I'm out of patience

[SwansFan1972]

Of the rest of our promising prospects, Vez, Meredith, Johnston, Murphy are or have been injured. DOK has been injured for two years and is only now starting to get unhampered game time. Hannebury isn't available. Currie has been playing but obviously carrying injuries (and missed this week). Smith and Laidlaw have shown a propensity to reinjure themselves just when on the brink of selection, while Gilchrist and Pyke (and Orreal) are development prospects.

There is no point in getting game time into young players if they are not going to be around long enough for the club to reap the benefits.

Yes - it's a crying shame that the most likely of the kids have been injured at the wrong time, when an opportunity would almost certainly have been there.

What it all points to is that it's bluddy hard to get all your ducks in a row so that everything stays peachy on field. Who knows what the answers are - but it all serves to make the 2005 win grow even more in stature as the seasons pass! Even the perfect season is no guarantee of ultimate success, as the cats showed last year.

Maybe it all comes down to Dave Misson - it seems wherever he goes, injuries dissipate. Even Kossie is getting on the field this year! Elite performance manager is a great title for him - elite performance sure surrounds him!

[DST]

I half agree with what you're saying, though I truly wonder what it does for the long term development of younger players if early in their careers they play in teams that know they have no chance of winning games. I'd also like to think - maybe erroneously - that the value that youngsters get from playing in a finals game, even winning one as we did last year, is invaluable.

There is a gap between what Roos is saying and what he is doing at the moment in terms of playing younger players. The only real "youngster" we had out there yesterday was White, in terms of games played, at least. Jack and Bird have now played over 30 games, are physically mature enough, and this year have demonstrated they are in our best 22. Grundy's not far off, though his position in the best 22 isn't as secure/obvious.

Roos' failure to play more of the younger players might just indicate he is ultra-conservative and/or hates to lose. Yet he has said a couple of times this year that he would rather lose with younger players than lose by less with the same old same old. He's still not playing them.

It might just be telling us that he doesn't believe that the younger players he has at his disposal are the players capable of rebuilding the senior team. With the injuries we've had, that doesn't mean doom and gloom for our future, it just means we aren't getting much of a chance to test it out this year. Which is a shame.

And realistically, the only two players who could feel hard done by and/or must be starting to wonder if they are in the club's long term plans are Thornton and Barlow. (That is presuming that MOD and Brabazon realise that unless their disposal at ACTAFL level improves markedly, they can't possibly expect to play senior football).

Of the rest of our promising prospects, Vez, Meredith, Johnston, Murphy are or have been injured. DOK has been injured for two years and is only now starting to get unhampered game time. Hannebury isn't available. Currie has been playing but obviously carrying injuries (and missed this week). Smith and Laidlaw have shown a propensity to reinjure themselves just when on the brink of selection, while Gilchrist and Pyke (and Orreal) are development prospects.

There is no point in getting game time into young players if they are not going to be around long enough for the club to reap the benefits.

Counldn't agree more liz, I would suggest that Roos would love to be playing 3 or 4 more youngsters in the team tha they are now but quite simply the ones that deserve spots are either injured or coming back from injury.

No use bringing in MOD or Brabazon if they can't dispose of the ball with efficency. It would just slaughter the team structure and put even more pressure on the few that are carrying it at present.

Hopefully both Smith and Laidlaw remain injury free in the next couple of weeks, Vez has enough miles in his legs to come in and Thornton is pushing hard enough to get a further taste at senior level. Not to mention further improvement from DOK.

DST

[connolly]

Counldn't agree more liz, I would suggest that Roos would love to be playing 3 or 4 more youngsters in the team tha they are now but quite simply the ones that deserve spots are either injured or coming back from injury.

No use bringing in MOD or Brabazon if they can't dispose of the ball with efficency. It would just slaughter the team structure and put even more pressure on the few that are carrying it at present.

Hopefully both Smith and Laidlaw remain injury free in the next couple of weeks, Vez has enough miles in his legs to come in and Thornton is pushing hard enough to get a further taste at senior level. Not to mention further improvement from DOK.

DST

Can you explain why Maalceski was played in preference for Thornton (who wasn't injured); Crouch for Smith (who played reserves) and Ablett consistently for Brabazon if injuries is the only thing keeping the kids out? As for not giving Brabazon a game because he can't kick playing him would have been more productive than a 31 year old who got five disposals, two of which were mongrel punts and only gave one handpass for the match.

[goswannie14]

As for not giving Brabazon a game because he can't kick playing him would have been more productive than a 31 year old who got five disposals, two of which were mongrel punts and only gave one handpass for the match.

If you are talking about Crouch, he was off the ground for most of the match after getting injured.

[Nico]

If you are talking about Crouch, he was off the ground for most of the match after getting injured.

His stats were; 4 kicks, 1 handball, ground time 66% = about 79 minutes or 2.64 quarters. Not real flattering

[DST]

Can you explain why Maalceski was played in preference for Thornton (who wasn't injured); Crouch for Smith (who played reserves) and Ablett consistently for Brabazon if injuries is the only thing keeping the kids out? As for not giving Brabazon a game because he can't kick playing him would have been more productive than a 31 year old who got five disposals, two of which were mongrel punts and only gave one handpass for the match.

I could make a case for Thornton in for Malceski this week against Collingwood, but that is after the fact. Both Thornton and Malceski went back to the reservices two weeks ago and from all reports Malceski played the better football so was put back into the seniors.

Smith got knocked out cold two weeks ago when on the cusp of senior selection, if he has recovered it's him in for Buchanon this week. Crouch is still good enough to be in our best 22 if physically fit.

Ablett is not in the team at present, so I won't comment and from all reports Brabazon skill level is not senior standard so his papers are stamped and not worth playing for the sake of it.

Fact's are, we have three of four youngsters who are or have been close to senior selection but who are all injured or returning from injury in Merideth, Laidlaw, Vez, Smith and Murphy are all ahead of Brabazon and probably Thornton in getting a senior game.

DST

[DST]

His stats were; 4 kicks, 1 handball, ground time 66% = about 79 minutes or 2.64 quarters. Not real flattering

Not particularly interested in what stats Crouch had or has, it's how he negates what is the opposition key small forward that is what he is in the team to do.

And over the last 2 weeks (Port and Doggies) he did his job.

DST

[Mike_B]

And realistically, the only two players who could feel hard done by and/or must be starting to wonder if they are in the club's long term plans are Thornton and Barlow. (That is presuming that MOD and Brabazon realise that unless their disposal at ACTAFL level improves markedly, they can't possibly expect to play senior football).

Of the rest of our promising prospects, Vez, Meredith, Johnston, Murphy are or have been injured. DOK has been injured for two years and is only now starting to get unhampered game time. Hannebury isn't available. Currie has been playing but obviously carrying injuries (and missed this week). Smith and Laidlaw have shown a propensity to reinjure themselves just when on the brink of selection, while Gilchrist and Pyke (and Orreal) are development prospects.

Roos did mention during On The Couch that he wanted to get more game time into younger players and was clearly disappointed that injuries have prevented this, specifically naming Vez, Meredith and Johnstone. But surely there would be no harm in playing a couple of the other guys yet to get a run rather than going through the same names over and over. Have we played the fewest players this year? If not, we'd be in the bottom 2 or 3 surely?

[Bleed Red Blood]

Roos did mention during On The Couch that he wanted to get more game time into younger players and was clearly disappointed that injuries have prevented this, specifically naming Vez, Meredith and Johnstone. But surely there would be no harm in playing a couple of the other guys yet to get a run rather than going through the same names over and over. Have we played the fewest players this year? If not, we'd be in the bottom 2 or 3 surely?

Whatever Roos says about wanting to play youngsters (I hate saying youngsters cause most are younger than me..sigh) and not being able to cause of them being injured, there is a distinct lack of young players on our list in the first place - and that's mostly his fault.

We seemingly chose not to select 1 (Or was it 2?) players in the rookie draft, traded for Playfair, Chambers, drafted Spriggs (Not that I think that was a bad decision for a late pick - but then he didn't play him enough anyway) and always taking the bare minimum 3 players.

Then unfortunate things that he couldn't really control - like Fosdike and Kennellys retirements post-drafts.

Ben Mathews should have been tapped on the shoulder earlier - And not given the games he was when all and sundry could see his terrible form, a blindness that seems to have evolved into one for Ablett.

I also blame Roos' for our lack of key position players right now - drafting midfielders over and over is not smart.
His theory of drafting the "Better player" rather than in positions that will be needed in future is bull@@@@. If each round the best player was a ruckman are you going to draft 3 ruckmen for 3 years in a row? @@@@ no.
Now the only tall forward we have under the age of 32 just turned 18 and is injured.
We rely on Not Quite Right players to play key defensive posts, and have none ready to fill their shoes either.

[Young Blood]

In reviewing this thread, noone has really disagreed with the OP that Malceski, Moore & Buchanan don't currently warrant their place in the side. Many posters have added Grundy to this list.

I can't disagree on any of the four. Looking ahead, I really only retain hopes on Malceski. He looks slight this year. I think he needs a stronger body if he is going to make it as a senior footballer.

[ugg]

Roos did mention during On The Couch that he wanted to get more game time into younger players and was clearly disappointed that injuries have prevented this, specifically naming Vez, Meredith and Johnstone. But surely there would be no harm in playing a couple of the other guys yet to get a run rather than going through the same names over and over. Have we played the fewest players this year? If not, we'd be in the bottom 2 or 3 surely?

We have used 27. St Kilda has played the fewest - it's come up on a few footy shows lately but I would wager 27 is probably the next lowest.

[connolly]

I could make a case for Thornton in for Malceski this week against Collingwood, but that is after the fact. Both Thornton and Malceski went back to the reservices two weeks ago and from all reports Malceski played the better football so was put back into the seniors.

Smith got knocked out cold two weeks ago when on the cusp of senior selection, if he has recovered it's him in for Buchanon this week. Crouch is still good enough to be in our best 22 if physically fit.

Ablett is not in the team at present, so I won't comment and from all reports Brabazon skill level is not senior standard so his papers are stamped and not worth playing for the sake of it.

Fact's are, we have three of four youngsters who are or have been close to senior selection but who are all injured or returning from injury in Merideth, Laidlaw, Vez, Smith and Murphy are all ahead of Brabazon and probably Thornton in getting a senior game.

DST

Why would Smith, Laudlaw, Meredith or Murphy be ahead of Thornton? He is a beautiful long kick, marks better than those you mentioned and is quick. Whatever Malceski may have done in the reserves it should be crystal clear to anyone that he is mentally unfit to play senior footy, probably as a result of a lack of confidence post-injury. If Barlow, Thornton or Brabazon wouldn't jave benefited from the experience of senior football they couldn't have done less than Malceski. There is no justification to play Crouch if the team is really rebuilding. How can you just wipe Brabazon off without giving the kid a decent chance to prove himself in the seniors, on the basis of reports of his "skill level'?