Was it not you who was saying we didn't need anymore talls because the number on our list was the same as the number on other lists??
Yes, but that was before we lost four talls and got only one back. However, my position has always been that there's no point adding talls if they can't play.
I'm a firm believer in the "a good big man will always beat a good little man" adage but with "good" being the operative word.
Thats the point, the past....not now.
I think you've misread something somewhere.
LP was stating fans were sayong we were top heavy in the past....when we had lemmey etc.
You were the only one i ever heard suggesting anything of the sort.
In short.....LP is talking BS again.
Just like the afl screwed up by playing the game on a friday night.....just a mere 96k there for a sellout crowd.
Just finished watching this, fathers day duties called.
Happy to get a big win, kicking 10 goals without both Sophie and Darcy in the side.
One of only 3 teams undefeated......and we play the other 2 in the next 2 weeks. Kangas, then Dees. Kangas haven't been beaten in what.......2.5 years?? Lets see how well we go there, will very much determine our hopes for the year.
Who was those fans that were complaining it was top heavy?
As best as i can recall, there was only 1 person who suggested as much and it was based purely on heights rather than ability to play the positions, and that was DJC.
Don't recall anyone else saying that.
I think your recall may be faulty, Kruddler. I'd prefer a top heavy team over a vertically-challenged team, provided that the big lads can play footy.
Was it not you who was saying we didn't need anymore talls because the number on our list was the same as the number on other lists??
No, because as we know, our list management is determined by committee with the coach, head of football and CEO all involved and sharing responsibility for direction and decisions. Another couple of KPPs would be nice, but not if they're like Harry Lemmey or Josh Schache.
It's not lost on me, that only a short while ago when we had Lemmey and a couple of others, a lot of fans complained the list was top heavy. At the time fans were content with Harry and Charlie with Pitto on hand and TDK coming into contention, and most were busy screaming for more midfield depth.
Now we have a midfield bonanza, at least at the moment, TDK and Charlie have buggered off, and all of a sudden it's list mismanagement!
Some navigate list management like Captain Jack Sparrow's crazy compass, always pointing to what you desire without showing you a direction!
Who was those fans that were complaining it was top heavy?
As best as i can recall, there was only 1 person who suggested as much and it was based purely on heights rather than ability to play the positions, and that was DJC.
Was Austins greatest failing that he couldn't find a couple of understudy KPF's and the reason why he was shown the door?
No, because as we know, our list management is determined by committee with the coach, head of football and CEO all involved and sharing responsibility for direction and decisions. Another couple of KPPs would be nice, but not if they're like Harry Lemmey or Josh Schache.
Someone has the final say. Committee or not, there is a boss.
Same with Voss. By your logic, since we sacked Voss, we should've sacked the rest of the committee as well!
Can't have it both ways.
FYI, the coach, the head of football and the ceo have all changed in the past 12 months. So why should Austin be spared?
Young earned his place in the team after spending much of the season in the VFL
Young had reached his ceiling and found wanting at AFL. Best to give someone else a go. Even a MSD pick might be OK
Why do we persist with players that won’t be part of a premiership team?
There isn't anyone else, this is the problem. We have refused to draft someone to move into these roles when we know they are not up to it. HOK was the great white hope and turned out to be a lot worse than young.
If we actually recruited a semi decent ruck/forward we wouldn't have needed to play Young.
It's why I liked Casboult. Jack of all trades, master if none. but was very handy Jack in all of those trades.
Probably going to be left to Harry again next year. We'll likely get Amartey, not my first choice but a decent enough player to support Harry. Makes it a bit easier to play Harry in that role and not have Kemp and Gov left there when he rucks.
Its why i was so 'positive' on Jack Silvagni.
Having him as a 2nd ruck was great for team balance and why we never needed 2 rucks. Forward/back/ruck.....Young is a poor version of Silvagni and worse in all 3 areas......but still the best we have.
Yet he is still the best option for that roll that we have.......which is a blight on our list management.
We should've had players to do this roll drafted years ago, but constant neglect has left us here.
Very true, which is why several of these duds get games every week. If there's even a remote chance that Blakey wants to leave, then we should make him our trade priority this year.
As good of a player that he is, I don't think we could sell it courtesy of our Carlton Respects campaign.
It would hurt the club and everything its trying to do. Unless we could somehow manage to get him to be a poster boy of righting wrongs etc etc Propaganda machine would need to be in orverdrive for that to happen.
I thought Walsh was clearly our best, Hewett had a lot of footy but I suspect little impact. Weitering was well on top before being smashed by Neale, just another accident. I suppose the usual suspects will role up here telling us how soft Weiters is and why he should be traded!
There is a toll paid when you try to better teams like the Handbaggers, they are willing to go that step beyond fair to get a result, and they are coached in it. They bury knees into hips and backs in marking contests, take legs out from under opponents, block hinder and push to the limits of the rules and often beyond, they happily give away the free if the opportunity to bruise an ear or two surfaces. All the time claiming an injustice at peak voice.
You can't defeat them by colouring inside the lines, we just never seem to learn that.
Personally, I've not really a fan of the "we're too nice" trope. I've been hearing this for years, and whatever other issues I have with it, it basically condemns several generations of coaches, players, administrators etc to the status of blind ignoramuses, scardey-cats, or an endless parade of placid, semi pacifist individuals of extremely high moral caliber.
Agree.
Where we physically dominated? Pushed around? Scared??
No.
We put our body on the line. We stood up for teammates. We pushed and shoved as much as we needed too.
Did we miss some tackles? Yes. Did they? Yes. Does every team? Yes. Look at our run down tackles last week. Same players. They get scared during the week??
So....do we want to encourage our guys to 'stretch the rules' in order to get an advantage? I'd argue we do that already in certain ways......cripps has a nice 'crow throw' and george does a good 'selwood drop' to get frees. Do we need to borderline assault the opposition to win games? I don't think so.
The MCG was a fortress for us for a little while and Docklands was an achilles heel. It seems thats flipped around. Problem is, finals arent played at Marvel (see Syd and the SCG).
The problem is no home ground advantage.
To finish top 4 you have to win as many games as you can.
We haven't finished the home and away season top 4 since we left Princes Park. The Bombers barring 2000/2001 when they were already a powerhouse might be the same.
I get the sentiment of this, but there are 2 problems with this.
1. That was not Geelongs home ground, it was more of ours. 2. Every game we play (except maybe Collingwood??) our crowd is louder by comparison, so we make it a home crowd at least.
I think we went in with our best balanced team. That was until we saw the weather forecast. In the end, Young was not needed and we needed an extra small. Wet conditions, marking is more difficult, ball spend more time on the ground, you need more smalls to adapt.
I think the weather exposed our game plan.
I think it exposed our forwards as not good enough.
I think the poor performers from last week were the same this week. Young, Byrne, gov, Kemp.
We missed Hayward.
We missed Haynes. Derkson was not up to same level. We got exposed when Harry Dean went off.
