It's a long season and with 15 wins in a row he could have been strategically rested a week here and there before the finals...to be kept fresh for the finals. We went on to win 19 straight but the Cats had the last laugh in the GF, running over the top of us (our midfield could have been rested here and there too after 15 straight).
We were running up and down on the one spot in the last quarter of the GF.


Riewoldt knee key to season

Michael Gleeson | September 17, 2009

TWICE in the last month Nick Riewoldt has gone to ground awkwardly and got up gingerly. Sore and limping, he has clutched at his right knee and bent over in pain.

He has flexed the leg and struggled for a few minutes before running out the pain. Both times, against North Melbourne in the second-last round and Collingwood in the qualifying final, it happened in tackles. Both times he was simply pushed through and ran out the game.

''It's probably led me to be a bit more modified in training, but come game-day I'm 100 per cent. It's fine,'' he said, admitting that the week off after the qualifying final helped.

[Spinner]

SO more rests would have equalled a flag.

Players need to play. If they are fit. They play. And the majority of senior players did get a rest in round 19.

They also got a rest for the second week of the finals.


Any more than that and you might as well rest them all for the second half of the season.

I seem to recall that without Roo we would have lost the Prelim against WB in 2009.
His QF against Collingwood was also sensational.

He injured himself at the last training session before the GF.
He was not 'hobbling around' during the finals before that.

Seems to be some revisionism going on here trying to substantiate povs.

Anybody who thinks we lost that 2009 premiership from anything other than poor kicking at goal has, IMO, and agenda they're pushing.

Again IMO,
It had almost nothing to do with team selection, rotation, injuries on the day.
It had almost everything to do with 6 'gimmes' being missed by blokes who you'd have bet would nail them.

Here are the facts below Mr Magic - he did not injure himself in the week before the GF !
As you can see Roo had a sore knee and got up gingerly clutching his knee and was limping vs North 2 weeks prior to the finals starting !!
It's a long season and with 15 wins in a row he could have been strategically rested a week here and there before the finals...to be kept fresh for the finals. We went on to win 19 straight but the Cats had the last laugh in the GF, running over the top of us (our midfield could have been rested here and there too after 15 straight).
We were running up and down on the one spot in the last quarter of the GF.


Riewoldt knee key to season

Michael Gleeson | September 17, 2009

TWICE in the last month Nick Riewoldt has gone to ground awkwardly and got up gingerly. Sore and limping, he has clutched at his right knee and bent over in pain.

He has flexed the leg and struggled for a few minutes before running out the pain. Both times, against North Melbourne in the second-last round and Collingwood in the qualifying final, it happened in tackles. Both times he was simply pushed through and ran out the game.

''It's probably led me to be a bit more modified in training, but come game-day I'm 100 per cent. It's fine,'' he said, admitting that the week off after the qualifying final helped.

So you are saying that after 15 games Roo should have been rested... And this would have prevented him from injuring himself 2 weeks before finals...?

He got rested in R19.

He got rested in semi final week.

As did a lot of the midfield.



Here's an idea. Rest the players for 25 rounds. Then bring them in fresh for the Grand Final. Can't get any fresher than that.

[samoht]

Here's an idea - don't exaggerate !

[Spinner]

Here's an idea - don't exaggerate !

You're doing the exact same thing. What you are trying to detail is nonsense.

[skeptic]

My issue (and the turning point of my opinon of RL) was his continued selection in 2010 of underperforming players like McQualter, Eddy, and pbly others.

Is there any argument against Eddy and Mini that doesn't revolve around possessions and goals? As if anybody playing in a forward line with the likes of Roo, Kosi, Schneider and Milne would ever be likely to put up big stats. Collingwood and Geelong small forwards put up numbers because they rotate through the centre. Eddy and Mini barely saw a centre bounce under Ross Lyon.

Eddy and Mini played their roles, won some ground level ball, passed off to more effective goalkickers and laid some tackles. Their replacements were supposed to be Gamble and Gilbert, one of whom is back in defence and the other is out of the league. For all the complaining about Eddy and Mini - and there was no end to it - we scored less without them and were more easily rebounded against. Now we've got Siposs and Stanley as the saviours of our forward line, taking the pressure off Roo. I'll believe it when I see it.

try effectiveness

that they were not and I still find it difficult to beleive that people can justify their roles

an ineffective game is an ineffective game even if they did their roles to a tee.

Hypothetically
If Dempsters role was to say play off his opponent (say leon Davis) to double team tagging Dane Swan and it worked... Swan only gets 10 possessions but Davis has 30 touches with 5 goals assists... that sucks

just like having someone on the ground who's position equates to = no goals, minimal possessions, doesn't create goals, doesn't hurt the opposition in any way and doesn't stop his opponent...
the outcome sucked

one cd make the argument who else did we have... again i don't agree with it but at least that's a rational POV

[SaintPav]

My issue (and the turning point of my opinon of RL) was his continued selection in 2010 of underperforming players like McQualter, Eddy, and pbly others.

Is there any argument against Eddy and Mini that doesn't revolve around possessions and goals? As if anybody playing in a forward line with the likes of Roo, Kosi, Schneider and Milne would ever be likely to put up big stats. Collingwood and Geelong small forwards put up numbers because they rotate through the centre. Eddy and Mini barely saw a centre bounce under Ross Lyon.

Eddy and Mini played their roles, won some ground level ball, passed off to more effective goalkickers and laid some tackles. Their replacements were supposed to be Gamble and Gilbert, one of whom is back in defence and the other is out of the league. For all the complaining about Eddy and Mini - and there was no end to it - we scored less without them and were more easily rebounded against. Now we've got Siposs and Stanley as the saviours of our forward line, taking the pressure off Roo. I'll believe it when I see it.

try effectiveness

that they were not and I still find it difficult to beleive that people can justify their roles

an ineffective game is an ineffective game even if they did their roles to a tee.

Hypothetically
If Dempsters role was to say play off his opponent (say leon Davis) to double team tagging Dane Swan and it worked... Swan only gets 10 possessions but Davis has 30 touches with 5 goals assists... that sucks

just like having someone on the ground who's position equates to = no goals, minimal possessions, doesn't create goals, doesn't hurt the opposition in any way and doesn't stop his opponent...
the outcome sucked

one cd make the argument who else did we have... again i don't agree with it but at least that's a rational POV

Well the game plan and the coaching sucked but it nearly got us two flags.


You should read the Bubble becuase if you haven't it will give you an idea of what Lyon was trying to do.

As per Mini and Eddy, they played their roles as per coaches intructions. Some little things go unoticed like Eddy playing with broken bones in the Prelim and playing to the end of the game allowing us to have 5 on the bench in the last quarter. Pretty good outcome IMO. Unnoticed by most supporters but that stuff does not go unnnoticed within the club.

[vacuous space]

try effectiveness

What do you mean by effectiveness? Did they not win enough ball? Did they not kick enough goals? Did they not contribute enough defensively? You said previously that they hadn't done enough to warrant selection. Enough of what?

Considering that most weeks there are only 40-50 i50s for each team, I wonder just how much possession, just how much many goals and just how many tackles need to be laid to be doing enough. I wonder if it's even possible for all of our forwards to be doing enough to warrant selection.

[Dave McNamara]

Hi Clarky, your stoic support for Ro$$y has been duly noted. BTW, I agree, rating him the best coach in the league - at least till Cuddles has time to settle in and prove himself. That said, purple doesn't suit him.

My question is, where do you rate one of the players he resurected - yep Zac Attack? I'm wondering if Zac left not just for the $$$ but to play under Ro$$y's defensive structure???

[clarky449]

Hi Clarky, your stoic support for Ro$$y has been duly noted. BTW, I agree, rating him the best coach in the league - at least till Cuddles has time to settle in and prove himself. That said, purple doesn't suit him.

My question is, where do you rate one of the players he resurected - yep Zac Attack? I'm wondering if Zac left not just for the $$$ but to play under Ro$$y's defensive structure???

Thankyou for your question, as i can see you do think that Ross was a good coach. Unlike some Nimbats on here.

I think Zac was a good player for us. I dont think he was as bad as some make out he is. I also think his selection in the Grand Final was justified over Hudghton. If Zac left to play under Rossys structure then good on him. He obviously wants to maximise his potential and get the most out of himself.

[Bernard Shakey]

I noticed Zac twice in last night's game. He gave away a dumb 50 metre penalty for a goal in the first quarter. The next time he was sighted was in the third quarter where he gave away a dumb freekick for another goal. Nimbat would not have been happy.

[The Redeemer]

"...but at the end of the day you act your way in, act your way out."

same old s*** coming out of Lyon

Yep the stuff nearly everyone said was great for the last 5 years.

Agreed although I tended to find it funny. The corporate jargon-esque cum football jargon was always good for a laugh.

"in the end, success happens when you win a game of football. a game of football wins you success at the beginning"

I don't think I am as good at it as The Bossco.

[QuestionOfAccuracy]

Funny only last week the story was about Freo's new found depth in the back line and how competition was tight to get a spot ?!?!?!

Really if Zac is going to lead he will need to put in a hell of a lot more effort then their intra club match .. Gettin 4 kicked on you by a kid from the WAFL Kennedy will be looking to start the year with a bag of 10 by that standard !

He's not going to have the support of Fisher, Gilbert and Goddard - Quality support. I expect Zac to consistently get bags kicked on him.

Yep that was the only reason he played well in finals.

+1

[SainterK]

Hardly recognise him.

http://bit.ly/z1IjBr

[skeptic]

Sorry Saint Pav and VS - didn't note ur responses til now.

Pav, got inside the bubble in my bedside draw - next book to go.

Are u guys actually saying that u were happy with the quality of the game that they played in 2010???

maybe we'll have to disagree but I just cna't fathom the logic. They had no positive impact!!! McQualter laid 5 tackles in the second half of the 2010 GF and we're ooo'hing and aah'ing about that.

If these guys were such great players how come they were just delisted like that???
Did their impact on games just suddenly drop off???

And Pav... mate why can't it be that he got that aspect of his coaching wrong? He got other things right but RL's value of Eddy/mini role was wrong. We lost two grandfinals and Mini/Eddy did bugger all in all of them

[vacuous space]

Are u guys actually saying that u were happy with the quality of the game that [Eddy and Mini] played in 2010???

I'm still not sure what criteria they're being judged against. I'm assuming there is some arbitrary level of goals and possessions you feel they should have got. We're talking about the fifth and sixth forwards here on a team that mostly used five at a time. These are two players who spent most of their TOG i50 not getting kicked to. It's very difficult to measure their effectiveness. I assume that most arguments against them aren't because of their onfield play. I assume that it's about people searching for someone to blame for losses and their stats in the paper not looking pretty enough.

[Con Gorozidis]

Saint Pav
I wasn't as concerned with RL then as later... but was not happy with the GF team. Didn't like Demptser up forward (or in the team at all), thought both king and Gardy were out of form... felt that Ray and McQualter would give us nothing (although in fairness both [esp McQalter] had reasonable seasons and deserved their spots)

Spinner
Hmmm... think your memory has failed u. My issue (and the turning point of my opinon of RL) was his continued selection in 2010 of underperforming players like McQualter, Eddy, and pbly others. This grew substantially in 2011 when despite our identified need for a key forward, we chose to play an injured Roo ahead of Walsh, Cahill + Johnson who despite all having great patches at Sandy, played 1 game between them.

im with u skeptic. our 2009 winning streak was not based on an unchanged 22 but the fact our top 12-16 were friggin awesome and on fire and at their peak. we could still have tampered around the edges.
we won most of those games with 4-6 passengers every week. when ur top 12-16 are firing like that it hardly matters. so i think we could have done things differently. its not hindsight i remember being ropable at the time with a few of our fringe selections. some blokes had played horrible for months but stayed in because the team was winning - despite their performances.

[plugger66]

Saint Pav
I wasn't as concerned with RL then as later... but was not happy with the GF team. Didn't like Demptser up forward (or in the team at all), thought both king and Gardy were out of form... felt that Ray and McQualter would give us nothing (although in fairness both [esp McQalter] had reasonable seasons and deserved their spots)

Spinner
Hmmm... think your memory has failed u. My issue (and the turning point of my opinon of RL) was his continued selection in 2010 of underperforming players like McQualter, Eddy, and pbly others. This grew substantially in 2011 when despite our identified need for a key forward, we chose to play an injured Roo ahead of Walsh, Cahill + Johnson who despite all having great patches at Sandy, played 1 game between them.

im with u skeptic. our 2009 winning streak was not based on an unchanged 22 but the fact our top 12-16 were friggin awesome and on fire and at their peak. we could still have tampered around the edges.
we won most of those games with 4-6 passengers every week. when ur top 12-16 are firing like that it hardly matters. so i think we could have done things differently. its not hindsight i remember being ropable at the time with a few of our fringe selections. some blokes had played horrible for months but stayed in because the team was winning - despite their performances.

It was all about role playing in that year. You may have thought some were playing terrible but for the team they were obviously doing their job. RL obviously wanted to win the GF and would have picked a side he thought capable. Unless any of us were on team selection which I doubt I will go with the players and the coaches that gave us our most successful season ever bar the last day when bad kicking which I know is bad footy cost us the GF.

As for Skeptic mentioning Cahill i take it you never watch Sandy play because Cahill just couldnt play. He didnt ever deserve a game no matter how bad others were going in the seniors. Not sure Johnson deserved to many either. Walsh was unlucky but only later in the season and that was when the club was at least in some sort of form.