This is the Scheinder arguement and I don't think it holds much water. Weren't Lonie, Templeton and Sincs meant to benefit huge from pumping games into a 33 yo.? Not sure thats turned out the case.
Maybe they did? Maybe they're actually ordinary footballers with limitations and we got more out of them with Schneider being around the place? No one else picked up Templeton.
Bluthy wrote:We've got tonnes of experience - Roo, Joey, Gilbo, Armo, Geary, Brown. Then we've got a big batch in the 50-100 game mark now.
Who are the big batch of 100-150 game players??
Bluthy wrote:Our Baby saints grew up to be great footballers getting games pumped into them together as young kids.
Which baby Saints are you talking about? The top 10 draft picks? X Clarke? Maguire? Kosi??
Bluthy wrote:I think we needed more time at the bottom and that would have been achieved by playing more young players together which helps their bonding. Our old pants backline last year was ridiculous. I would be using this year as much more blooding of youth and having a lower ladder position to get another top pick.
I agree we created a false economy last year by finishing 9th. But I think you're contradicting yourself a bit.
You seem to be arguing that we have an abundance of talent in the 2s that are highly skilled and exciting. But then you state that we needed another year down the bottom to get better players into the club?
The Currans, Templetons, Saunders' thast you were screaming out for to get games as they were highly skilled etc. etc. are gone, and no one else wanted them. Why? Because they were no good. They weren't highly skilled, exciting young kids that should be getting games pumped into them.
They were ordinary footballers with limitations.
The guys that you now want to get picked, are the same. Slightly better, but not much. There are even some in the team that aren't really up to it!
I just don't see this exciting, highly skilled talent at Sandy that you keep saying should be playing. Who are they?
Lonie can't nail a set shot from 30m out and only touches the ball about half a dozen times each week. He's been picked. And has failed.
The ones that actually do tick some of the boxes you talk about - are actually playing.
Bluthy wrote:Its also the type of young players you are getting games into. I would be trying my arm on the good kicking, creative youth than some of the money ball types like Weller, Savage etc.
As per above. Who are these guys? Where are they?
Bluthy wrote:But they don't suit Richo's pressure game plan as much. So Richo's footy style will dictate who gets played obviously. That is my big concern - I'm not a huge fan of Richo's swarm style. It worked yesterday and against Brissy - but only just. The good teams I worry will brush off our swarm with their skill. Lets see.
It's the chicken and the egg scenario. I agree with you that we play a low skilled, low 'precise' brand of footy and pretty much hang our hat on overwhelming the opposition physically.
But is that out of necessity? Are we trying to play that way? Or are trying to execute differently, but simply don't have the skill to do it?
I don't know.
I agree though, if we are only about pressure and think we can win a flag by doing that each week - we're dreaming. We're dreaming because the really good teams bring that same level of pressure and intensity every week. And, on top of that they are highly skilled.
You need both, and we only have the former.
But is that by choice?
I shudder to think what teams would do to us if we backed off with our pressure and attempted to slice teams up with precise kicking and clean ball use. We'd get smacked by 100 points every week, simply because we don't have the cattle to actually do it.