| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Magpietothemax 
magpietothemax
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| I agree with all those expressing shock at the omission of Scharenberg. I thought that last week he played really well. I like the inclusion of Greenwood, but not to replace Scharenberg. Another inexplicable decision for mine. |
|
|
|
 |
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Schazbg is in the emergencies, so while I share the surprise of those lamenting his omission, it is probably premature to assume he won't play. Not sure who might be doubtful in the selected side.
I thought schaz played well last week, but Buckley has spoken this week of the need to be tighter in defence, and I guess it goes to show that whT you do with ball in hand is often no more important than what you do without it. We fans tend to look too much at the former.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
MatthewBoydFanClub
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: Elwood
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | He's about half as good as Langdon, so he'll probably never be more than Vice-Captain. |
I've converted to your way of thinking about Langdon since Langdon got back into the side. He more than deserves his spot in the team. Unfortunately a few others are there who shouldn't be there due to structural balance and that's why we'll never beat the better teams until either we get a new coach or Buckley has an epiphany and works out himself what he needs to do to win games of AFL footy. |
|
|
|
|
MatthewBoydFanClub
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: Elwood
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | Schazbg is in the emergencies, so while I share the surprise of those lamenting his omission, it is probably premature to assume he won't play. Not sure who might be doubtful in the selected side.
I thought schaz played well last week, but Buckley has spoken this week of the need to be tighter in defence, and I guess it goes to show that whT you do with ball in hand is often no more important than what you do without it. We fans tend to look too much at the former. |
The weakness in the backline is Maynard and Crisp (who should be played in the middle). Anyone but Buckley and Harvey can see that. It's just so obvious. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ ah, I expect youre right, it's so obvious and anyone can see it except the people on the Collingwood selection and coaching panel, who have never played or watched a game in their lives and who know little about the game plan or the players as individuals, I suppose. If we only drew a few experts from Nicks to manage the obvious, it'd all be so much better.
It's good to have opinions, that's what this board is for, but nothing is obvious unless you are very very close to the facts, and even then I am confident it's not obvious.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
MatthewBoydFanClub
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: Elwood
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | ^ ah, I expect youre right, it's so obvious and anyone can see it except the people on the Collingwood selection and coaching panel, who have never played or watched a game in their lives and who know little about the game plan or the players as individuals, I suppose. If we only drew a few experts from Nicks to manage the obvious, it'd all be so much better.
It's good to have opinions, that's what this board is for, but nothing is obvious unless you are very very close to the facts, and even then I am confident it's not obvious. |
The only way I can reply to you is look at our ladder position and our wins and losses and tell me again what he club is doing right and why I and many others are wrong in criticising. You could also analyse the championship data from last week's game and compare Scharenberg's game to the games of Maynard and Crisp and provide me with supporting evidence why you agree with the club's decision to drop Scharenberg. |
|
|
|
|
bally12 
Joined: 30 Sep 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Baffling decision to drop Shaz. At the least Bucks owes us an explanation as to why Sharenberg isn't getting a game, and what area of his game he thinks he needs to work. The club is supposed to be open and honest to its members right? |
|
|
|
|
PyreneesPie 
PyreneesPie
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Not surprisingly, I agree with all the comments questioning why Shazz was omitted. I am bitterly disappointed with such a strange selection decision.
It must be so deflating for him, just when he was starting to get his act together and showing the significant skills he has in reading the ball and kicking efficiently out of the backline.
I'm also a Maynard supporter, but I'd like to see him moved to a wing or even a forward flank where the occasional howlers he makes aren't so damaging and his accurate kicking for goal could be put to better use.
I'd have Shazz in the backline, move Maynard forward and omit Blair. |
|
|
|
|
Cruisinwithdids
Joined: 21 Sep 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Agree with everyone on Sharenberg. Are we all wrong? After what we have invested in him and after all of his injuries, I just cannot see a reason why they would not provide him with repeat games now he's fit. This seems like a combination of stubbornness and an overrating of many of our average players that are getting games every week. |
|
|
|
|
Magpietothemax
magpietothemax
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| PyreneesPie wrote: | Not surprisingly, I agree with all the comments questioning why Shazz was omitted. I am bitterly disappointed with such a strange selection decision.
It must be so deflating for him, just when he was starting to get his act together and showing the significant skills he has in reading the ball and kicking efficiently out of the backline.
I'm also a Maynard supporter, but I'd like to see him moved to a wing or even a forward flank where the occasional howlers he makes aren't so damaging and his accurate kicking for goal could be put to better use.
I'd have Shazz in the backline, move Maynard forward and omit Blair. |
Yes, this is my conception as well. |
|
|
|
|
PyreneesPie
PyreneesPie
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Magpietothemax wrote: | | PyreneesPie wrote: | Not surprisingly, I agree with all the comments questioning why Shazz was omitted. I am bitterly disappointed with such a strange selection decision.
It must be so deflating for him, just when he was starting to get his act together and showing the significant skills he has in reading the ball and kicking efficiently out of the backline.
I'm also a Maynard supporter, but I'd like to see him moved to a wing or even a forward flank where the occasional howlers he makes aren't so damaging and his accurate kicking for goal could be put to better use.
I'd have Shazz in the backline, move Maynard forward and omit Blair. |
Yes, this is my conception as well. |
 I just read your comment Magpietothemax and was just about to quote it and say I definitely agree! |
|
|
|
|
GreekLunatic
Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Location: doncaster vic australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Our match committee haven't got a clue what a baffling decision great to see Blair keep his spot |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| GreekLunatic wrote: | | Our match committee haven't got a clue what a baffling decision great to see Blair keep his spot |
You don't drop a guy when he's only a few matches off his 200. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| BucksIsFutureCoach wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | ^ ah, I expect youre right, it's so obvious and anyone can see it except the people on the Collingwood selection and coaching panel, who have never played or watched a game in their lives and who know little about the game plan or the players as individuals, I suppose. If we only drew a few experts from Nicks to manage the obvious, it'd all be so much better.
It's good to have opinions, that's what this board is for, but nothing is obvious unless you are very very close to the facts, and even then I am confident it's not obvious. |
The only way I can reply to you is look at our ladder position and our wins and losses and tell me again what he club is doing right and why I and many others are wrong in criticising. You could also analyse the championship data from last week's game and compare Scharenberg's game to the games of Maynard and Crisp and provide me with supporting evidence why you agree with the club's decision to drop Scharenberg. |
Oh on the face of it I don't like the omission of Scharenberg either. But we have often looked defensively porous this year and schaz looked very loose vs Essendon, where his lack of place exposed us a few times. I don't know what his game objectives were last week, nor do I know his rehab planning. All of these are why I don't think it's obvious at all. Quite like your posts usually however.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| BucksIsFutureCoach wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | ^ ah, I expect youre right, it's so obvious and anyone can see it except the people on the Collingwood selection and coaching panel, who have never played or watched a game in their lives and who know little about the game plan or the players as individuals, I suppose. If we only drew a few experts from Nicks to manage the obvious, it'd all be so much better.
It's good to have opinions, that's what this board is for, but nothing is obvious unless you are very very close to the facts, and even then I am confident it's not obvious. |
The only way I can reply to you is look at our ladder position and our wins and losses and tell me again what he club is doing right and why I and many others are wrong in criticising. You could also analyse the championship data from last week's game and compare Scharenberg's game to the games of Maynard and Crisp and provide me with supporting evidence why you agree with the club's decision to drop Scharenberg. |
Oh on the face of it I don't like the omission of Scharenberg either. But we have often looked defensively porous this year and schaz looked very loose vs Essendon, where his lack of place exposed us a few times. I don't know what his game objectives were last week, nor do I know his rehab planning. All of these are why I don't think it's obvious at all. Quite like your posts usually however.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
