Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Coach Eyes v Fan Goggles (Read 1875 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Coach Eyes v Fan Goggles

We often argue about the merits of players.
We see things differently and rate players on different criteria.
I tend to give preference to players who give a 100% effort, sometimes over players with better skills.
Simon Wiggins was a player whose place in the side was often questioned, but he was a particular favourite of mine.

As a result we often find ourselves at odds with team selections...and question 'Why?' player X is getting a game while obviously more talented players find themselves treading water in the second side.

The simple answer is that coaches have set certain standards for individuals to be promoted and those players aren't meeting them.
Team balance could be another reason.

We have the situation at the moment where there are queries over the continued presence of some players in the side
While we're still a developing team these criteria for selection may be worth the pain....but there must come a point when it has to be the very best side we can put on the ground.

I've no doubt selections are made with a lot more information than we supporters have access to, but when there is almost unanimous questioning of a selection...well, can we all be so wrong!

Re: Coach Eyes v Fan Goggles

Reply #1 –
Coaches have favourites and every team has a couple of players who get games each week who fans can't understand why they even remain on the list.
Teague seemed a fan of Plowman who has driven some fans to despair but Voss has had no problems playing him in the twos and promoting another equally highly debatable quantity in Parks to replace him.

Re: Coach Eyes v Fan Goggles

Reply #2 –
I've got no problem with rewarding effort, and dropping players who wan't to do their own thing.

My issue is when that effort rarely, if ever, presents itself at AFL level and when it doesn't overcome the shortcomings of that player.

Case in point is Boyd.
Yay, he did 1 good smother and showed a great example.
However, how many 'out on the full' do we see from him? How many turnovers directly to opposition do we see? Missed tackles?

The net gain/loss from his inclusion seems to be very much a loss. So much so, that he doesn't deserve a spot on the list IMO.

Plenty of other players have their 'pet hates' in the team.
LOB, Plowman, Setterfield, Newnes, Fisher.....

....but imo, they clearly offer something, even with their flaws, over someone like Boyd.

Re: Coach Eyes v Fan Goggles

Reply #3 –
Quote from: kruddler on
I've got no problem with rewarding effort, and dropping players who wan't to do their own thing.

My issue is when that effort rarely, if ever, presents itself at AFL level and when it doesn't overcome the shortcomings of that player.

Case in point is Boyd.
Yay, he did 1 good smother and showed a great example.
However, how many 'out on the full' do we see from him? How many turnovers directly to opposition do we see? Missed tackles?

The net gain/loss from his inclusion seems to be very much a loss. So much so, that he doesn't deserve a spot on the list IMO.

Plenty of other players have their 'pet hates' in the team.
LOB, Plowman, Setterfield, Newnes, Fisher.....

....but imo, they clearly offer something, even with their flaws, over someone like Boyd.

Yep
That's what it seems from the outside looking in.
It has the supporters wondering and questioning.
Interesting, you rarely, if ever, hear a journalist ask a question as to why a Boyd is preferred over a Dow, who appears to be a much better option.
The medical sub is a funny position
Do you go with the next best player, or do you go with another player and allow numbers 23 and 24 to get a full game in the seconds.
That makes a bit of sense, only to the point that if you get an early injury it can backfire...especially if you're swapping a small for a tall.
For mine, the medical sub should always be a medium sized utility.

Re: Coach Eyes v Fan Goggles

Reply #5 –
Medical sub is a difficult one. Do you inject a player with enough x-factory that can swing a game? Do you swap a like for a like? Do you add a smaller player to replace a taller player considering you may be experiencing problems in the middle of the ground to better balance to squad? Player selections will always be a debate. Why was player “A” selected, when players “B, C, and D look like better options? Why did the coach inject such a player as a sub?

I would only guess that once we develop the entire squad better, and truely see some genuine depth, we will see better balance in the playing group. Injuries will influence this week in, week out. I hope we find a way to better develop young players. I am amazed how many times we see new inclusions in a main squad produce remarkable performances even though they lack experience, and deliver what is required on a regular basis for other sides. I hope we get to this point in time and grow some quality inclusions through the draft process.

Kennedy, Gov, Silvagni and Jones are players with great ability to produce in roles that suit. It is a shame we lost Jones under the particular circumstances. Find us another Jnr Jones and we are on our way to minimise defensive holes in our squad. Good questions Lods. Good topic of debate.
This digital world is too much for us insects to understand.

Re: Coach Eyes v Fan Goggles

Reply #6 –
I like my medical sub to be a player with X factor who can change games and give you a lift...Martin, Honey, Motlop etc..Ted Hopkins...

Re: Coach Eyes v Fan Goggles

Reply #7 –
Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 on
I like my medical sub to be a player with X factor who can change games and give you a lift...Martin, Honey, Motlop etc..Ted Hopkins...
It would be handy to have that luxury
Probably the issue with that is that you'd want most of those X factor players in your starting line-up.

Reintroducing Honey, and starting off Motlop....yep,  it might be a good way of easing them into the side.

Re: Coach Eyes v Fan Goggles

Reply #8 –
Quote from: Lods on
For mine, the medical sub should always be a medium sized utility.

Kemp is the ideal sub IMO.

Can cover most positions on the ground, or cover someone else who can cover the other positions.
That is, he can play forward or back, but if we need a ruck, Young can go in and he can cover key back.
Need a pure mid? He can cover Walsh on a wing and walsh can go in....etc.

Re: Coach Eyes v Fan Goggles

Reply #9 –
I think that's the key.
It needs to be a player who can slot in or open up multiple positions.
We never know whether they're going to be activated in the first minute, the last minute...or not at all.

Re: Coach Eyes v Fan Goggles

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Mantis on
Find us another Jnr Jones and we are on our way to minimise defensive holes in our squad. Good questions Lods. Good topic of debate.

Oscar McDonald  seemed suited to the role but he spends too much time in the clinic.

Re: Coach Eyes v Fan Goggles

Reply #11 –
Quote from: RiverRat on
Oscar McDonald  seemed suited to the role but he spends too much time in the clinic.

His brother seems to be falling out of favour at the Dees, could we consider pursuing him? Not sure of his contract status.
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: Coach Eyes v Fan Goggles

Reply #12 –
Maybe he's a bit too old, on second thought.
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: Coach Eyes v Fan Goggles

Reply #13 –
Depending on the verdict with Pittonet, it might be a ruckman we're chasing in the mid-season draft?

Re: Coach Eyes v Fan Goggles

Reply #14 –
Quote from: WASurfer on
Depending on the verdict with Pittonet, it might be a ruckman we're chasing in the mid-season draft?
There is a bit of a dearth of quality "mature" rucks at VFL level or below, plenty of project players at the moment but not many ready-made to go!

Club is suspiciously quiet on Pitto but I'm all for our club reverting to it's old ways, he's OK, he's OK, he's OK, until selection night and he's out unexpectedly with general soreness.

There are a couple of old fashioned tap rucks around suburban footy, but they won't cut it in AFL, they just aren't mobile enough. Club's cannot afford to surrender a lose player to the opposition after the bounce, teams are too good now at using the unmarked player!
The Force Awakens!