Selection last week , older players

[plugger66]

The only player that I would like to see in is McKenzie but even he has had a few games

Must say I've liked the look of this kid in his few appearances. Has he been doing enough for Sandi to tip someone out? And if so, who?

This week I would drop Dunstan and make McKenzie the sub. I cant see any other player who could be sub this week apart from Dunstan and I don't think he should do it 2 games in a row. The only other option I see at all is ray.

[bigcarl]

The only player that I would like to see in is McKenzie but even he has had a few games

Must say I've liked the look of this kid in his few appearances. Has he been doing enough for Sandi to tip someone out? And if so, who?

This week I would drop Dunstan and make McKenzie the sub. I cant see any other player who could be sub this week apart from Dunstan and I don't think he should do it 2 games in a row. The only other option I see at all is ray.

I like Ray. 200-gamer, Versatile and solid. Still has a lot of good footy left in him.

[Con Gorozidis]

Poor OP. Wouldn't be gloating. Most of the old boys were down back and it barely went there at all.
The key is balance. Which we have got right.
But this doesn't mean everyone plays on next year and beyond.
Orderly staggered retirements and planning is what we need. Not emotion.

[plugger66]

The only player that I would like to see in is McKenzie but even he has had a few games

Must say I've liked the look of this kid in his few appearances. Has he been doing enough for Sandi to tip someone out? And if so, who?

This week I would drop Dunstan and make McKenzie the sub. I cant see any other player who could be sub this week apart from Dunstan and I don't think he should do it 2 games in a row. The only other option I see at all is ray.

I like Ray. 200-gamer, Versatile and solid. Still has a lot of good footy left in him.

I like him too but I hope it is his last year.

[Con Gorozidis]

Fisher, Ray and Schneider had zero impact on the game. Delaney, Mckenzie and Eli would have given similar if not better output IMO. Gilbert played well because there was no pressure in the backline so his disposal held up. Time to disband dad's army and face the fact that it's not 2009.

I've read some rubbish on here (some of it mine) but this sorry takes the cake

The thing you don't understand is leadership and mentoring.

Sam Fisher (all Australian) if you don't think that a guy like Jimmy Webster walks a little taller and plays a lot better having him in the team then I'm not sure you get footy.

Young players need to learn on the job and the 3 players you name as well as Gilbert can give that education. When to go, where to go etc Do you not get it?

Yeah I get it. Let's play our 9 oldest players every week and keep the kids at Sandy.

Do I have to drag up the Melbourne disaster from a few years ago, 2 young captains got rid of lots of experience and they are now only starting to come out of it, 4 years later

You cannot play just young guys, it does not work

The Melbourne thing is a myth. They lost young guys like Scully and Rivers which hurt them. Neeld was a disaster.
Maybe you'd like to look at Collingwood. Younger than us and in 5th. Only one guy (Swan) over 30.

[plugger66]

Fisher, Ray and Schneider had zero impact on the game. Delaney, Mckenzie and Eli would have given similar if not better output IMO. Gilbert played well because there was no pressure in the backline so his disposal held up. Time to disband dad's army and face the fact that it's not 2009.

I've read some rubbish on here (some of it mine) but this sorry takes the cake

The thing you don't understand is leadership and mentoring.

Sam Fisher (all Australian) if you don't think that a guy like Jimmy Webster walks a little taller and plays a lot better having him in the team then I'm not sure you get footy.

Young players need to learn on the job and the 3 players you name as well as Gilbert can give that education. When to go, where to go etc Do you not get it?

Yeah I get it. Let's play our 9 oldest players every week and keep the kids at Sandy.

Do I have to drag up the Melbourne disaster from a few years ago, 2 young captains got rid of lots of experience and they are now only starting to come out of it, 4 years later

You cannot play just young guys, it does not work

The Melbourne thing is a myth. They lost young guys like Scully and Rivers which hurt them. Neeld was a disaster.
Maybe you'd like to look at Collingwood. Younger than us and in 5th. Only one guy (Swan) over 30.

The reason we have kept the older guys apart from being good players in the gap in players of the age 25 to 29. Anyway im liking how we are playing this year and I don't think many young guys that deserve a chance are missing out anyway.

[terry smith rules]

Fisher, Ray and Schneider had zero impact on the game. Delaney, Mckenzie and Eli would have given similar if not better output IMO. Gilbert played well because there was no pressure in the backline so his disposal held up. Time to disband dad's army and face the fact that it's not 2009.

I've read some rubbish on here (some of it mine) but this sorry takes the cake

The thing you don't understand is leadership and mentoring.

Sam Fisher (all Australian) if you don't think that a guy like Jimmy Webster walks a little taller and plays a lot better having him in the team then I'm not sure you get footy.

Young players need to learn on the job and the 3 players you name as well as Gilbert can give that education. When to go, where to go etc Do you not get it?

Yeah I get it. Let's play our 9 oldest players every week and keep the kids at Sandy.

Do I have to drag up the Melbourne disaster from a few years ago, 2 young captains got rid of lots of experience and they are now only starting to come out of it, 4 years later

You cannot play just young guys, it does not work

The Melbourne thing is a myth. They lost young guys like Scully and Rivers which hurt them. Neeld was a disaster.
Maybe you'd like to look at Collingwood. Younger than us and in 5th. Only one guy (Swan) over 30.

Collingwood maybe younger but you can't compare them to us as they have plenty in category which we are missing, the 100 gamers. We have 7 players who have played between 50 and 150 , Collingwood 12. So it is comparing apples and oranges. Collingwood may be young but they have a nice mix of experience as well.

[Saint wagga]

Hindsight is wonderful thing, and It's probably be pretty easy to say It's a pity we didn't have more young guys, goddard, Eli, McCartin playing in the 1's, as Essendon were so bad we would have beaten them anyway...

I wonder if the coaches and selectors have been a bit caught out, and quite rightly so given our heavy injury list last year, that with minimal long term injuries and not even that many short soft tissue ones, there simply hasn't been the ability to bring in and turnover as many young players on the list...give them a taste and see how they hold up.

almost irrelevant discussing it this week and there wont be any changes unless mid week injury you'd think after a 110 point win.

[dragit]

Fisher, Ray and Schneider had zero impact on the game. Delaney, Mckenzie and Eli would have given similar if not better output IMO. Gilbert played well because there was no pressure in the backline so his disposal held up. Time to disband dad's army and face the fact that it's not 2009.

I've read some rubbish on here (some of it mine) but this sorry takes the cake

The thing you don't understand is leadership and mentoring.

Sam Fisher (all Australian) if you don't think that a guy like Jimmy Webster walks a little taller and plays a lot better having him in the team then I'm not sure you get footy.

Young players need to learn on the job and the 3 players you name as well as Gilbert can give that education. When to go, where to go etc Do you not get it?

Yeah I get it. Let's play our 9 oldest players every week and keep the kids at Sandy.

Do I have to drag up the Melbourne disaster from a few years ago, 2 young captains got rid of lots of experience and they are now only starting to come out of it, 4 years later

You cannot play just young guys, it does not work

The Melbourne thing is a myth. They lost young guys like Scully and Rivers which hurt them. Neeld was a disaster.
Maybe you'd like to look at Collingwood. Younger than us and in 5th. Only one guy (Swan) over 30.

Collingwood maybe younger but you can't compare them to us as they have plenty in category which we are missing, the 100 gamers. We have 7 players who have played between 50 and 150 , Collingwood 12. So it is comparing apples and oranges. Collingwood may be young but they have a nice mix of experience as well.

Hard to get to 100 games when you are playing for Sandringham all year.

[bigcarl]

I like him too but I hope it is his last year.

Why? He's not even 30 yet and still playing good football.

[plugger66]

I like him too but I hope it is his last year.

Why? He's not even 30 yet and still playing good football.

Because we need to get rid of the older players gradually. Ray is playing the easiest position on the ground to replace and has played the least games this year by any of our older players and would be the least missed.

[plugger66]

Hard to get to 100 games when you are playing for Sandringham all year.

Who would be anywhere near a 100 if they had played a little more often?

[Saint wagga]

I agree with you plugger 100% with regards to Ray being the easiest to replace, but it's interesting that when say Mackenzie came in and played on a wing/halfback, he really only got half the posi's Ray usually racks up. not looking up exact stats, thats how it felt. Don't get me wrong, i like the look of Mackenzie a lot, but he doesn't find much of the ball just yet...like a lot fo our young players, they don't seem to chalk up big posi's when they come into the 1's just yet...

[S.A Saint]

I agree with you plugger 100% with regards to Ray being the easiest to replace, but it's interesting that when say Mackenzie came in and played on a wing/halfback, he really only got half the posi's Ray usually racks up. not looking up exact stats, thats how it felt. Don't get me wrong, i like the look of Mackenzie a lot, but he doesn't find much of the ball just yet...like a lot fo our young players, they don't seem to chalk up big posi's when they come into the 1's just yet...

Probably due to the fact that he started as the sub

[dragit]

Hard to get to 100 games when you are playing for Sandringham all year.

Who would be anywhere near a 100 if they had played a little more often?

You have to get to 30 before you get to 50 before you get to 100.

I was happy with the balance a few weeks and was in fact arguing with con & bluthy that we had enough youth... That was when Riewoldt, ray, Gilbert, Montagna and co were out. I've said all along that I don't think all of our vets should play in the one side...

People keep talking about these mentors, while Goddard & Lee are learning nothing from fisher & Dempster if they aren't playing.

Also this notion of selection integrity that people keep bringing up, lee & giddard have both had at least half a dozen good games in the VFL, but Ray & Gilbert waltzed straight into the side in front of them after only a couple of average VFL form. So I think this theory is a load of crap, guys are getting a game on history not form.

I don't understand giving lee a 2 year extension and not playing him while his form has been good.

We can't just rely on injuries to play young guys with our list profile IMO.

Also, I'd rather see the inexperienced guys play in games where we might actually win, rather than throw them in against top 4 sides... That will be terrible for their confidence.

Let Mckenzie play against Essendon & GWS, bring ray back for hawthorn or freo.

[S.A Saint]

Hard to get to 100 games when you are playing for Sandringham all year.

Who would be anywhere near a 100 if they had played a little more often?

You have to get to 30 before you get to 50 before you get to 100.

I was happy with the balance a few weeks and was in fact arguing with con & bluthy that we had enough youth... That was when Riewoldt, ray, Gilbert, Montagna and co were out. I've said all along that I don't think all of our vets should play in the one side...

People keep talking about these mentors, while Goddard & Lee are learning nothing from fisher & Dempster if they aren't playing.

Also this notion of selection integrity that people keep bringing up, lee & giddard have both had at least half a dozen good games in the VFL, but Ray & Gilbert waltzed straight into the side in front of them after only a couple of average VFL form. So I think this theory is a load of crap, guys are getting a game on history not form.

I don't understand giving lee a 2 year extension and not playing him while his form has been good.

We can't just rely on injuries to play young guys with our list profile IMO.

Also, I'd rather see the inexperienced guys play in games where we might actually win, rather than throw them in against top 4 sides... That will be terrible for their confidence.

Let Mckenzie play against Essendon & GWS, bring ray back for hawthorn or freo.

100% agree with you on this.

As our side stands now, i think we are playing 1 or 2 experienced guys more than we should.

[plugger66]

Hard to get to 100 games when you are playing for Sandringham all year.

Who would be anywhere near a 100 if they had played a little more often?

You have to get to 30 before you get to 50 before you get to 100.

I was happy with the balance a few weeks and was in fact arguing with con & bluthy that we had enough youth... That was when Riewoldt, ray, Gilbert, Montagna and co were out. I've said all along that I don't think all of our vets should play in the one side...

People keep talking about these mentors, while Goddard & Lee are learning nothing from fisher & Dempster if they aren't playing.

Also this notion of selection integrity that people keep bringing up, lee & giddard have both had at least half a dozen good games in the VFL, but Ray & Gilbert waltzed straight into the side in front of them after only a couple of average VFL form. So I think this theory is a load of crap, guys are getting a game on history not form.

I don't understand giving lee a 2 year extension and not playing him while his form has been good.

We can't just rely on injuries to play young guys with our list profile IMO.

Also, I'd rather see the inexperienced guys play in games where we might actually win, rather than throw them in against top 4 sides... That will be terrible for their confidence.

Let Mckenzie play against Essendon & GWS, bring ray back for hawthorn or freo.

Well we are completely different on the last bit. Id rather win games with the best side we can field and when we start losing changes will take care of themselves. Lee may have been giving a 2 contract by the club but AR may just think he cant play so why play him. That's obviously a guess but it seems a reasonable guess. As for Goddard, well he like McCartin is a tall and may simply not be ready and I have no problem at all that he hasn't played. And apart from Ray I cant think of an older player who shouldn't be playing anyway. Even Ray is going OK. I think we have a great balance of younger and older but due to the middle aged players lack of numbers we have to play the older guys.

[dragit]

I rate developing our next side above winning games this year, if we throw Lee in against hawthorn that would be a terrible decision in my opinion.

You don't "learn to win" games of football if you're not in the side.

Acres looks comfortable at AFL level IMO, would hate to see him running around in the VFL for the rest of the year when he's fit.

[plugger66]

I rate developing our next side above winning games this year, if we throw Lee in against hawthorn that would be a terrible decision in my opinion.

You don't "learn to win" games of football if you're not in the side.

Acres looks comfortable at AFL level IMO, would hate to see him running around in the VFL for the rest of the year when he's fit.

Im not caring about Lee and I don't think the club are either. I agree its harder for KPP but I don't agree it has any effect for the future if mids come in and the side is belted. And Acres had 2 pretty ordinary games and was dropped. I think that's the way to teach kids quicker. The other way is just playing them even if they are struggling. 2 different ways that hopefully end up with the same result. And I rate winning games as a way of developing the next side. Lets be honest, probably 60% of those in the seconds will be gone in 2 years so playing them achieves nothing. I trust the coaches can see ability and lack of ability at Sandy.

[Bruce G McAbee]

I am happy the younger guys are running around at Sandy, especially McCartin and Goddard.
There is no rush to bring them up, plus another pre season to help build them up wont hurt. remember what happened to Kosi because he was probably played more than he should have been back then, and his back injury from 2002 was avoidable.
I am sure the coaches know that and will play them when they think they are really ready, wouldn't be surprised if it is towards the end just to give them a taste.
But right now, all the older guys deserve their spot, you don't drop a player who is in good form just because of his age.

[dragit]

you don't drop a player who is in good form just because of his age.

No it's seems that you have to de-list veterans to avoid the temptation of playing them...

Clint Jones & James Gwilt played most of last year before being delisted, while Bruce spent most of the year in the VFL.

PS. Can we stop the "I'm sure the coaches know more than you" schtick, of course they do, but clearly they don't get it right all the time and there would be nothing to discuss if we all just thought so.

[saintly]

There needs to be an element of getting what we can from the mentors while we can. It's all well and good to say that we need to get games into this kid or that kid right now, but the fact is that we have about 10 games left to get on ground instruction out of Fisher. Take it while it is an option, because it's highly unlikely to be an option next year. We have bugger all blokes over 24, and we will have even less very soon.

I can imagine this place going into meltdown if Schneids body holds up and he goes again next year, or same thing for Faz. But the fact is that we have a handful of guys over 200 games and then the rest of the list under about 30 games. We need the guidance, knowledge and cool head under pressure that the older guys provide. If you doubt their influence, listen to Jack Lonie talk about Schneids.......

Don't make the mistake of believing that because we learned to step on the throat of a defenseless opponent that our guys are suddenly experienced. The fall away in age and experience after the core group is still dramatic. We need every teaching opportunity we can get.......

Schneids is a monty to get rookied again next year.

Schneider has already said it was his last year. Of course he can change his mind.

[Con Gorozidis]

For the record I dont think it is fair to compare us with the Pies. Every player and every list needs to be judged on their own merits. Collingwood had better middle-agers than us (Cloke, Pendles, Sidebottom, Beams*, McCaffer, Reid, Blair, Brown, Toovey, Goldsack) giving them more scope to play kids the last few years. BUT if people are going to run a scare campaign saying if you get rid of your older players you end up like Melbourne, then I can so easily debunk that by pointing to the Pies who prove that you CAN get rid of your older players and prosper.

So anytime anyone brings up Melbourne, I am going to bring up the Pies.

Pies average age this year 23.10 months. Average 10 guys under 50 games each week.(24.5 & 9 for the Saints).

[Austinnn]

I was firmly in the anti-Schneider camp up until maybe the Bulldogs win, but Adam has made me eat my words. He has been the Sergeant we need out on the field, of all the vets, he and Roo are the most vocal ones, and any time you see Schneider he's directing traffic or talking.

As has been publicised, he's also a valuable mentor for Jack Lonie and that kid is going to be a premiership Saint one of these days. Schneider has played in 5 GFs and who knows how many finals, so a pretty handy mentor.

He's also running into some form, in the middle and at half forward, linking play. I'm happy he's in the side. I wouldn't begrudge him another year but I hope one of the other players is getting ready to do his leadership work.

I agree with P66 about Ray; he's a really good player who I rate, but strategically if we're phasing out the vets it would make sense to start with him as he's not key position and we have replacements. Maybe a trade could be on the cards as he's got a lot of good footy left in him. Not sure about his value though.

Fisher will probably retire unfortunately, after a distinguished career. Gilbert might last another year, but we can't really rely on him anymore. Dempster will probably be next, so we need some experience down back again, and by the way, Con is right: our defenders had a pretty easy game against Essendon, and on the rare occasions that the ball did end up in enemy territory, the defence wasn't always watertight. So that is something that needs to be addressed.

I think BM or someone said that they'd watched Sandy and reckon that Tom Lee will never make it, but I'd like to at least try him for a couple of games as a backman. It would seem that his days and Simpkin's are numbered otherwise. So where are the backmen of our future, apart from Luke Delaney? Josh Bruce can forget about ever playing there again, except in a pinch. Payne has the build of an icy pole and he's really the only KPD on our list outside the abovementioned players. Perhaps a trade can be sorted, but who?


At least Roo and Monty are a few years off, hopefully.

[Con Gorozidis]

Port seem to have a surplus of tall defenders. I have no idea which ones are any good though. Maybe they are all terrible.

Trengove, A Logan, OShea, Clurey, Hombsch, Carlisle, Broadbent, Jonas.