Playing a role you should know thatGives us nothing, gets out muscled constantly.
I can't see anything special.
Another drafted because he can run all day.
But never touch the ball
Playing a role you should know thatGives us nothing, gets out muscled constantly.
I can't see anything special.
Another drafted because he can run all day.
But never touch the ball
Young goes past him like his not even there.Playing a role you should know that
Agree, but also, a SF has to find the goals. He hasn't for many games now ... and Mansell hardly has that much either for a far more experienced player.And that’s no slight on him. He’s been going well, then ok, then dropped off a little. A lot of hard running, sometimes a week or so off just to freshen up a bit will work wonders. That term “managed”.
But there’s still a lot to like about this kid.
Spot onOpposition clubs are finding some absolute gems , we have cubic zirconias
Only 1 Geelong player under the age of 21 has played more than 2 AFL games this year.Why do our players need a spell and Geelols youth are flying?
We have 2 players under 21 who've played 2 Afl games?Only 1 Geelong player under the age of 21 has played more than 2 AFL games this year.
We have twice that amount.
Smelbourne just beat the previously unbeaten Geelol and had 5 players under 10 games - as Goodwin himself said. So young players don't have to hold you down necessarily. Salty put his superstar Jezza on Windsor at least some of the time but he came off second best!Only 1 Geelong player under the age of 21 has played more than 2 AFL games this year.
We have twice that amount.
But that also means he still had 18 matured and experienced senior players in the key roles to support the young kids in their learning. Just a little bit different to our situation.Smelbourne just beat the previously unbeaten Geelol and had 5 players under 10 games -
Its funny how hard it is for some posters.But that also means he still had 18 matured and experienced senior players in the key roles to support the young kids in their learning. Just a little bit different to our situation.
+ Mansell and Naismith ( )Its funny how hard it is for some posters.
I think it was EZY who posted the limit of players under 50 games before the team's chances of winning dropped away significantly.
Something like 5 youngsters in the side is enough to unsettle and likely be a loss.
Campbell, Sonz, Dow, Lefau, Banks, Ralphsmith, Young, Miller, Brown, MJ
Smelbourne just beat the previously unbeaten Geelol and had 5 players under 10 games - as Goodwin himself said. So young players don't have to hold you down necessarily. Salty put his superstar Jezza on Windsor at least some of the time but he came off second best!
It's especially who's playing around them as well as how good the youngsters are.
Its funny how hard it is for some posters.
I think it was EZY who posted the limit of players under 50 games before the team's chances of winning dropped away significantly.
Something like 5 youngsters in the side is enough to unsettle and likely be a loss.
Campbell, Sonz, Dow, Lefau, Banks, Ralphsmith, Young, Miller, Brown, MJ
There's one thing I think you need to add to this. The Dee's are still playing the same gameplan which means those guys who have been there for more than 1 year have roles and patterns that they know and can run too.Yes and they are generally playing easier supporting roles. We are having to force ours to be the driving force. Its a chalk and cheese scenario.
If you look a bit deeper its obvious. Their under 10 game players were:
Windsor - a pick 7 btw - 8th game - 18 disposals
Woewodin - 10th game - 12 disposals
Howes - 8th game - 9 disposals
Turner - 5th game - 5 disposals
Laurie - was the sub - 8th game - 1 disposal
Melbourne actually had 8 platers below 50 games (the Cats had only 2), so the other 3 were:
McVee - 33rd game - this guy was an excellent pickup from the WAFL
Van Rooyen - 28th game - 7 disposals
Chandler - 41st game - 6 disposals
So essentially out of those 8, only 1 really had a sizeable impact on the game, possibly should include McVee in there, but they had all their stars to lead them. Their best were clearly the likes of May, Oliver, Lever, Petracca, Viney and Gawn.
Where are our leaders? Pretty much all of them are on the treatment table. Its super hard to compete without them.
We had 12 players with less than 50 games playing:
Sonsie - 14th game - 18 disposals
Brown - 7th game - 17 disposals
Dow - 25th game - 15 disposals
RalphSmith - 35th game - 14 disposals
Young - 26th game - 14 disposals
Banks - 11th game - 13 disposals
Miller - 31st game - 11 disposals
Campbell - 8th game - 9 disposals
Rioli - 34th game - 8 disposals
Mansell - 39th game - 8 disposals
Lefau - 6th game - 8 disposals
Naismith - 33rd game - 6 disposals
The point is you expect that your leaders with greater than 100 games are the ones that will drive your side, with those in the 50-100 game bracket providing the upside as your older players drop off. Your under 50 gamers aren't really expected to be driving our side, they are getting experience and will play supporting roles but 12 out of 23 in the side is just going to lead to a generally uncompetitive position.
Our balance in our side both positionally and the sheer number of inexperienced players we are being forced to play has gone way past critical mass, and we are seeing that with our results. We are trying to protect the defensive side which means scoring will be severely impacted, as we have seen.
IMO the reaction on here to Sunday is way over the top. We were never going to be competitive, until we can get Hopper, Taranto, Balta and Lynch back in the time. All 4 of those guys are so important to the way that we remain competitive.
You could say the side hit the proverbial brick wallY
IMO the reaction on here to Sunday is way over the top. We were never going to be competitive, until we can get Hopper, Taranto, Balta and Lynch back in the time. All 4 of those guys are so important to the way that we remain competitive.
we have to take it on the chin , this year was a finals write off when Lynch went downThere's one thing I think you need to add to this. The Dee's are still playing the same gameplan which means those guys who have been there for more than 1 year have roles and patterns that they know and can run too.
We are changing and have changed our gameplan. That is noticeable at training. Watching us against Freo there were times where (and this is my terminilogy) we "zigged" rather than "zagged". At training we zag but under gameday pressure and not being fully aligned and some of last year and before slipping in we revert and we're not all aligned.
When we have a little more time (create more time/space) we get the Marlion passes to 30 meters out from goal. Which is incidently what we train.
Yes, TM, but if you read my full post, that's included as part of it - "It's especially who's playing around them as well as how good the youngsters are."But that also means he still had 18 matured and experienced senior players in the key roles to support the young kids in their learning. Just a little bit different to our situation.