Could be wrong, but I think I recall Atkins was passed over for non-footballing reasons.
Another reason for Hooker back is to mark the kick outs and stop repeat I50s
Which is interesting because we've recruited players with non-footballing issues since then who haven't turned out to be anywhere near as good lol
I really wanna get ■■■■■■ off and talk about how we are wasting Hooker fwd and need to punt Stanton Kelly and Jobe but the fact is we really need to give ourselves until Rd 11/12/13 or even the end of this year before we make any judgements. Unfortunately the pain of the saga isn't going to be done for a few more months.
Of course we could just cut our losses and do all those things now which I wouldn't be totally totally averse to.
Also the game has changed a hell of lot in the time they where away. Hird/Bombers game plan was very defensive, then attack when you have the chance. We would attack from good defense.
Our current game plan and the way the game is turning is based far more on attack, in which you give up a bit in defense. Its a very fine line, and something the good teams like Adelaide are well drilled at and do very well. I think there is room in the team for some of the returning players but certainly not all. Hepp, Watson, Hocking, and Stants are all slow. But all are great footballers, and with speed around them can still contribute.
I just don't think they can all play in the same team though, they are just a liability in running defensively. I think we are starting to see a similar trend with Sydney's midfield. Kenedy is still a gun but you can only have one at the very most 2 of him in the center at one time. Once we had speed in the middle we looked far better. I actually prefer smack in the center to Luey, yes we will loose the taps but he gives us so much more speed around the ball.
For those knocking Hurley I don't think he has been as bad as many here are saying. When the ball is moved so quickly and there is little pressure on the kicker there is very little Hurls could do. In the second half when Ambrose went on Tex. Tex got far less great delivery. All this needs to be put in context when reviewing the game.
I also think we should keep Hooker fwd for now, he has been reasonable and needs more time.
Perhaps one thing we could try in if we still look terrible in a months time.
Smack, Frances, Gleeson and Stewart come in.
Luey, Langford, Stanton, and perhaps Kelly out.
Hooker back, Smack and Stewart to change in the ruck. Smack in the rotations on the bench, not much time fwd.
Walla, Fanta, McG, and Collier to spend far more time on the ball. Only one at the most 2 of Jobe,Hepp or Goddard in the center at one time.
Only room enough for one of Kelly and Stanton in that back half. They honestly may as well not chase and conserve energy for offensive stuff only
Give it a few more weeks but one of em has to go
Ins pra ationanul!!
How maanies new word one person's make'!!
It used to be a swear word about 60 years ago.
Unfortunately ( I was hoping it wouldn't be) but this is another gap year
Gonna take at least til the middle of the year to see where this team really is and just how much damage the year off has really done to some of these guys
I was very critical of the insipid performance we put on against the Blues. I thought this week we at least showed some spirit and intensity.
The umpiring was another Escher puzzle. Just when you think you have it worked out it completely changes direction. It wasn't what they called it was what they didn't call. I recall one instance I think it was in the first quarter, a free kick against Kelly, then 30 seconds later an identical situation at the other end against Tippa that was not paid. It really spoils the enjoyment of the game.
As for the players
Langford looked a lot more at ease as though he had an idea of what he was supposed to be doing.
Goddard in my opinion was easily our best. He might be slow but he makes good position, his disposal is amongst our best and he directs traffic.
Jobe to me looks as though he is there to fulfill his contractual obligations. Doesn't look as though he is enjoying it at all. Perhaps in time that will change.
I must have been watching a different game to everyone else because I though Kelly was quite good. Another cool head that like Goddard, in the right place at the right time, and good disposal.
I think Hurleys problems is that in the past he has had at least two of Fletcher, Carlisle and Hooker joining him. Now he has none of them. Moving Hooker back might add more to our backline than it takes from our forward line. Having said that it would leave Joe a bit more exposed. Jury out.
Ambrose is easily our best one on one defensive player.
Parish is improving each week and is starting to make a difference.
McGrath demonstrated why he was the number one draft pick.
Zerrettt was good.
Tippa's mistakes in losing the ball seem to come from him taking the game on, which I would assume he has been told to do. So he either takes the game on and we get those exciting patches of brilliance or we play safe. Id rather he continues to take the game on. He manages to get into space, and like Goddard and Kelly the right space.
Orazio was quiet but when he and Tippa went into the middle the results were obvious.
I thought McKenna was good, at times look like a deer in the headlights, but no more than Langford.
Joe seems better playing that high centre half forward and I like seeing him in the ruck.
Speaking of which do we need a new ruck coach? How come we keep giving away free kicks in the ruck?
There is a lot I dont know about football but one thing puzzles me, how come we can win the tap, but not get the ball? Is it the tap ruckman not tappign it to the right place, or is the midfileders not being able to get there. If you win the tap, surely you should be able ti win the ball. Otherwise what is the point of winning the tap?
Heppell and Stanton were pedestrian and really need to step up a notch but whether they can is a different issue. Both glacially slow, and Heppell seems to be slow to make decisions. Hopefully over the next few weeks they will get used to the pace again.
Colyer seems to be getting back into the swing of things and I think will probably improve each week.
I thought Brown was OK as well and if Hooker has to go back then he might need to go forward.
Didnt think Bags was as bad as people are making out. Dont think he was our worst.
All in all I think everyone played better than last week but no one was really good.
Not sure about changes for next week.
A wedding without a reception. Poor show that.
I've seen a lot worse losses than that. Some obvious deficiencies, but on the plus side we took the game on throughout and still managed to kick a decent score. The elements are there, but they've not quite come together yet. A critical skill error will kill off a promising attack or lead to a turnover goal; poor decision kicking to a contest or handballing when a kick would be better, these are the things that are killing us now. Every now and then it comes off though and you can see how it's supposed to be. That will come with time. The little kinks will be ironed out. There's a fine line between abject failure and brilliant success. As it stands it's the lack of precision that's costing us.
That's exacerbated by the modest form of the senior players. It's true, they're all slow, but you look slower when you're out of form, and when you're in form the pace doesn't matter nearly as much. I think after watching last night's game they'll need to be managed, particularly the likes of Watson and Stanton. A rest every few weeks would benefit them.
Unfortunately their poor form exposes us defensively. The Crows had so much clean possession there was no way they wouldn't kick a score. In the first half particularly there was a lack of accountability, pressure acts, tackling, etc, combined with disorganised defending.
I still think the basis for a decent team is on the park. It needs a bit of time and a bit of tweaking. Awful to lose like that but I've come away from lesser floggings feeling more embarrassed. And the Crows are mighty good, especially at home.
So who is our defensive general, the guys who drops back to control play when the other team has a run on? Docherty, Swan, Hodge, Westoff, every team has one, who is ours? We actually don't have one.
We really need to develop one, no point Goddard doing it he is almost done. The 1st qtr last night was the one time we actually did need a spare in the back 50, and what did we do? Nothing, just let them hit up tex and betts under no pressure. Shocking coaching.
That was actually a good rant...was expecting worse
All you have said is what the coaches have planned and put into action. I just get the feeling that the last two weeks the said match ups didn't work and we paid the price. A lot of Blitzers had previously mentioned this before the game and seeming I had the same general thoughts I would put pen to paper. In any case I do get your point and I suppose reading your post makes it clearer why the coaches did what they did. In hindsight it is easy to criticize after two bad losses (each loss bad for its own reason) coupled with maybe some false expectations of the teams ability at this point in time and one thinks there could have been a better way. Also the fact that once the moves were effected it did seem to stop the crows flow. It could be, as mentioned by some blitzers, a false presentation as the crows may have backed off seeming they had won the game by half time. But that could also be argued not to be the fact and that we actually did stop their flow. The evidence shows that the moves stopped an onslaught and lack of moves may have cost us one game and put another game out of our reach by half time. I suppose time will tell us which way this club is heading with our current set up. For the moment I continue to support and put faith in the direction our club is going.
That sounds anti Malthouse lol
Ah...Kevin Sheedy...bring him back!!
Just watching the replay. (Why, oh why?? Only heard it on radio yesterday)
15 minutes in and we've been slaughtered by the umps to a monumental degree. Not surprised we soon lost the appetite for the contest.
Not sure I can watch more, but actually feel a bit better about the result after seeing it.
Also, you can see why McKenna is worth persevering with. Beat Charlie Cameron for pace and strength in a one on one. Then the ball bounces at right angles straight to Cameron.
He has the tools, it's just going to take time. I reckon (tribunal pending) that he should stay for a bit...