Roos with youngsters

[Bleed Red Blood]

This quote from Robbo on the GC changes thread got me going, on this topic so i thought i'd put it in a new thread.

Why do we continue to persist with such a tall backline? There's no need to have 3 or 4 talls down back against the GC.

This is also what i mean about sydney since roos, we've got all these players who dont get a rest, even the players who could be replaced by someone in the reserves to reward good/standout form. when someone was forced out. but recyled mature-rer age players like y players like richards, and shaw can learn to play with us but because when they go are in bad form they we're backed in, and not dropped, and eventually learnt the swans style of play. where as spriggs from geelong wasnt really given that opportunity, did he even get one game in his 2nd year? and his 1st was the year after a knee reco. and so many laid to the wayside. just because most of our youngsters who didn't get a game, the willoughbys, matt o'dwyer (although didn't he end up at geelong vfl or somewhere?) the earl shaws) didnt go get picked up right back into the afl (when half the AFL sides are ultra youth and low pick focused) that doesnt mean they might not have gone on to have really a decent career with us, if given a chance. the afl is littered with players who at age 20, 21 we're considered rubbish and ended up in a teams tops.

also we never developed any flexibility. other than o'keefe moving to the midfield (at his request) which player under roos reinvenvted themselves from say decent midfielder to great back flanker or pocket? none.

thus in this era we have lots of close games; we generally say on these boards, because we lose games we should win. we wouldn't even take a chance in those days of resting someone for a week, even against a bottom 4 team unless it was completely unavoidable.

even think of essendon in the early 2000s, they had "the best team ever" and still discovered damian peverill from the rookie list when ramanaskus (i think) got a lti and his form was just so good you couldn't drop him. LIKE ALEX JOHNSON RIGHT NOW. Roos didn't find any!

other teams rely on their good players, cause thats what they are, say the top 12-15 and the rest are players they cover, because its a youngster playing a role they dont have a more senior player in, and then the rest jostling for places in the team with younger players, and ones who have been out of form wanting to get back into the team. maybe also a reason why someone such as luke ablett who was an automatic selection in our team, just drops off the afl radar like that.

[Melbourne_Blood]

This quote from Robbo on the GC changes thread got me going, on this topic so i thought i'd put it in a new thread.




This is also what i mean about sydney since roos, we've got all these players who dont get a rest, even the players who could be replaced by someone in the reserves to reward good/standout form. when someone was forced out. but recyled mature-rer age players like y players like richards, and shaw can learn to play with us but because when they go are in bad form they we're backed in, and not dropped, and eventually learnt the swans style of play. .

I'm sure there's a good point in your post, but i had to stop reading after this much.

[Bleed Red Blood]

Why is that? Richards and Shaw had bad patches of poor form. Just as Mathews, Bevan, Everitt, Ablett, Chambers..

[Melbourne_Blood]

It is just the way it is written, it hurts my head. Re-read those first 4 or so lines, your telling me that makes sense ?

[Bleed Red Blood]

I can't edit it. This is what I would change it to.

Thanks for the feedback M_B

This is also what i mean about sydney since roos, his team structure was so strict, and inflexible, even when a player was down on form (like richards, shaw, everitt (spider), chambers, mathews, ablett, even jude in 2007 and o'keefe with the groin injuries, etc etc "the bloods credits") when we had players playing good reserves football, who could be brought in and the side apepts and in the long term, plays better.

where as others wernt given that opportunity, such as david spriggs; did he even get one game in his 2nd year? and his 1st was the year after a knee reco. so many laid to the wayside. just because most of our youngsters who didn't get a game, the willoughbys, matt o'dwyers, earl shaws) didnt go get picked up right back into the afl, that doesnt mean they might not have gone on to have really a decent career with us, if given a chance; we all reckon that if a young player in our team gets a taste at afl level, they will be perform better at canberra? well, i think thats what we lost out on by having only 26, 27 players play a game from a list of 40+.

[Melbourne_Blood]

No worries mate, thanks for taking it on board. And i do see what your saying too. Roos persisted with underperforming players ( who eventually found form ) when he could of tried out a few more players and created a bit more depth, or at least found out who can actually play at the level by giving them a real crack.

[Bleed Red Blood]

No worries mate, thanks for taking it on board. And i do see what your saying too. Roos persisted with underperforming players ( who eventually found form ) when he could of tried out a few more players and created a bit more depth, or at least found out who can actually play at the level by giving them a real crack.

Yeah, that! Thanks for writing it better than me.

And instead of recruiting some good-average players in the age bracket we are currently lacking, we've got 3 guys, who all can ONLY play in defense, and who are all over 28. (In Marty, Shaw, Richards) and while I do appreciate they are consistent, reliable and overall solid players, I think we could've got the same result by looking at players we had at the club (Or investing in the draft more)