Team Changes for Round VIII v Bombers

[ernie koala]

why no Cameron Sinclair isn't killing them.

Agree, Sinclair has been getting towelled up in the ruck.

Why do we have Cameron on the list if we aren't willing to use him?

He is yet another player who was given 1 game ( a stinker) then banished. Let's give him 3 or 4 in a row and see how he goes.

This would allow Sinclair some respite from rucking, to spend some time forward...It's a no brainer.

Jack is the one who should make way.

I watched him closely last week, and all I saw was a shadow of his former self, desperately, but unsuccessfully, trying to find the footy.

He was understandably too worried about his own performance to provide guidance and inspiration to others.

I'm not sure how that translates to "leadership on the field".

[liz]

Clarko makes the decision to drop Roughead after a slow start to the season and shows what a hard nosed professional he is, his ability to make decisions like that show why they won 3 premierships in a row

It's time we followed his example

A bit like when Goodsey was dropped back to the reserves at the start of one of his latter seasons (2013?) after a slow start?

[Ralph Dawg]

Agree, Sinclair has been getting towelled up in the ruck.

Why do we have Cameron on the list if we aren't willing to use him?

He is yet another player who was given 1 game ( a stinker) then banished. Let's give him 3 or 4 in a row and see how he goes.

This would allow Sinclair some respite from rucking, to spend some time forward...It's a no brainer.

Jack is the one who should make way.

I watched him closely last week, and all I saw was a shadow of his former self, desperately, but unsuccessfully, trying to find the footy.

He was understandably too worried about his own performance to provide guidance and inspiration to others.

I'm not sure how that translates to "leadership on the field".

I seriously think Stevie J would be more of a threat than Jack these days. And agree 100% with your assessment of his game last week. He had so much on his plate, he had little left to give the younger players.

[caj23]

A bit like when Goodsey was dropped back to the reserves at the start of one of his latter seasons (2013?) after a slow start?

And that is relevant to our current season how??

[Markwebbos]

A bit like when Goodsey was dropped back to the reserves at the start of one of his latter seasons (2013?) after a slow start?

Liz, i believe Goodes dropped himself

https://m.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2015-04-16/goodes-to-play-neafl

[bloodspirit]

I am not constantly negative. I give ideas as to what we should be doing instead of the negative footy we play. If you think my comments are negative all the time you are obviously selective of what you read. There are not too many positives at this time anyway. The game plan certainly isn't. Exploring who could take over as a coach is not easy. But to continually take from the Roos school is counter productive.

We could look at the current assistant coaches at successful clubs. We could also look at coaches who are successful at other levels, VFL, SANFL, WAFL. Several coaches were overlooked in favour of Longmire. The supporters thought a transition coach a much better idea. I'm sure you were one of those. I wasn't sold. Still not sold.

But the time has come to move to a totally different style. If we wee going to have a transition coach it had to be Stewie. But he got sick of waiting and defected to the Suns. There are some good people coaching Australian Football atm. I'm pretty sure we could secure a coach that is not tainted by the ugly footy label who gas some idea of how to beat good sides in finals and win premierships. Clarko seems to be a bit on the outer since Kennett returned for instance.

I have always given alternatives to what we are doing. For instance instead of dropping one or two players into defence to manage the damage I suggested we leave them in their positions and try to win the ball in the mids and forward line. That is the way to win games not going defensive. I also suggested new set ups at centre bounces that favour our players instead of leaving opposition mids free on their defensive side. I mean Sinclair more often than not taps there when he does win and their Ruck do anyway because they are free.

I think you miss the point about my comments. I am not negative for the sake of being negative. I'm calling things that don't work. The coach and old players are not working. Haven't been for some time. If youh can't see that you know sweet @@@@ all about footy. I am not the only one concerned with our game style. All the expert coaches, especially the two I admire most Matthews and Parkin, talk about a very stale and negative game plan. They also point out that the game plan doesn't seem designed to win games but manage the damage.

Matthews was scathing of the dropping players back to defend space. He rightly pointed out that all that did was allowore scoring opportunities for the opposition not less. He also pointed out that the teams playing exciting, attacking footy were winning most weeks. Again he pointed out that unless we can address the shortcomings in our midfield that is directly affecting our capacity to get forward entries we would struggle. Right on all fronts. But still no change to the midfield. Mills rots on the back flank. Heeney rusts in the forward line. Rowbottom is wasted on the reserves and even when given a shot is played forward not mids.

What you see as negative comment to me is constructive criticism. I have in most commentary given alternatives. We are going to be bottom this year so why not give the kids a shot. Play the kids. Because playing the old timers is regressive. Someone said 'bur we need Kizza' s experience out there'. Rot. What we need is a positive game plan, excited youngsters because they have something to work with and the experience of Kennedy, Buddy, Hewett etc. They young guys like Hewett are now old enough to take responsibity. He did last week. He was our best player by far. His ball use and calmness under pressure were just what we need.

We need to play positive, exciting, constructive footy. Footy that will give us forward entries. Our players must feel like the coaches squeeze every bit of flair, positive footy and skill out of them. The coaches are literally squeezing the life out of them. If we are to play under the new rule system we need to play a totally different brand. We need to become a team that wins the ball at stoppages. Wins contested possession. Has a plan to move the ball effectively. Players moving to positions where they have access to space and therefore the delivery of the ball. Players shepherding and blocking for the player with the ball. Run from both the stoppages, especially the centre stoppages for clearances, and the backhalf. We need to lose the full flood ecause when that is used it has now become impossible to clear the defensive zone and we are becoming totally bogged down there. We need outlet players who can transition the ball. We also need defenders who can hold their nerve.

So accuse me of being negative if you want. But I mostly offer alternatives to the rubbish Longmire is dishing up. I think it would be soul destroying playing under this bloke.

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

Great post wolfie! I understand why you are perceived as often being negative but this is a much more positive post and I invite more of this from you.

I think a big part of the problem is that you fundamentally disagree with Horse's coaching philosophy because you would rather more focus on attack than defence. So he will never make you happy. While I enjoy watching attacking football (of course), I am more respectful of our current coaches because I respect that we are trying to play a gamestyle that will win a premiership. And Horse's (and, before him, Roosey's) defence-first game plan does stack up - it's proven. It's got us to our last 5 grannies and we snagged two of them. You can argue we underachieved because we should have won at least one more but we did very well to get there. None of this is to say that a more attacking game style can't work (and it's admittedly more attractive when it works!) but the defensive gamestyle is completely legitimate and successful. Across many different sports, including AFL, it is often heard that defence wins championships because it has long proven to be os.

I also manage to enjoy watching us play because I like seeing a high pressure game (which is what we do when we're playing well) and just out of blind loyalty to the club too I suppose and a feeling of connection to the players.

As regards our youth, it defies logic that posters here keep saying "play the kids!" We are already doing so to striking degree. We've blooded more youngsters and debutants than any other team. Week to week we have one of the youngest teams in the comp. Over the past several years the match committee has shown an impressive willingness to play first year players and that has continued this year - even McInerney got a game who was playing seconds for his school 2 years ago and who nobody expected even to be rookie drafted 12 months ago. How much bolder can they be? You can't just turf out every player in the 22 because they're going to retire one day, even if they're over 25. You've got to give the match committee and football department some credit for knowing the players better than us and who's ready and who's not. I think they are doing all that they can to develop the next generation as well and as quickly as they can.

Incidentally, I also think the club is trying to transition to a faster, more aggressive gamestyle and that has been reflected in our recruitment over several seasons now (I think Ludwig has made this point several times). It just doesn't happen overnight and time needs to be allowed for the changes to ripen and fruit.

[Sandrevan]

A bit like when Goodsey was dropped back to the reserves at the start of one of his latter seasons (2013?) after a slow start?

I believe it was 2015 and Goodes effectively dropped himself - not too many players would do this.

[liz]

I believe it was 2015 and Goodes effectively dropped himself - not too many players would do this.

Which in reality means it was probably a mutual decision reached after a frank conversation between he and the coach.

In answer to CAS, it's not relevant to our current situation/season. I interpreted your comment as a lauding of Clarkson over Longmire, indicating that making tough calls is something good coaches do. I don't challenge Clarkson's credentials as a coach - he's a damn fine one. But Longmire's track record at all sorts of aspects of coaching suggests he's a pretty good one too.

[Sandrevan]

I'm glad to see COR getting a game in the AFL. I hope he does enough to keep his spot for a while. It looks like Sinclair will get a bit of support from Aliir and Reid again. While I would like to see Cameron get a game Essendon have lost Joe Daniher so they'll be using undersized 2nd rucks as well eg Cale Hooker.

Folks on this forum seem to be divided about Cameron. True, he only played 1 game and was pretty ordinary but he was played out of position and didn't have much opportunity. A good player by all accounts in the NEAFL. If Sinclair got injured and missed a game the MC would have to bring in Cameron so why not bring him in to take the load of Sinclair now. Seems rather short-sighted especially with Naismith always injured.

[ugg]

Essendon replaced Daniher with Zac Clarke who is a ruckman masquerading as a key forward. So they'll have 2 proper rucks tonight.

[Markwebbos]

Which in reality means it was probably a mutual decision reached after a frank conversation between he and the coach.

In answer to CAS, it's not relevant to our current situation/season. I interpreted your comment as a lauding of Clarkson over Longmire, indicating that making tough calls is something good coaches do. I don't challenge Clarkson's credentials as a coach - he's a damn fine one. But Longmire's track record at all sorts of aspects of coaching suggests he's a pretty good one too.

The Goodes "dropping" was unusual in that I don't believe Horse would have asked him to play NEAFL. He is not ruthless to the extent Clarkson is. That may not be a bad thing.
It was also during the time we had substitutes and he wanted to play a full game.

from the article:

"Sydney Swans dual Brownlow Medalist Adam Goodes will line up in the NEAFL on the weekend after telling coach John Longmire he would rather play reserves than be the sub for another week. Longmire said it was no surprise that Goodes had chosen the option given his character and willingness to put the club before his own interests."

With the non-selection of Cameron, I think the MC haven't given up on the season just yet. So are selecting the most-competitive team they can each week. Playing Cameron (to find out if he should remain on the list / give him a run of games) makes more sense once finals are an impossibility. That might only take another couple of weeks.

[bloodspirit]

The Swans and Horse have been ruthless where necessary. Dropping Pebbles and playing Goodes as sub until he volunteered to play NEAFL are a couple of examples. Cutting Tippett, Hanners and Rohan last year was another example of ruthlessness. And, I would argue, making players earn their games (Mitchell, Aliir, Dawson, COR, Cameron etc) is yet another form of ruthlessness. We're not giving games away. We want the players to DEMAND a spot. I think this integrity is an important component of a strong club culture. I would wager that Kizza is not getting any free pass and his selection is on merit in one way or another. It certainly not in our interests to be giving him games otherwise. I'm sure the match committee isn't so daft as to think otherwise.

[Markwebbos]

The Swans and Horse have been ruthless where necessary. Dropping Pebbles and playing Goodes as sub until he volunteered to play NEAFL are a couple of examples. Cutting Tippett, Hanners and Rohan last year was another example of ruthlessness. And, I would argue, making players earn their games (Mitchell, Aliir, Dawson, COR, Cameron etc) is yet another form of ruthlessness. We're not giving games away. We want the players to DEMAND a spot. I think this integrity is an important component of a strong club culture. I would wager that Kizza is not getting any free pass and his selection is on merit in one way or another. It certainly not in our interests to be giving him games otherwise. I'm sure the match committee isn't so daft as to think otherwise.

People also want it both ways: demanding the MC select Cameron despite his form not warranting it, yet complaining others should be dropped based on their poor form. Admittedly the former is young and the latter, KJack, not so much.

[caj23]

People also want it both ways: demanding the MC select Cameron despite his form not warranting it, yet complaining others should be dropped based on their poor form. Admittedly the former is young and the latter, KJack, not so much.

Cameron is performing pretty consistently in the NEAFL so I'm not sure that argument stands up

[Ralph Dawg]

People also want it both ways: demanding the MC select Cameron despite his form not warranting it, yet complaining others should be dropped based on their poor form. Admittedly the former is young and the latter, KJack, not so much.

Cameron has been in fantastic form in the NEAFL, not just recently but pretty much for his whole NEAFL career. He was given one opportunity, playing as a tall forward, against GC where the whole team stunk it up. Taking into account our current form and injury situation, he warrants selection. I note that Zac Clarke is now listed to play tonight, along with Bellchambers.
The only game I can recall in recent memory where Jack has played well was against GWS late last season. He hasn't even really played that well in any of the recent NEAFL games he's been selected in.
So I don't think it's a double standard wanting Cameron in and Jack out.