I am surprised we recruited Celine. She has a history of injury and has very few runs on the board. She isn't getting any younger and she doesn't seem to be improving. That is very ordinary. I don't see her on our list in 2 years: there are better, younger rucks going around these days.
Breann is also lacking input this year. Jess Good is doing more ruckwork, and she is quite good at it, but she doesn't have the same presence around the ground. Breann can, but it is appearing less and less these days.
I didn't mind the recruitement of Celine as valuable talls are hard to come by, and we were leaking some. So if between the twins and good, we needed to work out 1 forward, 1 back and 1 ruck, ideally.
Instead, Bree has been moved forward because she can play there, but we've sacrificed the ruck somewhat by playing Good there mostly.....and Celine is just taking up space and not really doing anything.....and not getting any better.
We need to make Bree #1 ruck. Have good playing from the goal square and swapping with Bree and send Celine back to the 2's. Not sure if she is carrying any injuries, but her output cannot be persisted with.
I'd almost try and sit Vescio on Conti, but I don't think she has the tank, or the ability to stick a tackle, but at least is smart enough to cut off her run.
Otherwise maybe one of the Keeleys could do the job.
Celine Moody is almost non-existant yet again. In conditions like this, not sure why you'd persist with tall talent that goes missing. Bree Moody is struggling to reach the heights she has previously, because they are tucking her away in the forward line a lot more.
Not sure who we could bring in, but surely couldn't be any worse.
I only saw bits and pieces but from what I did see it appeared the gal's defensive pressure was really good and they seemed to be hand-balling more into space, breaking the game open and spreading, rather than those dinky handballs into trouble? Good win.
The girls were very slick which is a big contrast to to week 1 and even an improvement on last week. Cats couldn't pick up the thing.
Disappointing our off-season 'gun recruits' via trade/draft are sitting on the emergencies - Duursma and Keck
Its looking like a well balanced side (Good excluded) Vescio getting pushed back forward after failing at a midfield role (again) is probably the end of that experiement.
Cats are a good side, albeit without Georgie this week....and we are at home.
But that's a position. And sometimes it's the best position. It's like politics...the centre is the best
I reckon you would be a group 3 Kruds...but I think your disappointment will fade quickly because your focus will switch to List management. I suspect you'll probably reference the result next year in pre-match threads if you think the MC have stuffed up at selection.
I was somewhere between a 1 and a 2. I thought we might have a chance if some of our better players came back and boosted the side but we didn't get them back in a match fit state. That's the other point. There's a difference between being 'fit to play' and being 'match fit'. The first one is easy to determine. The second pretty difficult. Tom is a good example. They didn't think he could last the game. As it turned out he probably could have.
I was 100% a group 2.
Didn't want the year to be over (group 1) but thought anything is possibly, no matter how unlikely. I was pretty much resigned to losing (and moving onto next year) when the team was announced. But there is always that little bit of hope from this side who doesn't give up.
What generates the expectations and reactions is results to some degree, but the bigger generator I would argue is personality type. You can predict with a high level of accuracy how the various posters on here will react to a given situation, and that includes all of us.
I think you're both right as its a combination of the 2.
Just out of curiosity, Which group do you think i belong too? What about a random selection of others?
