Why was Brennan picked in front of others more deserving?

[Push The Limits]

Having watched the Tigers game last weekend, I still can't figure out why Brennan got a start in front of some of the "youngsters" who haven't had a chance to show their wares at all and whose time is possibly running out.

Brennan added ziltch to the team and maintained that hopeless kicking he was renown for at the Hawks.

I watched all 4 quarters over again and still didn't see what his value was.

They know all about what he can do as he has track record from Hawks.

I am at a great loss as to why the Brains Trust didn't give Laidlaw, Jack or Moore from those who have played another opportunity or Simpkin, Thornton, Brabazon, Rowe or Barlow

As has been mentioned by many on this site, we are simply not rewarding any of our young potential good players with enough opportunities.

What was gained by playing Brennan against the Tigers? Will this rub salt into the wounds of players like Phillips, Moore and Laidlaw or some of the untried youngsters?

I am bemused by this real lack of vision and guts by selection panel at a time when several of "the forgotten" playing future is on the line, not to mention some of the actual playing list like Richards, Vogels, Matthews and our old favourite Bevan.

My fear is that Moore and our other untried talent will be out the door at the end of the season without even a chance to really show their wares.

Last Saturday would have the perfect day to give heart to the youngsters by playing one of their brothers, not someone who we all know his limitations.

[barry]

They are giving him a 2 game trail to see if he's worth putting on the list next year. These 2 games are against tankers, so minimal risk.

[reigning premier]

Yep. Agreed.

But they should have gone one (or more) further.

Rested Hall, Kennelly and Kirk and brought in Laidlaw, LRT and another to give them a run. They could have always brought them back this week if they wanted them "match" fit.

With an injury cloud over Hall & Kenelly, the weeks rest probably would have stood them in good stead for what will be a long and hard finals campaign.

[Lucky Knickers]

Disagree!
Why at 8W and 8L facing games against Collingwood, Brisbane, St Kilda and the Hawks would you take a chance on getting the 4 gimme points?
When you are in the 8 on percentage only we absolutely MUST take the 4 points. This is not the time to be messing about with seeing what some of the players in the 2nds can do. If they walk - so be it. That's footy and good luck to them. Fat lot of good resting Tadhg and Hall would be if we missed the 8.
Sydney is not a team that can afford to bull@@@@ around with "rebuild". We have to maximise our chances for success at all times in order to survive. It was only 2003 (?) when the club was on the brink of bankruptcy again.
As for Brennan - I thought he was pretty handy and did some good things.
I didn't see a lot in the 2nds game last week that excited me too much about the form of some constantly mentioned in terms of tearing it up.

[Plugger46]

Yep. Agreed.

But they should have gone one (or more) further.

Rested Hall, Kennelly and Kirk and brought in Laidlaw, LRT and another to give them a run. They could have always brought them back this week if they wanted them "match" fit.

With an injury cloud over Hall & Kenelly, the weeks rest probably would have stood them in good stead for what will be a long and hard finals campaign.

How unfit did Hall look? Managed to kick six and be one of the better players on the ground. If Kennelly and Hall are fit - you play them, it's as simple as that. Resting them for another week when they're right to play, would show a complete lack of respect for the opposition. Given the evenness of the competition, you just can't afford to do that.

If Hall, Kennelly and Kirk had been rested we may not have won the game.

We're not in a position to be resting our guns to prepare for a 'long hard finals campaign' because right at the moment we're in the 8 on %.

[reigning premier]

How unfit did Hall look? Managed to kick six and be one of the better players on the ground. If Kennelly and Hall are fit - you play them, it's as simple as that. Resting them for another week when they're right to play, would show a complete lack of respect for the opposition. Given the evenness of the competition, you just can't afford to do that.

Agree with all that, but two games in a row rest is more important than a token one week. Time will tell if we did the right thing ot not in that regard.

Disagree!
Why at 8W and 8L facing games against Collingwood, Brisbane, St Kilda and the Hawks would you take a chance on getting the 4 gimme points?
When you are in the 8 on percentage only we absolutely MUST take the 4 points. This is not the time to be messing about with seeing what some of the players in the 2nds can do. If they walk - so be it. That's footy and good luck to them. Fat lot of good resting Tadhg and Hall would be if we missed the 8.

Yeah yeah. But Games against Richmond and Cralton we could have rested those under an injury cloud and brought them back for a more competitive Melbourne.

And yes, they were "gimme" points, hence why we could have rested a cple of our struggling stars. For the upcoming games against quality opponents that we need to win.

[Lucky Knickers]

And yes, they were "gimme" points.

Hall and Kennelly were rested in games that would have severly tested them physically(WCE/Geelong) - standard and pace and requirements of them to play one-on-one would have been more damaging. To allow them to play into form and get their fitness back in those games against oppositions where you think you can manage your rotations to give those players longer resting periods is good management. I think the swans have got it right.
I'm also of the view that there aren't gimme points.

[reigning premier]

Hall and Kennelly were rested in games that would have severly tested them physically(WCE/Geelong) - standard and pace and requirements of them to play one-on-one would have been more damaging. To allow them to play into form and get their fitness back in those games against oppositions where you think you can manage your rotations to give those players longer resting periods is good management. I think the swans have got it right.
I'm also of the view that there aren't gimme points.

But with three consecutive games against the bottom half of the ladder (Carlton, Richmond & melbourne), you'd think that resting them for two of them and bringing them in for the last to get that "match fitness" would be the better option... That and finding out if these guys kicking 8 goals a game in the reserves can cut it at the elite level...

Just my two cents...

[Industrial Fan]

I want to know why Big W and DOK aren't getting a game.

[AnnieH]

apologetic snip ... I'm also of the view that there aren't gimme points.

right on lucky!!

[AnnieH]

I want to know why Big W and DOK aren't getting a game.

ok, i'll bite. why?

[Jewels]

I want to know why Big W and DOK aren't getting a game.

Don't know about Big W, who I assume is Jesse White, but DOK is on the long term injury list. That is how Brennan played last week, he has been elevated off the rookie list to replace DOK.

[ugg]

I want to know why Big W and DOK aren't getting a game.

I want to know why you think they should be getting a game.

[hammo]

Rested Hall, Kennelly and Kirk and brought in Laidlaw, LRT and another to give them a run. They could have always brought them back this week if they wanted them "match" fit.

Totally disagree with that. You've suggested resting three of our key players who were all fit to play last week.

There's an old saying - never flirt with your form.

In Hall's case, getting some cheap goals and marks against a weakened opponent will do far more for his season than watching from the grandstand again.

[Damien]

I want to know why Big W and DOK aren't getting a game.

DOK long term injury list and Big W (Jesse, I presume) is still learning the game, wouldn't totally shock me if Jesse gets a run this year though.