Weak selection policy AGAIN!

[Beno88]

So Bruce goes out, isn't replaced by another tall forward.

Paddy goes out, isn't replaced by another tall forward.

Leaving Membrey as the only genuine key forward. (While Marshall is a promising young ruckman, he's not an AFL level forward)

In 2016 & 2017 we played with FOUR key forwards on 8 occasions. Riewoldt, Membrey, Bruce and McCartin. Across those eight games we won five. Those four talls collectively scored a minimum of 3 goals in each game.

2016 R9 - Beat Essendon by 46. 10 goals between them.
2016 R10 - Beat Fremantle by 34. 9 goals.
2016 R11 - Lost to Adelaide by 88. 5 goals.
2016 R14 - Beat Geelong by 3. 3 goals.
2016 R15 - Lost to Gold Coast by 40. 3 goals.
2016 R21 - Lost Sydney by 70. 4 goals.
2016 - R22 - Beat Richmond by 9. 5 goals
2017 - R3 - Beat Brisbane by 31. 5 goals.

Why the hell are we considering playing ONE key forward?!? Is our delivery inside 50 that bad that we just remove the targets?

Surely Carlisle goes forward.

[degruch]

I think we'll see Carlisle FWD occasionally, with the rucks resting there, Gilbert too. Acres will likely be there too...it could be unpredictable, or it could be crap...I guess we'll find out! But don't think relying on a standard forward line set up with VFL like-for-like replacements (Lonie = Long, Battle = McCartin) has much of an upside.

[fugazi]

Why did we draft Battle if not for these sort if situations?
Give the kid a go ffs!

[spert]

Probably would have given Battle a run and left Newnes out. We need a more mobile forward line, and it would be a good game to try out as much as possible...or are we playing it safe for the finals?

[Saintmatt]

SINCLAIR not in but Billings & Gresham stay. FFS

The great mystery. So - given Sinclair is one of only 3 RELIABLE kicks in our team (the other two being 11 and 33 - teen draftees ... says everything FFS!) he shouldn't have even been dropped in the first place. And yet - we now go play on a big fast track where keeping possession is a non-negotiable (hardly our forte) we choose not to bring him back up after 30 touches and a goal.

So yeah - more Billings and Newnes (& to a lesser extent Gresham) seems like a great plan.

F&*%ing idiot Match Committee. Again.

[parkeysainter]

Newnes was in our best last week v the Dees and he was. Reported in match reports from different outlets also so as if they would drop him.

Rice hasn't done enough at Sandy to warrant a game yet. Battle ditto. Tom Lamb who plays FF and CHF would get a game before him if he was on the Saints list. That is just reality.

[Scollop]

Agree. The only one demanding selection in the ones was Phillips, and he is in. Battle certainly hasn't, not ready yet. Sinclair unlucky.

Acres had to come in. Don't see any problems. Bringing players in who have not really earnt it just for the sake of change will not achieve anything.

You are now on ignore. Have looked over your content and style over the last couple of weeks

I have a feeling you and parkeysainter are the same poster

[spert]

Newnes was in our best last week v the Dees and he was. Reported in match reports from different outlets also so as if they would drop him.

Rice hasn't done enough at Sandy to warrant a game yet. Battle ditto. Tom Lamb who plays FF and CHF would get a game before him if he was on the Saints list. That is just reality.

Newnes? Jeez our standard must be low, or I was at a different match.

[degruch]

Newnes was in our best last week v the Dees and he was. Reported in match reports from different outlets also so as if they would drop him.

Rice hasn't done enough at Sandy to warrant a game yet. Battle ditto. Tom Lamb who plays FF and CHF would get a game before him if he was on the Saints list. That is just reality.

Newnes? Jeez our standard must be low, or I was at a different match.

AFL site. Must admit, there were a few I'd put before him though...and we were pretty crap.

I guess his lame efforts have been widely publicised in the media lately, and we know at his best he's very good, so he gets the chance to respond. Not too many get that chance, so I hope to hell he makes the best of it.

[parkeysainter]

Agree. The only one demanding selection in the ones was Phillips, and he is in. Battle certainly hasn't, not ready yet. Sinclair unlucky.

Acres had to come in. Don't see any problems. Bringing players in who have not really earnt it just for the sake of change will not achieve anything.

You are now on ignore. Have looked over your content and style over the last couple of weeks

I have a feeling you and parkeysainter are the same poster

I am not takeaway. I have morals and self respect and don't pose as a double poster on here. I don't have time for that crap in my busy life even if I wanted to. BFUSA the admin can verify it.

Takeaway seems like a good poster though. He/she uses logic and sound judgement and is not an emotive knee jerker.

[parkeysainter]

Newnes was in our best last week v the Dees and he was. Reported in match reports from different outlets also so as if they would drop him.

Rice hasn't done enough at Sandy to warrant a game yet. Battle ditto. Tom Lamb who plays FF and CHF would get a game before him if he was on the Saints list. That is just reality.

Newnes? Jeez our standard must be low, or I was at a different match.

Well, he was in the best.

[takeaway]

Agree. The only one demanding selection in the ones was Phillips, and he is in. Battle certainly hasn't, not ready yet. Sinclair unlucky.

Acres had to come in. Don't see any problems. Bringing players in who have not really earnt it just for the sake of change will not achieve anything.

You are now on ignore. Have looked over your content and style over the last couple of weeks

I have a feeling you and parkeysainter are the same poster

Put on ignore by Scollop. Now I know my posts make sense.

[saynta]

Think this weeks team is slightly better than last weeks. Maybe a bit down in goal scoring potential but picks up more than it loses in possession gathering.

[portosaint]

Agree. The only one demanding selection in the ones was Phillips, and he is in. Battle certainly hasn't, not ready yet. Sinclair unlucky.

Acres had to come in. Don't see any problems. Bringing players in who have not really earnt it just for the sake of change will not achieve anything.

You are now on ignore. Have looked over your content and style over the last couple of weeks

I have a feeling you and parkeysainter are the same poster

Put on ignore by Scollop. Now I know my posts make sense.

Keep telling yourself that.

Regardless of who is or is not banging the door down at Sandy, several players in the seniors do not deserve the same gift of games.

How does this not make sense to people??

The definition of insanity is...........

[portosaint]

Our team selection (ie; 2 forced changes only) suggests we are tracking along just nicely. Am I missing something?

[Scollop]

Takeaway seems like a good poster though. He/she uses logic and sound judgement and is not an emotive knee jerker.

As Brick Top would say; Get your tongue out of his ....

[DJ Higgins]

What does Sinclair have to do to get re-selected and what does Billings and Gresham have to do to get dropped? I have no problem with certain players "banging on the door" for selection staying in Sandy until they are actually ready. Battle has already played and wasn't great/big enough and Rice and Goddard are not good. Maybe later in the year

[takeaway]

Agree. The only one demanding selection in the ones was Phillips, and he is in. Battle certainly hasn't, not ready yet. Sinclair unlucky.

Acres had to come in. Don't see any problems. Bringing players in who have not really earnt it just for the sake of change will not achieve anything.

You are now on ignore. Have looked over your content and style over the last couple of weeks

I have a feeling you and parkeysainter are the same poster

Put on ignore by Scollop. Now I know my posts make sense.

Keep telling yourself that.

Regardless of who is or is not banging the door down at Sandy, several players in the seniors do not deserve the same gift of games.

How does this not make sense to people??

The definition of insanity is...........

Which players in the seniors are you talking about? Granted quite a few are not in form, but are still a better chance to impact future games than those who are doing nothing much at Sandy. Common sense.

[parkeysainter]

Takeaway seems like a good poster though. He/she uses logic and sound judgement and is not an emotive knee jerker.

As Brick Top would say; Get your tongue out of his ....

Whatever. He/she posts well and makes sense. Unlike you Mr Potato Cake.

[portosaint]

Agree. The only one demanding selection in the ones was Phillips, and he is in. Battle certainly hasn't, not ready yet. Sinclair unlucky.

Acres had to come in. Don't see any problems. Bringing players in who have not really earnt it just for the sake of change will not achieve anything.

You are now on ignore. Have looked over your content and style over the last couple of weeks

I have a feeling you and parkeysainter are the same poster

Put on ignore by Scollop. Now I know my posts make sense.

Keep telling yourself that.

Regardless of who is or is not banging the door down at Sandy, several players in the seniors do not deserve the same gift of games.

How does this not make sense to people??

The definition of insanity is...........

Which players in the seniors are you talking about? Granted quite a few are not in form, but are still a better chance to impact future games than those who are doing nothing much at Sandy. Common sense.

Common sense isn't very common these days.

Look where it is getting the St Kilda FC.

Once again, the definition of insanity is........

Finish the sentence.

[takeaway]

Agree. The only one demanding selection in the ones was Phillips, and he is in. Battle certainly hasn't, not ready yet. Sinclair unlucky.

Acres had to come in. Don't see any problems. Bringing players in who have not really earnt it just for the sake of change will not achieve anything.

You are now on ignore. Have looked over your content and style over the last couple of weeks

I have a feeling you and parkeysainter are the same poster

Put on ignore by Scollop. Now I know my posts make sense.

Keep telling yourself that.

Regardless of who is or is not banging the door down at Sandy, several players in the seniors do not deserve the same gift of games.

How does this not make sense to people??

The definition of insanity is...........

Which players in the seniors are you talking about? Granted quite a few are not in form, but are still a better chance to impact future games than those who are doing nothing much at Sandy. Common sense.

Common sense isn't very common these days.

Look where it is getting the St Kilda FC.

Once again, the definition of insanity is........

Finish the sentence.

If you mean the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, that statement is rubbish and has nothing to do with the true definition. Best for you to check facts

[portosaint]

Nice.

It's obviously working for AR anyway.

[asiu]

"Perseverance is a strong, valuable quality.
Perseveration is a troubling issue needing clinical attention.
Don't let a quaint saying blur this distinction."

is this betterer , takeaway

[takeaway]

Muchus betterer asiu

[older saint]

Concern is AR said today that Newness and Billings out of form but have done some good things for us in the past few years. Past few years earns you credits for 2 weeks at best , we would have to be up to 4 or 5 for some of these guys.
I hope 11 pm Saturday night i am eating humble pie and in the words of the fonz "i was WRRRRRRR " , but i doubt it.