Team Vs Eagles June 22nd

[Wrote for Luck]

will Lee make it to the half time break this time? bets, bets...

[bergholt]

Three small forwards coming in? Or is Minch not a small forward?

[Wrote for Luck]

minch expected to play midfield my guess.
question; Milera was dropped before the Geelong game, now he's back in with nothing in between - what did he do to get dropped? what did he do to get back in the team?
unfathomable strategy coming from Richo and he pleads for fans to get to the game. come on.
or is tanking that obvious.

[8856brother]

minch expected to play midfield my guess.
question; Milera was dropped before the Geelong game, now he's back in with nothing in between - what did he do to get dropped? what did he do to get back in the team?
unfathomable strategy coming from Richo and he pleads for fans to get to the game. come on.
or is tanking that obvious.

Everyone bar you knows Tezza pulled out late with a neck complaint. Never dropped. Give the coach a break ffs.

[3rd generation saint]

Good to see Hickey in the team for Sandringham, hopefully a couple of weeks away from a return to the seniors.

[stinger]

faster team in for sunday.....will be interesting to watch....

[lewdogs]

I'm glad that we're giving everyone a crack this year. Sure, there may be some strange selections, but in general we've rotated players from the rookie list and been able to take a look at what our list has to offer. We've unearthed Shenton as a genuine AFL player as a result.

This year is not pretty and was never going to be pretty but that's one small consolation for mine. Hopefully Minchington can stand up this week.

[plugger66]

I don't know what's sad about it, it's just a game of footy first of all and I just don't get how you can say our problems have anything to do with team selections. I reckon you are closer to the mark poor drafting and development. If you accept that then it is a contradiction to say our performances are down to weekly team selections...just doesn't make sense.

When I say team selections and development, I mean over a longer term

For example, someone said in this thread that you can't say Lee hasn't had his chances... this season he's played 1.5 games so far and at a 194cm was also played in the ruck when he is a forward... his best position is as a forward. This in a team that does not favor forwards at the moment. Either way you look at it, so far this season, he has been used in a way that maximises his chances of looking poor and minimises his chances of looking good unless he can do some sort of super human effort...
5 goals from 5 amazing contested marks in a 15 goal loss off poor delivery. Not going to happen.

Now looking at a few others...
Siposs... came as a forward, looked good initiallly as a forward, stagnated, then spent the entire previous off season training as a HBF... played 2 games as a HBF then moved into a mid/forward role. Then moved more to a medium forward role. Has had what 2 games this season, and some fans feel like he played well enough to hold his spot, was then dropped. As a player over 3 seasons, he's not really been developed in a clear role for more than 6 months at a time, and he's not really had an extended run at it

Sam Dunnell has been alternating btw HBF/HFF for as long as I can remember. He started as a forward and was moved back to a HBF despite us having an abundance of players for that position... barely got a look in down back, was then swung back forward and has 1 season to prove himself. Played one game this season in a team that was trounced despite solid VFL. Again expectation off limited opportunity to do something big. It's a crap way to go about it

Look at Tom Ledger... what did he play??? 8 games'ish. 20+ possessions in all of them minus those he was the sub. Had 2 really good games against mediocre opposition at the end of last season despite having a solid to good year at Sandy. Everyone said his disposal was poor... at senior level he didn't play a poor game.
What chance did he actually have to do well though... as a club we maximised his chances of failure unless he did something truly magnificent/Harvey'esk that even Rob wasn't producing at that age.

We have an approach that seems to often result in a player not playing much over several seasons whilst performing well at VFL level, meanwhile certain seniors players are gifted 15-20 games whilst playing at a mediocre standard... then said player gets 2-4 games in a broken run to prove themselves. Then when they can't... because it's stupid and few players can just take to AFL like that, we say "oh well they were never going to make it anyway".
I'm not saying that our recruiting is not poor, clearly we've made some howlers but there are a lot of players on our list that clearly have/did have potential...
Ross
Lee
Dunnell
Siposs
Milera
Simpkin
Shenton

That have been horribly under utilised and now have an unexpected expectation on them to siddenly do something brilliant. All of them have at 1 point or another this season have appeared to have been written off and I'm glad that at least a couple of them are having a decent crack at it now

Then you have guys like
Ledger
Lynch
Winmar (forced to train really hard, built up and then was cut because we picked some1 up in the PSD)

Our approach is terrible
(I'm sure there were others too more recently that I can't think of at this very moment)
That deserved more opportunity then they got and were labelled mediocre

I reckon other clubs develop there players a lot better then we do ours whereas we tend to say they were never good enough

I think you were talking to me regarding Lee not getting his chance but if you are going to say it at least get it right. I said after this week firstly which is another game. That would make it 3 in a row. i also said I hope he does well but if he doesnt he should be dropped. Should have been this week actually. I dont by buy this 4 or 5 games in a row to see if they can play because actually do play elsewhere if not playing for us. if we use Shenton as an example well he actually played well in his second game and even was doing very well at Sandy, something I believe Lee has not done at all this season.

The players you use as an example have some pretty big weaknesses and thats why they arent getting games in a row. They come in and the coaches see those weaknesses and they obviously dont work on them and are dropped and so they should be. This magic that if they get games in a row they will suddenly make is fantasy. You also use Lynch as an example. Well he was given the exact same chances in his first year at Adelaide as he was in his last year at the saints. The difference was they got injuries to forwards so he was then given another chance and took it. he wasnt gifted 5 games to see if he was good enough. Most people say players should be given 4 or 5 games in a row to look at them. Thats rubbish IMO. What happens if they had 1 kick in 2 games. Why should they play ahaead of a guy who is on fire at sandy? Well they shouldnt and dont. If someone could name a player who hardly touched it for 4 games and then suddenly came good especially if they had done bugger all in the seconds then i would be amazed. There is no magic. We didnt have to play LJ for 4 games to see if he was up to it or not. There are many players who just arent good enough. I think you have named many above. Wont help them if the play 5 bad games in a row.

[BackFromUSA]

R. Harvey 1988 last 4 games of season - debut year:

1st game: 7 kicks, 5 handballs, 1 mark, 2 frees against
2nd game: 6 kicks, 3 handballs, 0 marks, 2 frees against, 1 free for

On form could have been dropped to give another youngster a go in last 2 rounds of season.

Was retained in side.

Next game ... 16 kicks, 3 handballs, 3 marks, 2 goals, 1 free for and 1 free against
Last game 1988: 12 kicks, 4 handballs, 3 marks, 1 goal, 3 frees for, 1 free against

In 1989 his first 4 games were rounds 1 to 4.

He averaged: 6 kicks, 1 mark, 5.5 handballs and managed just 1 goal in 4 games.

Did they drop him?

No.

In round 5 and 6 he averaged:

15 kicks, 13 handballs and "banger" was born.

He was out injured until round 17 that year and played the last 6 games averaging:

14 kicks, 12 handballs and 2 goals a game.

In game 14 and 15 for the club he averaged 33 possessions.

Lesson - give kids that show some talent a few blocks of 4 games and see how they blossom, especially when you are already a crap side and have nothing to lose and something to gain.

[plugger66]

R. Harvey 1988 last 4 games of season - debut year:

1st game: 7 kicks, 5 handballs, 1 mark, 2 frees against
2nd game: 6 kicks, 3 handballs, 0 marks, 2 frees against, 1 free for

On form could have been dropped to give another youngster a go in last 2 rounds of season.

Was retained in side.

Next game ... 16 kicks, 3 handballs, 3 marks, 2 goals, 1 free for and 1 free against
Last game 1988: 12 kicks, 4 handballs, 3 marks, 1 goal, 3 frees for, 1 free against

In 1989 his first 4 games were rounds 1 to 4.

He averaged: 6 kicks, 1 mark, 5.5 handballs and managed just 1 goal in 4 games.

Did they drop him?

No.

In round 5 and 6 he averaged:

15 kicks, 13 handballs and "banger" was born.

He was out injured until round 17 that year and played the last 6 games averaging:

14 kicks, 12 handballs and 2 goals a game.

In game 14 and 15 for the club he averaged 33 possessions.

Lesson - give kids that show some talent a few blocks of 4 games and see how they blossom, especially when you are already a crap side and have nothing to lose and something to gain.

He was about 16 oe 17 for a start. Secondly he got the ball nearly as much as Billings has and he hasnt been dropped. lee is 23 for a start. Secondly coaches actually have the ability to see a star and im pretty sure they saw it with Harvey. Im unsure your example proves much at all.

Lets just use this crazy example to prove how silly the 4 games in a row thing is. lets say we have 22 unproven players and they all get 4 games. 5 hardly touch it in the first 2 games. In the mean time 5 players at Sandy average 40 possessions per game. Sorry we cant play you because we have to give a guy 4 games in a row. You do realise if we gave Dunnel 4 games in a row them probably Minchington doesnt play this week. If Lee plays terribly again tomorrow then he is dropped. He should been this week IMO because he hasnt even done enough at Sandy to get into the side. Hope he kicks 5 this week and you can call me an idiot.

[cwrcyn]

Because of his physique and the way he plays, Lee is really more of a third tall option, like Gunston has been for Hawthorn. What I noticed about his WAFL highlights was that he appeared quick and agile at ground level, which is something we haven't seen from him at AFL level to date. His fitness is way below what's required. He couldn't keep up with Riewoldt for even 10 minutes if he had to play on him. Therefore, I can't see him being dependable as a forward until he improves his aerobic ability by at least 50%. That's not going to happen in 2014.

I think it'd be better for the club to play two other key forwards alongside Lee and see what he can do in that situation (when fit). In the meantime we have to find someone else who can play as a key forward, perhaps Bruce. Hanging on to the idea that Lee will be the main go-to man is living in hope.




.

[BackFromUSA]

Because of his physique and the way he plays, Lee is really more of a third tall option, like Gunston has been for Hawthorn. What I noticed about his WAFL highlights was that he appeared quick and agile at ground level, which is something we haven't seen from him at AFL level to date. His fitness is way below what's required. He couldn't keep up with Riewoldt for even 10 minutes if he had to play on him. Therefore, I can't see him being dependable as a forward until he improves his aerobic ability by at least 50%. That's not going to happen in 2014.

I think it'd be better for the club to play two other key forwards alongside Lee and see what he can do in that situation (when fit). In the meantime we have to find someone else who can play as a key forward, perhaps Bruce. Hanging on to the idea that Lee will be the main go-to man is living in hope.




.

100% agree

[BackFromUSA]

R. Harvey 1988 last 4 games of season - debut year:

1st game: 7 kicks, 5 handballs, 1 mark, 2 frees against
2nd game: 6 kicks, 3 handballs, 0 marks, 2 frees against, 1 free for

On form could have been dropped to give another youngster a go in last 2 rounds of season.

Was retained in side.

Next game ... 16 kicks, 3 handballs, 3 marks, 2 goals, 1 free for and 1 free against
Last game 1988: 12 kicks, 4 handballs, 3 marks, 1 goal, 3 frees for, 1 free against

In 1989 his first 4 games were rounds 1 to 4.

He averaged: 6 kicks, 1 mark, 5.5 handballs and managed just 1 goal in 4 games.

Did they drop him?

No.

In round 5 and 6 he averaged:

15 kicks, 13 handballs and "banger" was born.

He was out injured until round 17 that year and played the last 6 games averaging:

14 kicks, 12 handballs and 2 goals a game.

In game 14 and 15 for the club he averaged 33 possessions.

Lesson - give kids that show some talent a few blocks of 4 games and see how they blossom, especially when you are already a crap side and have nothing to lose and something to gain.

He was about 16 oe 17 for a start. Secondly he got the ball nearly as much as Billings has and he hasnt been dropped. lee is 23 for a start. Secondly coaches actually have the ability to see a star and im pretty sure they saw it with Harvey. Im unsure your example proves much at all.

Lets just use this crazy example to prove how silly the 4 games in a row thing is. lets say we have 22 unproven players and they all get 4 games. 5 hardly touch it in the first 2 games. In the mean time 5 players at Sandy average 40 possessions per game. Sorry we cant play you because we have to give a guy 4 games in a row. You do realise if we gave Dunnel 4 games in a row them probably Minchington doesnt play this week. If Lee plays terribly again tomorrow then he is dropped. He should been this week IMO because he hasnt even done enough at Sandy to get into the side. Hope he kicks 5 this week and you can call me an idiot.

I wasn't talking about Lee in particular.

My response was referencing the list of players outlined by skeptic to which you responded that the 4 game theory has no merit.

If we are just talking about Lee then your argument has some particular conditions that are hard to compare to previous AFL players as he is a mature tall forward recruit with success in a tier two competition. Hard to find comparisons but:

- his current AFL record isn't horrific given the number of games
- he isn't playing his natural position which is 3rd tall playing like a small
- he is coming back from double load of surgery and was always going to struggle this year early

his effort last week defensively was extremely poor but I am tipping him to bounce back.

That doesn't mean kicking 5 either. It means presenting as an option, creating space for other forwards to get into, chasing, pressuring and tackling like a maniac. 1 or 2 goals on top would be ideal.

[BackFromUSA]

Plugger66 - If we take Lee out of the discussion re giving kids blocks of 4 games in a row to develop and let's just say Harvey was a freak and the coaches knew he would be a superstar I can give more examples of kids that needed time and games:
e.g. Leigh Montagna averaged 9 possessions in his first 15 or 16 games.

If coaches can identify talent as you claim then the first 15 or so games are more about giving exposure and experience than expecting them to perform miracles ... And it is a bonus if they have good solid games along the way.

The 4 games blocks theory is accepted by some because it is felt that the first few games given are often where the player plays for themselves (self preservation) rather than the team.

Most players that the coach feels has talent are given 15-20 games over 2 years to show something.

If they do - their next 10 games often defines their careers.

Rucks are an exception to this usually.

[gringo]

Plugger66 - If we take Lee out of the discussion re giving kids blocks of 4 games in a row to develop and let's just say Harvey was a freak and the coaches knew he would be a superstar I can give more examples of kids that needed time and games:
e.g. Leigh Montagna averaged 9 possessions in his first 15 or 16 games.

If coaches can identify talent as you claim then the first 15 or so games are more about giving exposure and experience than expecting them to perform miracles ... And it is a bonus if they have good solid games along the way.

The 4 games blocks theory is accepted by some because it is felt that the first few games given are often where the player plays for themselves (self preservation) rather than the team.

Most players that the coach feels has talent are given 15-20 games over 2 years to show something.

If they do - their next 10 games often defines their careers.

Rucks are an exception to this usually.

Tall forwards are closer to rucks than midfielders who are much more likely to show something after a few years. Guys like Liam Jones 23 and Tom Williams 27 would have been long gone if they had been midfielders with such a limited output. Obviously the 4 game rule can and should be used with discretion, you don't keep playing an injured or obviously overwhelmed player. Lee was played as a ruckman despite the fact he doesn't really suit that role. To not play him again when he was played out of position would have been pretty silly.

[kosifantutti]

Late change.

Montagna out. Jones in

Murdoch the sub