Walls has his say on us

[Diego]

Originally posted by liz
If the team really needs a journo to tell it that it is playing terrible football at the moment then the club really is in trouble.

I suspect they've already worked it out for themselves...

They have, but things havent changed.

Sometimes a public dressing down is good instead of a fluff piece about said player moving to the swans and how much his life has changed for the bettrer etc etc etc boring useless fluff.

The media can start with Roos and his lack of dropping players in fear of hurting their sorry arses.

[liz]

Originally posted by Diego

The media can start with Roos and his lack of dropping players in fear of hurting their sorry arses.

Roos is trying to put out what he thinks is the team most likely to win.

Having watched the many reserves games last year and a couple this year, there is no-one there who is shouting out at the moment "Pick me - I will do better than Mathews or Kennelly" (for the sake of naming two non-fringe players who have probably been most consistently disappointing in the five rounds thus far).

I'm not advocating that we don't give a Moore or Schmidt a run this week - I'd like to see one of them get a go. But from Roos' perspective of trying to win the game the equation is not straightforward.

[anne]

We don't win anyway so why not give someone new a go.

[giant]

Pretty damn scary when you find yourself nodding in agreement when Walls is speaking but he seems spot on here. Course things are never quite as simple as the critics would have us believe, but something does need to be done - the game plan ain't working so it's time to try something new (to the extent the personnel allows it)

[j0lly]

good article

[TheHood]

Personally, I think we need to graft out a tough win. I know that sounds boring compared to what everyone is crying out for.

What we're not doing along with everything else is chasing and tackling hard. Players are slipping from our grasp and loose players are running into space at will.

There's a hint of laziness in this aspect to our game and something we're not known for is our laziness. We used to be able to win playing boring footy because we had this aspect covered.

It's alright to play loose checking footy if when you're in attack you're long and direct and accurate. At the moment we're playing the worst of both worlds and by the time we do get the footy we're under the kind pressure we used to be known for applying.

I am not sure about our lack of talent. That maybe an aspect but it's not the reason we're playing poor in comparison to our 2003 form.

[giant]

Originally posted by Diego
I would like the SYDNEY media to focus more on a player that is out of form and really give it to him (like they do here in melbs) rather than run a fluff piece like they normally do.

Too much fluff and love with the swans and the sydney media.

I quite like Richard Hinds' occasional piece in the SMH - sarky bastard (perhaps ROK or Sanecow in disguise?) but usually has something interesting to say.

Tim Morrissey I preferred when he was lead singer of the Smiths.

In brief, Syd AFL media is as deficient as you suggest

[DST]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by giant
Pretty damn scary when you find yourself nodding in agreement when Walls is speaking but he seems spot on here. Course things are never quite as simple as the critics would have us believe, but something does need to be done - the game plan ain't working so it's time to try something new (to the extent the personnel allows it) [/QUO

I agree the game plan needs to be tweaked. But I don'think it needs to be dramatically overhauled in the middle of the season as it is going to get us nowhere.

The slight adjustments can be:

* Cut down on the handball to kick ratio to get it level
* Carry the ball further and increase the use of the bounce
* Mix up our kick in paterns by using the corridor and going longer from the kick in
* Place more empthasis on playing on from marks/free kicks and getting certain players ahead of the contest to provide go forward from stoppages

None of that is earth shattering or a major change to our game plan but the funny thing is we are only 3 to 4 goals a game off scoring wise from 2003/2004. Another 3 to 4 goals in the third quarter against the Roos and the Dees on Saturday night turn games into wins.

DST

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by giant

Tim Morrissey I preferred when he was lead singer of the Smiths.

And when his name was Steven?

[Nico]

Originally posted by liz
Roos is trying to put out what he thinks is the team most likely to win.

Having watched the many reserves games last year and a couple this year, there is no-one there who is shouting out at the moment "Pick me - I will do better than Mathews or Kennelly" (for the sake of naming two non-fringe players who have probably been most consistently disappointing in the five rounds thus far).

I'm not advocating that we don't give a Moore or Schmidt a run this week - I'd like to see one of them get a go. But from Roos' perspective of trying to win the game the equation is not straightforward.

Winning a game is never straight forward.

The problem with never changing anything and supposedly going with the best team, certainly where we are at right now, is really putting the team together that will get beaten by the least amount this week. Try something new.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by sharpie
I completely agree. Everyone has this idea that we are good at stoppages, but I bet it is very much misguided. Would love to see some stats on clearances for and against us this season.

I don't have them for this season, but last season clearances were quite high, perhaps surprisingly so at first glance.

However, our stoppages are much much higher than any opposition team (hence the 'boring' tag) and so our clearances/stoppages ratio is actually quite low.

Therefore we are quite ordinary (some might say 'poor') at stoppages; it's just that we generate so many we get a high clearance count.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by liz
Roos is trying to put out what he thinks is the team most likely to win.

Problem is that to some degree Roos is relying on 'name' and 'reputation'. I've seen coaches do this before in all sports, both observing and playing - they go with the players they know well rather than trying something new. Takes a brave coach to be a little daring in player selection.

[liz]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Problem is that to some degree Roos is relying on 'name' and 'reputation'. I've seen coaches do this before in all sports, both observing and playing - they go with the players they know well rather than trying something new. Takes a brave coach to be a little daring in player selection.

Yes and no.

Most of the possible replacements are NQR yet.

Moore and Schmidt probably don't have the endurance yet to play for more than bursts off the bench.

Willoughby has added some bulk since joining the club but is still pretty light. He is also struggling to overcome a lower leg injury at the moment.

Malceski is on the come-back trail from a knee reco.

Davis I think played his first game of the year this weekend.

There are restrictions on playing Grundy, Vogels, Campbell, Shaw, Garruba, Potter, Shaw - and only Grundy, Vogels and Potter would probably be in with a shot if they could be played.

Ongoing injuries to James, Fixter, Saddo, Fosdike, Sundqvist don't help the cause.

I'm not a fan of Powell because I don't think he works hard enough at reserves level to suggest he would do anything much when the tempo increases. But I know others think he has something to offer and I admit I like his marking ability. But even he has an injury question mark over him at the moment.

So we can call all we like for wholesale changes but there's not that much to choose from. At best anyone he brought in would have to be at the expense of a current "bit-part" player like Monty, Schneider or Bevan. A couple of them probably deserve a go and I think we'll see at least one debutant this weekend (we have to if Mathews and/or Jolly misses) but the value will be the experience they gain rather than any immediate impact on team performance.

And if the point is to give the likes of Kennelly, Mathews (injury aside), O'Keefe a kick up the backside by making them realise their places are not assured, the team will be weaker by dropping them at the expense of a Moore or a Schmidt while other injuries to the squad mean that less experienced but minimal-impact players (ie the three aforementioned hobbits) would have to be retained if a Kennelly or Mathews were dropped.

[Ajn]

This theory is a little short of the mark, when stated that we are missing shots from the boundary line, when it is the ones straight in front that are constantly being missed. Add A.Schauble and we are a different side, allowing our rebound from defence and a flashback to opur attacking style.

P.S. Bevan should be thrown in the middle, I think he has the possibility of becoming the in and under we require! A tough nut!

[Diego]

Originally posted by liz
Yes and no.

Most of the possible replacements are NQR yet.

Moore and Schmidt probably don't have the endurance yet to play for more than bursts off the bench.

Willoughby has added some bulk since joining the club but is still pretty light. He is also struggling to overcome a lower leg injury at the moment.

Malceski is on the come-back trail from a knee reco.

Davis I think played his first game of the year this weekend.

There are restrictions on playing Grundy, Vogels, Campbell, Shaw, Garruba, Potter, Shaw - and only Grundy, Vogels and Potter would probably be in with a shot if they could be played.

Ongoing injuries to James, Fixter, Saddo, Fosdike, Sundqvist don't help the cause.

I'm not a fan of Powell because I don't think he works hard enough at reserves level to suggest he would do anything much when the tempo increases. But I know others think he has something to offer and I admit I like his marking ability. But even he has an injury question mark over him at the moment.

So we can call all we like for wholesale changes but there's not that much to choose from. At best anyone he brought in would have to be at the expense of a current "bit-part" player like Monty, Schneider or Bevan. A couple of them probably deserve a go and I think we'll see at least one debutant this weekend (we have to if Mathews and/or Jolly misses) but the value will be the experience they gain rather than any immediate impact on team performance.

And if the point is to give the likes of Kennelly, Mathews (injury aside), O'Keefe a kick up the backside by making them realise their places are not assured, the team will be weaker by dropping them at the expense of a Moore or a Schmidt while other injuries to the squad mean that less experienced but minimal-impact players (ie the three aforementioned hobbits) would have to be retained if a Kennelly or Mathews were dropped.

liz is paul roos. I knew it.