Giansiracusa's last season

[GVGjr]

We all know this is Gia's last season. He played well last season and earned another year with us.

Macca mapped out a plan to have Gia play the majority of the season in the seniors with a number of games as a Sub and a few at the VFL. I think the aim if for Gia to be a coach of some capacity at the club next year.

Discussions on the forum have indicated that a lot of the members think he's done and should make way for the next generation of youngsters.

What do you think the club should do?
Maintain the original plan that I detailed above?
Drop him and only play him when we absolutely have to?
Just give him a farewell game later in the year like we have with other players?

I think Gia has a few more weeks to establish himself as a genuine player for the senior side but he has to earn his position. I'm not in favour of dropping him just to make spots available for the youngsters. If they earn it then great gut I see little value in gifting games at the moment.

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

[Bulldog Joe]

I believe much of the criticism of Gia on the forum is unwarranted.
He has played 7 games with most as sub. Actual game time would be less than 50% but averaging 10 disposals.

He has generally had some impact when he is on the ground.

I see no reason to change the plan.

[westdog54]

Stick to the plan as far as I'm concerned. I'm more than happy with our player management strategies and I'm happy to back Macca and the rest of the MC to do the right thing.

[boydogs]

There have been games where we have needed a midfielder with pace to break the game open to come on as sub, but instead we've had Gia there. But then in some games he has come on and done well, setting up some crucial goals. Maybe just mix it up a bit more, not sure it was the right move when Macca declared Gia would be sub on a Thursday, we need to be a bit more unpredictable than that

[bulldogtragic]

Time to reassess for mine. I don't think any of the criticism is aimed at Gia at all, certainly not from me.

The issue is the use of Gia. For me either he plays all game or not at all. Macca is still having problems with the sub (see North in Round 2) and having Gia as a sub is so predictable that we are giving away any tactical advantage ebfore the game has even started. It's not like we can afford to gift away any advantages at the moment.

So if he is still ahead of Stringer, Hunter, Dahl, Hrovat, Grant, Dickson, Crameri, Honeychurch, Murphy or mids who could play defensive forward like Smith, Higgins, Stevens etc, or talls like Jones, Campbell, Ayce - Then play him on the ground and let form take its course.

If he's not in ahead of 6 names from that list then have him play VFL as a playing assistant coach until such time that he is considered in the top 6 forwards on the list. If the argument is that kids can develop well in the VFL (which is true), the extending that thought to Honeychurch and Hrovat (etc) playing alongside him in the VFL will give them even more hand in developing as smaller players, not least of which Gia can pinch hit in the centre at VFL level and give added experience to those guys.

We've been out-coached with Gia as the sub this year, and giving Gia 15 minutes only against North just goes to show this best laid plan might need a re-think. I think we need to step back from this as a 'the MC are wrong', 'don't Gia bash' or 'Macca needs to be believed in'. It's not about those things, its asking now one third of the season down how would we rate the strategy of the inclusion of Gia in the side, especially as the sub. I suggest the plan hasn't worked successfully enough to continue as a specialised sub player.

I think we go back to basics, real basics, that being either he's good enough to be best 21 or he is not. Having a 32 old slow-ish forward pocket as the sub isn't a savvy idea, its just not. Gia can't play any other role on the ground. Hypothetically, we give Aaron Davey a year contract last year. If the debate was over Aaron Davey playing as a boarderline permanent sub after 1/3 of a season without it being a success, would the discussion be different?

If the match committee and coaches think he holds down a spot over a kid, then that's a decision for them and another debate.

[GVGjr]

Terrific post BT.

[bornadog]

Terrific post BT.

Ditto, makes a good case.

[Maddog37]

I think he may come in handy later in the year as the younger guys start to fatigue.

[soupman]

Good post BT.

I completely agree that we shouldn't be afraid or reluctant to let Gia coach at Footscray, his selection should be on merit not just because he is the easy choice as sub.

I however don't think he is that poor a use of the sub in the context of where our side is at. We are aiming to win, but if there is a slight advantage to the clubs long term future at the expense of a smallish tactical advantage I'm prepared to make that sacrifice.

The issue for me is that if Gia isn't sub then someone else is, and I much prefer the option of a 32 year old veteren only getting a quarter every week than a promising 19 year old.

I think the argument that "either he's good enough to be best 21 or not" could be equally applied to the other players in the squad. Everyone in the best 22 has earnt their spot, so if we have to pick one of them to be the player who has the least game exposure I want to make sure the players I want playing full games are doing so.

The ideal sub would be described as being someone who has pace, can break the lines, can be damaging with the footy, can get multiple touches in a short time period and most importantly can make an impact. Gia fits most of the categories, but the other players on our list who would have a similiar output are guys we want to see do it for a full match. At this stage of our development I'd much rather start Tutt in the 21 ahead of Gia if they are both "best 22", regardless of whoever is better at this stage, because while Gia starting might make us a slightly better chance of winning we have more to gain from Tutt getting real gametime.

Also having Footscray instead of Williamstown means we can control the roles our players play in the reserves, meaning that I would rather our young players play four quarters in an appropriate role at Footscray than a quarter in the AFL in what is quite possibly already a dead game.

If Gia isn't best 22 then he shouldn't be picked, but if he is then for me it is a matter of opportunity cost. Putting someone else in the sub role robs them of an opportunity to play, learn and develop from 4 quarters of footy at either level, and I think a full game for someone like Tutt, or Honeychurch, or Hunter (all players that would fit the sub mould at our club) would be far more beneficial.

[bulldogtragic]

Good post BT.

I completely agree that we shouldn't be afraid or reluctant to let Gia coach at Footscray, his selection should be on merit not just because he is the easy choice as sub.

I however don't think he is that poor a use of the sub in the context of where our side is at. We are aiming to win, but if there is a slight advantage to the clubs long term future at the expense of a smallish tactical advantage I'm prepared to make that sacrifice.

The issue for me is that if Gia isn't sub then someone else is, and I much prefer the option of a 32 year old veteren only getting a quarter every week than a promising 19 year old.

I think the argument that "either he's good enough to be best 21 or not" could be equally applied to the other players in the squad. Everyone in the best 22 has earnt their spot, so if we have to pick one of them to be the player who has the least game exposure I want to make sure the players I want playing full games are doing so.

The ideal sub would be described as being someone who has pace, can break the lines, can be damaging with the footy, can get multiple touches in a short time period and most importantly can make an impact. Gia fits most of the categories, but the other players on our list who would have a similiar output are guys we want to see do it for a full match. At this stage of our development I'd much rather start Tutt in the 21 ahead of Gia if they are both "best 22", regardless of whoever is better at this stage, because while Gia starting might make us a slightly better chance of winning we have more to gain from Tutt getting real gametime.

Also having Footscray instead of Williamstown means we can control the roles our players play in the reserves, meaning that I would rather our young players play four quarters in an appropriate role at Footscray than a quarter in the AFL in what is quite possibly already a dead game.

If Gia isn't best 22 then he shouldn't be picked, but if he is then for me it is a matter of opportunity cost. Putting someone else in the sub role robs them of an opportunity to play, learn and develop from 4 quarters of footy at either level, and I think a full game for someone like Tutt, or Honeychurch, or Hunter (all players that would fit the sub mould at our club) would be far more beneficial.

You make a good counter position for sure. But as to first year (or so) players playing 4 quarters in the AFL as opposed to 1 in the AFL, I'm not too sure I can agree. With the VFL games against Richmond, Bendigo and last week, we've seen that the competition didn't force the kids to play well. The opposition was small and so far below AFL standard that really just amounted to a mid-week practice match. So for a kid to get picked, get into the zone, learn match day prep, warm up, be a part of it, sit next to Kingy or Corey, or Gia if he's playing and watch the game, get the pace, understand the pressure (etc, etc), to me isn't necessarily counter productive to the young kids development. I'm sure Marcus got more out of 1 quarter of AFL then running rings around the virtual witches hats last week in the VFL. There is so much more to learning the next level then being sub or not. So looking at us, I'm not too sure I can agree.

Looking at other teams, Gia as the sub makes us too predictable and denies us flexibility. The North match day coaching killed us and I think it will be common strategy against us now. That is, by selecting a slow-ish forward pocket we will almost have to sub off either Jones, Stringer, Grant or Crameri. So at 3/4 time, the opposition coach will sub out a mid sized defender knowing what we will do, and push down a slower mid or bench player to cover Gia. They then sub on a runner to add spark to their midfield of which we get no injection of fresh legs. It's too predictable and shows our hand before the game which gives away any advantage of unpredictability or flexibility. I just don't see the merit in pursuing using Gia this way when we've seen it not work well enough, or often enough.

I'm just unable to see the 'how' or 'why' with this anymore. On balance, I can't accept the player development angle, and strategically on match day I can't see it either. As per my last post, if we were talking about Aaron Davey on a one year contract and not a club legend I'm not sure this thread would have even been started.

[LostDoggy]

OK, so Gia retires tomorrow. Or hurts himself. Now, it's time to pick a new use for the sub. Do we just go the debutant, young players without the tank for four quarters, or do we take a tactical approach I.e. Grant as sub.

I think the answer to that question holds the key to the Gia issue. As others have said, if he's not sub then someone else is, and it depends on how we think we'd use that. If the tactical option, I'm all for Gia playing for the Scray, if we're just going to use it for young players, then the current use is best.

[Mantis]

He needs to play.. He hits the scoreboard and we need players who can do that.

I see him as duelling with Dickson for a spot in the team and with Tory out for an extended period Gia should play a bit more regularly in the starting 21.

[bulldogtragic]

What exactly does Gia playing today as sub again do?

The argument that say JJ (or others) is better to play VFL is redundant. Tacticly, what does Gia playing do? We can't insert a tall, or inject pace. All we will do is replace a out of form forward with a 32 year ols slowish forward pocket.

Seriously, what is the point, what is the advantage for kids who could do with getting used to the speed and preparations of the AFL? What is the match day advantage?

It's not about Gia as a person or player, if he's best 21 play him, but as a sub it's not working. Not working. Not working.

[lemmon]

Agreed BT, I think he is still very much a first team player, he brings more smarts and guile than anyone else we have so I'd be starting him. If he can't run out a full game than he shouldn't be on the list full stop but I'd much rather see a Tutt as sub who can come in and actually break lines.

[Remi Moses]

It isn't working and it's not for the future.
I would have had JGrant today as the sub.
With no VFL game he hasn't had any more games under his belt.
Far to negative

[LostDoggy]

People expect the sub to come on and dominate every game. Stats show they don't.

Stats also show if you use a young player as sub they generally have very minimal impact.

I thought Gia was fine when he came on. Tried hard and found a bit of ball.

[bulldogtragic]

People expect the sub to come on and dominate every game. Stats show they don't.

Stats also show if you use a young player as sub they generally have very minimal impact.

I thought Gia was fine when he came on. Tried hard and found a bit of ball.

Could you share those stars with us?

Also, this isn't about one game and trying hard and a few touches isn't a good result is it?

[bulldogtragic]

Bump. No point running multiple threads on this. But please read the full commentary from first post until last.

[Doc26]

I would prefer that in the back half of this season that we provide sufficient opportunities for those that we might see as our future i.e Hunter, Honeychurch, Redpath, Jones, Campbell, JJ, Young etc

Selecting Gia in our seniors at this time is simply shortsighted, sub or otherwise, when we are far from in contention. For that matter he should've been retired at the end of last season. We do have many experienced players in the 22 who should be offering whatever it is perceived that Gia might bring.

I would contest that he would provide better development support for the kids who are being denied a decent crack at it by playing full games for Footscray and showing them on that stage what's required to make the grade.

[bulldogtragic]

So we want Gia subbing on the bench right now?

[Mantis]

So we want Gia subbing on the bench right now?

Who would do better?

He ain't the problem.

[bulldogtragic]

Who would do better?

He ain't the problem.

Not blaming Gia. But not sure what Gia is going to be able to do. If he's in the best side we have, having him on right now might be handy. At this rate Crameri might be subbed for him and there's nothing we are going to change, no JJ like pace or height or any variable to what's going on out there. I'm not potting him, but the obsession of putting him on the pine for 3/4's and expecting he will be able do something miraculous when he gets some time isn't fair or sensible.

[GVGjr]

Who would do better?

He ain't the problem.

I think there are a few that are looking past his ability and what he offers on the and focusing more at his age. Basically I think it's more above giving another youngster a chance.

[bulldogtragic]

I think there are a few that are looking past his ability and what he offers on the and focusing more at his age. Basically I think it's more above giving another youngster a chance.

Yep, his age has nothing to do with it. This obsession he must be the sub is crazy, if he is being judged as playing well for 10 touches and some score involvements, then I would have preferred them that half and if he's out of legs bring Howard on as the sub. And that Howard is out there tonight, geez, that's another problem all together.

[Mantis]

Yep, his age has nothing to do with it. This obsession he must be the sub is crazy, if he is being judged as playing well for 10 touches and some score involvements, then I would have preferred them that half and if he's out of legs bring Howard on as the sub. And that Howard is out there tonight, geez, that's another problem all together.

Yeah, it's predictable and boring... Much like the rest of our game.

[bulldogtragic]

Yeah, it's predictable and boring... Much like the rest of our game.

If we sub Wlliams (helicopters), Bonts will be the tallest player. I think our forward line could be smaller than our mosquito fleet 8 years ago.

[GVGjr]

Yep, his age has nothing to do with it. This obsession he must be the sub is crazy, if he is being judged as playing well for 10 touches and some score involvements, then I would have preferred them that half and if he's out of legs bring Howard on as the sub. And that Howard is out there tonight, geez, that's another problem all together.
So you want him to start most weeks?

[bulldogtragic]

So you want him to start most weeks?

Permanent sub to me is like being half pregnant. If he's still our best forward play him, if he's not fit enough what's he doing on an AFL list? He offers amazing coaching which he can do at AFL and VFL player, so that's irrelevant. If he's not in the best 21 he shouldn't play, he's so far ahead of Howard for instance. The strategy isn't working in my estimation. How do you read it G?

[GVGjr]

Permanent sub to me is like being half pregnant. If he's still our best forward play him, if he's not fit enough what's he doing on an AFL list? He offers amazing coaching which he can do at AFL and VFL player, so that's irrelevant. If he's not in the best 21 he shouldn't play, he's so far ahead of Howard for instance. The strategy isn't working in my estimation. How do you read it G?

So was that a yes or a no?

[bulldogtragic]

So was that a yes or a no?

If he's best 21, yes. If he's not, then no.

And you?

Look what he could've done with 75 minutes that Howard stole off him.

[GVGjr]

If he's best 21, yes. If he's not, then no.

And you?

Look what he could've done with 75 minutes that Howard stole off him.

In your opinion is he in the best 21?

I haven't dropped him in the Match Committee thread

[bulldogtragic]

In your opinion is he in the best 21?

I haven't dropped him in the Match Committee thread

Quid pro quo Dr Lector, is this sub strategy working and should we continue it?

(It's a movie reference, I don't think you eat people)

[whythelongface]

he is easily in our best 22. Unfortunately that is a sad reflection on the quality of our list.

[GVGjr]

Quid pro quo Dr Lector, is this sub strategy working and should we continue it?

(It's a movie reference, I don't think you eat people)
Happy for him to start some games, I gather you dont. Is it his age or his ability that concerns you? I understand it's the sub position you challenge each week but you can't commit to him as being in the best 21 either

[KT31]

Can't see why we don't change the strategy and have Gia in the starting line up and sub him if he is having a bad game.

[GVGjr]

Can't see why we don't change the strategy and have Gia in the starting line up and sub him if he is having a bad game.

I think we are trying to give game time to the younger group and we aren't "all in" with Gia. If he can't play a full game then we shouldn't pick him but I think he can.

[LostDoggy]

He's getting picked because he is still in our best 22. Sub or not is immaterial but it says plenty about our forward line depth that the fossil is still in our top 3 forwards... If I was in the MC its one of the easiest selections I make. Thursday arvo: (coach) "Gia - feeling alright mate?"; (Gia) "yep all good"; (coach) "great"
<Match selection day....."Forward line: Crameri (tick), Dahlhaus (tick), Gia (tick), ... right lets think about the others">

[bulldogtragic]

Happy for him to start some games, I gather you dont. Is it his age or his ability that concerns you? I understand it's the sub position you challenge each week but you can't commit to him as being in the best 21 either

If it's purely winning, purely the next week only, then Gia starts for mine. No brainer, look what he did tonight, he put out about 500% improvement than the player subbed out. Best 21 for winning next weeks game, yep. If it's about a longer term view now half way through the season and we want to fast track Honeychurch or Hunter, or JJ (etc) then it's a philosophical question as to what the rest of the season is about in the circumstances we find.

Outside of Hrovat's first 10 minutes, no one even looked like kicking a goal. If the MC say he's best 21, then he must start every game he's selected. He's expected to pull miraculous wins from his rectum each week, and he nearly did tonight. But he didn't because he didn't have the 75 minutes Howard abused, I think one can make an argument we would have won tonight if Gia plays the full game. As an analogy, it's like my mother in laws thinking on her china dinner sets. You only bring the fine china out for really, really special occasions. As I tell her what good is fine china if you really never use it and when sometime much into the future when she passes it's too late to get maximum enjoyment because times expired and you can't go back to get the maximum enjoyment. That is, why leave something good in the cupboard if it's what you really want, what makes you happy and get to the end and you haven't used it.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

I don't see the point of him playing, but he's still one of our best forwards - if that makes sense?

It's a dire reflection on our list.

[1eyedog]

I don't see the point of him playing, but he's still one of our best forwards - if that makes sense?

It's a dire reflection on our list.

It's not a dire reflection of our list.

His replacement Dickson is out with a long-term injury.

Our more effective forward has just returned after a lengthy absence with a foot.

Our most consistent forward (Dahlhaus) is being asked to play further up the ground and;

Our next best forward (Hunter) has only played a handful of games.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

It's not a dire reflection of our list.

His replacement Dickson is out with a long-term injury.
Dickson isn't better than Gia.

Our more effective forward has just returned after a lengthy absence with a foot.
Agree, somewhat. But the fact that Grant is our most effective forward after really only 6 weeks (or so) of good football at the end of last year is embarrassing. He was poor tonight (should be better for the run).

Our most consistent forward (Dahlhaus) is being asked to play further up the ground and;
He was up forward the majority of tonight and was pretty ineffective - but agree on this. Dahl is our best forward.

Our next best forward (Hunter) has only played a handful of games.
Will be a good player but is a long way off it (understandably). Needs time.

It is definitely a dire reflection of our list IMO.

[1eyedog]

When was the last time Gia kicked 6 goals? I would say Dickson's output is as good as if not better than Gia over the past two seasons. I've been very disappointed with Gia this season.

Agree re. Grant.

We need to be patient but aside from Dahl and Grant Hunter, Stringer, Crameri still have a lot to offer up forward. I'm sure our forward line is as frustrated as our supporters at the static attrition we play through the middle of the ground on a weekly basis.

[Remi Moses]

I thought he was good tonight, but as others quoted it shows the lack of quality and smarts of our forwards.

[Topdog]

Gia is easily best 22 and I don't think that is a dire reflection of our list as he is still a very good player. He has kicked 10 goals this season already with just 43% time on ground. Patton, Chapman and Petrie are just a few with 3,1 and 2 more goals than him despite an extra 30-40% time on ground. His number #1 asset has always been his intelligence.

[Topdog]

When was the last time Gia kicked 6 goals? I would say Dickson's output is as good as if not better than Gia over the past two seasons. I've been very disappointed with Gia this season.


Statistically even with the bonus of a 6 goal game Dickson has not matched Gia. Less kicks, marks, goals and I'm certain less goal assists but afl website is being crap so i can't see that stat. Scoreless in 2 games out of his 3 this season.

[westbulldog]

look what he did tonight, he put out about 500% improvement than the player subbed out...................Outside of Hrovat's first 10 minutes, no one even looked like kicking a goal. If the MC say he's best 21, then he must start every game he's selected. He's expected to pull miraculous wins from his rectum each week, and he nearly did tonight. But he didn't because he didn't have the 75 minutes Howard abused, I think one can make an argument we would have won tonight if Gia plays the full game.

well put !

[Scorlibo]

From what I've seen of Gia this year, it doesn't seem that he's capable of consistently playing full games and contributing, but his performances as the sub have been really great. Because of this, I'm 100% perplexed as to why there is conjecture over his role. It seems to be the one part of our game plan that is genuinely working. He can coach from the sidelines, take the burden of the sub role away from young players, and come on and have a big impact as he did last night.

I won't stand to hear this nonsense about 'predictability' - the proof's in the eating, and Gia continues to play well. The opposition can prepare for him to be the sub, it doesn't seem to matter. They can't prepare for who we sub out, and the flow-on effect that has.

[Remi Moses]

The issue is moving forward, What do we do?
He's retiring at seasons end so we need Hunter and the like to step up.

[bulldogtragic]

From what I've seen of Gia this year, it doesn't seem that he's capable of consistently playing full games and contributing, but his performances as the sub have been really great. Because of this, I'm 100% perplexed as to why there is conjecture over his role. It seems to be the one part of our game plan that is genuinely working. He can coach from the sidelines, take the burden of the sub role away from young players, and come on and have a big impact as he did last night.

I won't stand to hear this nonsense about 'predictability' - the proof's in the eating, and Gia continues to play well. The opposition can prepare for him to be the sub, it doesn't seem to matter. They can't prepare for who we sub out, and the flow-on effect that has.

So we are the only club in the AFL with a player on our list who can't play an entire game 'or consistent full games'. How many players should we have on the list next year who can't play consistent full games? On that basis Vezpremi ans Sherman were hard by as they couldn't play consistent full games either....

I'm not doing this round about anymore, we disagree. We love the dogs, so we have more in common than not, but our perspective about improving our list doesn't include (or does include) retaining players who can't play consistent full games.

[lemmon]

Why are we so sure he can't play a full game? It's not like we have much to go on this year

[bornadog]

Why are we so sure he can't play a full game? It's not like we have much to go on this year

I think he will play a full game next week.

[bulldogtragic]

Why are we so sure he can't play a full game? It's not like we have much to go on this year

Exactly, Howard had nine kicks for nine clangers. Not even I could do worse. Gia could crack it like kids at Auskick and sit and the middle and could have achieved more. If Howard and Gia are best 22, surely Gia is 21 and Howard 22. There seems too many excuses for things, including this.

[bornadog]

Exactly, Howard had nine kicks for nine clangers.

Not sure where you got that from. Howard had 2 kicks and 2 handballs

[bulldogtragic]

Not sure where you got that from. Howard had 2 kicks and 2 handballs

My bad, I thought I read that in a thread last night, happy to withdraw. Also happy to rephrase, Gia can do A LOT better than 4 touches in 75 minutes his sleep.

[Scorlibo]

So we are the only club in the AFL with a player on our list who can't play an entire game 'or consistent full games'. How many players should we have on the list next year who can't play consistent full games? On that basis Vezpremi ans Sherman were hard by as they couldn't play consistent full games either....

I'm not doing this round about anymore, we disagree. We love the dogs, so we have more in common than not, but our perspective about improving our list doesn't include (or does include) retaining players who can't play consistent full games.

If he can consistently play one-third game time to a high standard, what does it matter if he can't consistently play full games? There is a place for him as the sub.

I know you've said you don't want to discuss it further, but humour me, because I'm genuinely just confused on your stance:

Did you rate his game last night?
Are you wanting to send him back to the magoos or give him full games?
Do you think the sub role should be given each week to the 22nd picked player?

[bulldogtragic]

If he can consistently play one-third game time to a high standard, what does it matter if he can't consistently play full games? There is a place for him as the sub.

I know you've said you don't want to discuss it further, but humour me, because I'm genuinely just confused on your stance:

Did you rate his game last night?
Are you wanting to send him back to the magoos or give him full games?
Do you think the sub role should be given each week to the 22nd picked player?

1. It was good, being without great. The only knock was a goal I thought he could get late. But that's a tad harsh as 3 or 4 others missed too. But to expect him to virtually win the game off his on boot when he comes on (not saying you thinking this) is dead set unfair, and that's the thought as I see it. That is, try to have a player like Howard keep us close enough and Gia to ice the game. You could reverse engineer that concept to have Gia get us up with or ahead of the game, and if his game is such we need to keep him on, we sub someone else. If Gia needs the spell, then put fresh legs on the ground. Take the idea but with JJ (not Howard), Gia plays last night, kicks a few by 75 minutes in, Gia can stay or sub. We then have fresh legs with serious pace to cut the game up and the game slowed as it did last night. We could have our cake and eat it too, we get the goals and smarts from Gia when the game was needing him and then we look to insert JJ to run through the lines they were clogging. It seems sensible that when the game is up for winning/setup Gia is there, and when we need pace to cut through a slowing game we have it. Whether Gia comes off is a matter for the individual game.
2. Full games AFL or full games VFL. I think it's a 'half pregnant' strategy, that is, it's neither one or the other. IMO it's not working.
3. Not necessarily no. That's kind of the gist, let's not group think everything as we did last year and keep a player with the intent of subbing regularly.

I think it matters a very lot that if we list a player who can't play full games regularly. I think if that's the case I would be horrified with the club. That would set a very, very dangerous precedent. If this wasn't a plan with a club champion this wouldn't be a conversation at all. Do we look at replacing Gia at the end of the year with other 32yo delistees cum free agents for 40 minutes impact time? John Brown, Podsiadly, Quinten Lynch as they could add height at the of the game when we bomb it deep. What about Chappy or Boomer Harvey, could be a like for like swap? If our players on the list don't need to play each week, then this could be an untapped list management strategy. You could be an evil or non evil genius. :)

[Scorlibo]

1. It was good, being without great. The only knock was a goal I thought he could get late. But that's a tad harsh as 3 or 4 others missed too. But to expect him to virtually win the game off his on boot when he comes on (not saying you thinking this) is dead set unfair, and that's the thought as I see it. That is, try to have a player like Howard keep us close enough and Gia to ice the game. You could reverse engineer that concept to have Gia get us up with or ahead of the game, and if his game is such we need to keep him on, we sub someone else. If Gia needs the spell, then put fresh legs on the ground. Take the idea but with JJ (not Howard), Gia plays last night, kicks a few by 75 minutes in, Gia can stay or sub. We then have fresh legs with serious pace to cut the game up and the game slowed as it did last night. We could have our cake and eat it too, we get the goals and smarts from Gia when the game was needing him and then we look to insert JJ to run through the lines they were clogging. It seems sensible that when the game is up for winning/setup Gia is there, and when we need pace to cut through a slowing game we have it. Whether Gia comes off is a matter for the individual game.
2. Full games AFL or full games VFL. I think it's a 'half pregnant' strategy, that is, it's neither one or the other. IMO it's not working.
3. Not necessarily no. That's kind of the gist, let's not group think everything as we did last year and keep a player with the intent of subbing regularly.

I think it matters a very lot that if we list a player who can't play full games regularly. I think if that's the case I would be horrified with the club. That would set a very, very dangerous precedent. If this wasn't a plan with a club champion this wouldn't be a conversation at all. Do we look at replacing Gia at the end of the year with other 32yo delistees cum free agents for 40 minutes impact time? John Brown, Podsiadly, Quinten Lynch as they could add height at the of the game when we bomb it deep. What about Chappy or Boomer Harvey, could be a like for like swap? If our players on the list don't need to play each week, then this could be an untapped list management strategy. You could be an evil or non evil genius. :)

Okay, after processing all of this, I think I've found the fundamental difference in our ways of thinking. You see Gia's good performances as deserving of more game time, and fair enough. I'm also inclined to think that if he's playing well enough, he should be getting some full games here and there. However, on the evidence of his full games this year, like I've said, it doesn't seem that he can extend his impact as the sub to stretch over an entire game. Now this is where the difference lies.

You say, at this point, why should a player who cannot play out a full game play at all?

I say, even if he can't impact full games, he's still the best sub we can put on the park - so he should play that role. The clincher for me is that young players don't have to play fractions of games while developing (Macca on radio this morning also spoke to this point).

I think we can both agree that Gia should play some full games in the near future, and if the results are positive, then it's more beneficial for the team if he keeps on playing full games. If they aren't positive though, I can't see why he wouldn't return to playing the sub role - a role in which he is a proven performer.

[bulldogtragic]

Okay, after processing all of this, I think I've found the fundamental difference in our ways of thinking. You see Gia's good performances as deserving of more game time, and fair enough. I'm also inclined to think that if he's playing well enough, he should be getting some full games here and there. However, on the evidence of his full games this year, like I've said, it doesn't seem that he can extend his impact as the sub to stretch over an entire game. Now this is where the difference lies.

You say, at this point, why should a player who cannot play out a full game play at all?

I say, even if he can't impact full games, he's still the best sub we can put on the park - so he should play that role. The clincher for me is that young players don't have to play fractions of games while developing (Macca on radio this morning also spoke to this point).

I think we can both agree that Gia should play some full games in the near future, and if the results are positive, then it's more beneficial for the team if he keeps on playing full games. If they aren't positive though, I can't see why he wouldn't return to playing the sub role - a role in which he is a proven performer.

Fair summation. But I'm unsure why we need a specialist substitute, I see that as clogging the list if they're not an option to play through the season in this context. As I say, a Jon Brown, Pods, Chappy (etc) could be recruited some the same effect next year. I think the group think that can exist if one player is anointed a specialist is that we can become too one dimensional with our thinking. What has been needed in the last few losses is line breaking speed and carry, say JJ last night, when the game was going to slow with a lot of young players on both teams. If we needed Gia too, then he could have started, but then Howard should've been dropped and that's a different thread.

[bornadog]

My bad, I thought I read that in a thread last night, happy to withdraw. Also happy to rephrase, Gia can do A LOT better than 4 touches in 75 minutes his sleep.

Stache said Minson had 9 kicks 9 clangers which was also not true he had 6 Clangers :D

[Topdog]

Stache said Minson had 9 kicks 9 clangers which was also not true he had 6 Clangers :D

So we had 1 guy with 66% clangers and less than 10 touches and 1 guy with 4 touches. How did we lose that game?

[KT31]

Stache said Minson had 9 kicks 9 clangers which was also not true he had 6 Clangers :D

He may have typed it standing on his head.:D

[westdog54]

Fair summation. But I'm unsure why we need a specialist substitute, I see that as clogging the list if they're not an option to play through the season in this context. As I say, a Jon Brown, Pods, Chappy (etc) could be recruited some the same effect next year. I think the group think that can exist if one player is anointed a specialist is that we can become too one dimensional with our thinking. What has been needed in the last few losses is line breaking speed and carry, say JJ last night, when the game was going to slow with a lot of young players on both teams. If we needed Gia too, then he could have started, but then Howard should've been dropped and that's a different thread.

The way I see it would be as follows:

We have a comparatively young list that is in need of development.
We know that a premiership is not on the radar this year. We had a fair idea that finals wouldn't be. As such, whilst winning games is the aim each week, it certainly isn't the be all and end all.
We know that we have a player who has leadership and skills that are in vastly short supply. Unfortunately he's also an old fart who will rarely be able to run out a full game.
We also know that he has clear attributes that would make him an outstanding coach, and that our young players will need constant reinforcement during the game from someone who will deliver the message consistently with what the coach wants.

Yes, its predictable. Yes, it gives us a tactial disadvantage. Yes, it will probably cost us a game or two. But for where we are at, it is an imperfect solution for a problem that probably doesn't have a perfect solution. Its an interim measure that we might just ahve to suck it up and cop for a season for the greater good going forward.

[bulldogtragic]

The way I see it would be as follows:

We have a comparatively young list that is in need of development.
We know that a premiership is not on the radar this year. We had a fair idea that finals wouldn't be. As such, whilst winning games is the aim each week, it certainly isn't the be all and end all.
We know that we have a player who has leadership and skills that are in vastly short supply. Unfortunately he's also an old fart who will rarely be able to run out a full game.
We also know that he has clear attributes that would make him an outstanding coach, and that our young players will need constant reinforcement during the game from someone who will deliver the message consistently with what the coach wants.

Yes, its predictable. Yes, it gives us a tactial disadvantage. Yes, it will probably cost us a game or two. But for where we are at, it is an imperfect solution for a problem that probably doesn't have a perfect solution. Its an interim measure that we might just ahve to suck it up and cop for a season for the greater good going forward.

Leaving aside playing him more, I can see your reasoning, my concern with that is that is we lose one or two senior players, then this reasoning suggests we need someone next year to do this as we are not going forward or getting better with this help, so we need it again next yeR. So then we use Boyd, Bob Or Morris as a permanent sub, which is unrealistic, so then we may need to look at a delisted FA to give us this leadership. Corey Enright, Chappy, Steve Johnson, Chris Newman could do this next year.

[ratsmac]

I think having Gia as a sub vs playing a full game vs making way for a young player debate is the very least of our problems right now.

Having a game plan that will win games of football and players that can execute the plan is our biggest issue right now. Gia is definitely one of those players that can teach and carry out a game plan. This is his worth in our team. When he is unable to contribute any more, that's when his time is up. We had players that played the whole game against Brisbane that had less influence than Gia.

[bornadog]

From Macca:


McCartney said player development would continue to influence team selection this season but games would not be gifted without merit.A preference for allowing young players to experience the full four quarters of football will also see Giansiracusa continue to make the substitute role his own, more often than not.
“We still want to give development opportunities to young players but only if they deserve it, only if they’re productive when they are out on the ground,” he said.
“[I’m] probably not totally in favour of playing young players as the sub – giving them only a quarter or quarter and a half.
“It’s sort of not a real look at the game and they just don’t experience the fatigue that you get when you play three or four games in a row, dealing with fast starts and then having to hang on late in the game.”

[bulldogtragic]

So some time, versus no time, is better?
So if Gia's needed in setting up wins, he'll be on the bench?

White flag. I'm over debating this strategy, clearly I'm out of step.

[bornadog]

So some time, versus no time, is better?
So if Gia's needed in setting up wins, he'll be on the bench?

White flag. I'm over debating this strategy, clearly I'm out of step.

We made the decision to keep him on and I think the way the coach is handling it is the best way. Personally, I would have retired him off last year.

[boydogs]

So some time, versus no time, is better?
So if Gia's needed in setting up wins, he'll be on the bench?

White flag. I'm over debating this strategy, clearly I'm out of step.

We've got our own VFL side now. We can give kids a full game in the VFL instead of a quarter and a half in the AFL

Gia has the smarts to use the extra speed and energy levels the sub has to advantage. If he plays from the start of the game he has no advantage to apply

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

We made the decision to keep him on and I think the way the coach is handling it is the best way. Personally, I would have retired him off last year.

The decision to keep Gia on as a sub is questionable at best. I can understand it better if he was deemed to be in our best 21 each week. We set a precedent not adopted by any other AFL club of going down this track. This approach doesn't inspire confidence in the team. I hope this type of thinking is a one off and never to be repeated.

[bornadog]

The decision to keep Gia on as a sub is questionable at best. I can understand it better if he was deemed to be in our best 21 each week. We set a precedent not adopted by any other AFL club of going down this track. This approach doesn't inspire confidence in the team. I hope this type of thinking is a one off and never to be repeated.

Yes lets not do this with Boyd, or Murphy etc when they are close to retirement.

[Hotdog60]

I personally would like to see the sub go. Cut the bench to 3 if they don't like the 4 and if someone gets injured it's just bad luck. It was good enough for a 100 years it can be good enough for the next 100.

[bulldogtragic]

The decision to keep Gia on as a sub is questionable at best. I can understand it better if he was deemed to be in our best 21 each week. We set a precedent not adopted by any other AFL club of going down this track. This approach doesn't inspire confidence in the team. I hope this type of thinking is a one off and never to be repeated.

This is why I've been screaming in my head. Some things when done for the first time are ground breaking and other things show why no other club is doing it and won't do it. We are too smart by half, it goes that if it's a great strategy surely other clubs would've jumped on board by now. This is the latter and we are covering a failing idea with the fact it's a club legend in the role. I can't accept the line of logic that says no time in an AFL game is better than some...

Can the supportive philosophers please tell us what happens next year?

[boydogs]

Can the supportive philosophers please tell us what happens next year?

Someone else without the energy to play 4 quarters but the smarts to use the sub's speed and energy advantage well can do it. Cooney, Boyd, Murphy as they get older, or Tutt, Stringer, Johannisen with a bit more experience

Other clubs have Matt White, Nathan Foley, Levi Greenwood mature age types that have terrific burst speed but struggle to run out a game. We don't have that type of player on the list, only kids that are too inexperienced to get into the game quickly and have an influence.

I think Macca has a point when he says it's hard to expect a kid to get into the game and have an influence as the sub when they are still learning how to play a full game. Melbourne used Jay Kennedy-Harris on the weekend and he only had 3 touches in over a quarter, St Kilda used Jack Billings who only had 7 touches despite getting game time as a concussion sub as well as over a quarter later in the game. On the other hand, Gia kicked 2 goals and had 10 touches in a quarter and a half, and Luke Ball had 11 touches in just over a quarter for Collingwood

[Scorlibo]

Someone else without the energy to play 4 quarters but the smarts to use the sub's speed and energy advantage well can do it. Cooney, Boyd, Murphy as they get older, or Tutt, Stringer, Johannisen with a bit more experience

Other clubs have Matt White, Nathan Foley, Levi Greenwood mature age types that have terrific burst speed but struggle to run out a game. We don't have that type of player on the list, only kids that are too inexperienced to get into the game quickly and have an influence.

I think Macca has a point when he says it's hard to expect a kid to get into the game and have an influence as the sub when they are still learning how to play a full game. Melbourne used Jay Kennedy-Harris on the weekend and he only had 3 touches in over a quarter, St Kilda used Jack Billings who only had 7 touches despite getting game time as a concussion sub as well as over a quarter later in the game. On the other hand, Gia kicked 2 goals and had 10 touches in a quarter and a half, and Luke Ball had 11 touches in just over a quarter for Collingwood

We played Bontempelli as the sub and he had an absolute stinker with 2 touches.

[bornadog]

I personally would like to see the sub go. Cut the bench to 3 if they don't like the 4 and if someone gets injured it's just bad luck. It was good enough for a 100 years it can be good enough for the next 100.

Has the sub rule and restrictions on the interchange now contributing to far too many stoppages?

Once more a rule backfires on the AFL and ruins our game

[Bulldog Joe]

I personally would like to see the sub go. Cut the bench to 3 if they don't like the 4 and if someone gets injured it's just bad luck. It was good enough for a 100 years it can be good enough for the next 100.

Well actually there was no interchange and effectively 2 subs only for the majority of that history. Interchange was introduced in 1978 and moved to 21 players in 1994 with the 22nd player coming in 1998.

In 1970 Ron Barrassi as coach of Carlton used the sub rule (just wasn't known as that then) to have an enormous influence and win a GF with Ted Hopkins.

[bornadog]

Well actually there was no interchange and effectively 2 subs only for the majority of that history. Interchange was introduced in 1978 and moved to 21 players in 1994 with the 22nd player coming in 1998.

In 1970 Ron Barrassi as coach of Carlton used the sub rule (just wasn't known as that then) to have an enormous influence and win a GF with Ted Hopkins.

The speed of players and games are far superior to the past, and that is why interchange is required. All the AFL is doing now is slowing games down and increasing stoppages. At stoppages, players can have a rest for a moment, whereas with 4 on the bench and unlimited interchange, the game flows better.

[Bulldog Joe]

The speed of players and games are far superior to the past, and that is why interchange is required. All the AFL is doing now is slowing games down and increasing stoppages. At stoppages, players can have a rest for a moment, whereas with 4 on the bench and unlimited interchange, the game flows better.

But of course the increased speed was facilitated by the introduction of interchange and then increasing from 2 to 4. Now they are looking to slow it. Rules were introduced to achieve a certain outcome and then are being fiddled with because the desired outcome was more than anticipated.

However, I was responding to the post below and we clearly did not have Interchange for a vast part of the history of the game.


I personally would like to see the sub go. Cut the bench to 3 if they don't like the 4 and if someone gets injured it's just bad luck. It was good enough for a 100 years it can be good enough for the next 100.

[bulldogtragic]

Essential Gia has started today. His involvement makes us dangerous, this is why we need his influence to get ahead of the game, get a lead. Not a short burst when the game moved passed up.

[bulldogtragic]

Gia looks like a Rolls Royce still. I'm glad he played virtually the whole game and helped set the game up, maybe win.

[GVGjr]

Gia looks like a Rolls Royce still. I'm glad he played virtually the whole game and helped set the game up, maybe win.

Albeit a RR with a few miles on the clock ;)

[bulldogtragic]

Albeit a RR with a few miles on the clock ;)

They're the best ones!

Gia showed a few things tonight, he's still in our best 6 forwards, he can impact the match more and earlier on and he can run out a match. Why would we only give him 30 minutes at the end, possibly behind the game, when he can do that? He's a club champion for a reason :)

[boydogs]

Gia showed a few things tonight, he's still in our best 6 forwards, he can impact the match more and earlier on and he can run out a match. Why would we only give him 30 minutes at the end, possibly behind the game, when he can do that? He's a club champion for a reason :)

He struggled to chase in the last and risked giving away a free by holding on or letting them go into space. Tom Langdon came from behind and ran free past him at one stage. That's coming on with 5 minutes left in the 1st, not playing the whole game.

He will need to do that from time to time as sub but he did struggle a bit. He was still very smart with his positioning and ball use and helped us get over the line.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

He was terrific today - really stood up as a leader.

[F'scary]

Did well today but I sure it is his last season.

[Ozza]

Was terrific today. Thought the move to out him behind the ball a couple of times when we were under the pump was inspired.

[KT31]

Was great today and we are so much better with his leadership when he is on the ground.

[bulldogtragic]

It seems we get more value in starting him. Personally, I think because he was there when we needed him he was part of why we won. We may still have won if he was the sub, but I don't think so. If you take off the goals he was in the chain of play, we are 3 or 4 goals down when he comes on and he would have been expected to pick us up. He showed his value yesterday, with another good opponent we need him not subbing again.

[bornadog]

It seems we get more value in starting him. Personally, I think because he was there when we needed him he was part of why we won. We may still have won if he was the sub, but I don't think so. If you take off the goals he was in the chain of play, we are 3 or 4 goals down when he comes on and he would have been expected to pick us up. He showed his value yesterday, with another good opponent we need him not subbing again.

Do you think the game would have been different if Cooney played the whole game and Gia came on in the Last?

[bulldogtragic]

Do you think the game would have been different if Cooney played the whole game and Gia came on in the Last?
I will get called negative (but here goes...). Yes. I think we could've been between 3 or 4 goals down if Cooney's output didn't include the linking work Gia did in goal kicking. Gia got us ahead of the game, he was used yesterday in effect to get us ahead of the game. With the pressure of the game in the last, if Gia was forced to try from behind the game to get us over it's a not a guaranteed win. What happened yesterday was a win!! :)

[Scorlibo]

He played really well, and should probably play a full game next week. However, if he can't run out a full game next week BT then I think it's straight back to the green vest!

[bornadog]

He played really well, and should probably play a full game next week. However, if he can't run out a full game next week BT then I think it's straight back to the green vest!

He can always be subbed out.

[bulldogtragic]

He played really well, and should probably play a full game next week. However, if he can't run out a full game next week BT then I think it's straight back to the green vest!

Then sub him! :)

Hunter, Honeychurch, JJ would all love to come into a game Gia sets up for them to finish off. :)

[Greystache]

He can always be subbed out.

Not always and that's the danger. Say the same thing happens next week and we get an injury early in the 2nd quarter, Tutt (or whoever is sub) comes on and Gia is stranded having to play another full game. He got away with it this week and contributed very well, but if by chance he was forced to play 2 or 3 full games in a row he would be really caught out.

[Scorlibo]

Not always and that's the danger. Say the same thing happens next week and we get an injury early in the 2nd quarter, Tutt (or whoever is sub) comes on and Gia is stranded having to play another full game. He got away with it this week and contributed very well, but if by chance he was forced to play 2 or 3 full games in a row he would be really caught out.

I agree. There is also always going to be a young player or two struggling to make an impact up to the point in the game where the sub comes on. Playing a guy in Gia who we already hypothesise will be unable to run out the game and will need to be subbed is asking for trouble come late in the game.

[boydogs]

I will get called negative (but here goes...). Yes. I think we could've been between 3 or 4 goals down if Cooney's output didn't include the linking work Gia did in goal kicking. Gia got us ahead of the game, he was used yesterday in effect to get us ahead of the game. With the pressure of the game in the last, if Gia was forced to try from behind the game to get us over it's a not a guaranteed win. What happened yesterday was a win!! :)

Do you think we should start playing someone like Hunter in Gia's role in preparation to take over from him?

[Ozza]

Might sound like nit picking ! - but doesn't the fact that Gia was the sub, and came on at whatever time he was needed (in this case 15 mins in to the game) - and is able to play a role and impact the game, demonstrate that he is very suitable in the role?

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for him to start AND I'm happy for him to sub. But he continues to show that whether its a quarter and a half, 2 quarters, or 3 quarters - he can get into the game.

Selection will be interesting this week. Particularly as to who would potentially make way for Honeychurch, Stringer or Hunter.

[GVGjr]

Might sound like nit picking ! - but doesn't the fact that Gia was the sub, and came on at whatever time he was needed (in this case 15 mins in to the game) - and is able to play a role and impact the game, demonstrate that he is very suitable in the role?

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for him to start AND I'm happy for him to sub. But he continues to show that whether its a quarter and a half, 2 quarters, or 3 quarters - he can get into the game.

Selection will be interesting this week. Particularly as to who would potentially make way for Honeychurch, Stringer or Hunter.

It does and he is suited to the role. I think we are trying to serves two masters at the moment which confuses people
1) Give as much development time to the youngsters
2) Use Gia's experience and guile to spark us when he comes on

This was the plan when we decided to keep him around this year and we really haven't deviated away from it. We can debate this for the balance of the season but no one can really say it hasn't worked to the original plan. The only question is if we should start him a bit more.

[Remi Moses]

The problem is that because non playing his match fitness has dropped.
It's a catch 22 between development of others and the guile of Gia .
Gotta be honest, I've got splinters on my arse sitting on the fence.

[Ghost Dog]

The problem is that because non playing his match fitness has dropped.
It's a catch 22 between development of others and the guile of Gia .
Gotta be honest, I've got splinters on my arse sitting on the fence.
Hilarious. Have not heard that one.
We have been under the spotlight and good god we needed a lift. In that situation, has to be played.

[bulldogtragic]

I can't let this go again. Virtually every other club has a mid type or runner as the sub, presumably for the flexibility of small/mid back or forward or especially to play midfield. Having a 32 year old forward pocket cannot be the answer. Why are we the only club doing this?

Play him or don't.

It's nothing against Gia, he's a club champion.

[bulldogtragic]

I can frame it a different way. Why wouldn't we fill the sub position with a player who can a play a variety of roles to give the coaching box flexibility and more options about subbing on match day?

[Scorlibo]

I can't let this go again. Virtually every other club has a mid type or runner as the sub, presumably for the flexibility of small/mid back or forward or especially to play midfield. Having a 32 year old forward pocket cannot be the answer. Why are we the only club doing this?

Play him or don't.

It's nothing against Gia, he's a club champion.

It hasn't been a problem until now, he's probably outperformed every other sub in the competition. I don't give a flying duck if he's a forward pocket, he's consistently made an impact. You have absolutely no reason to suggest that the sub should be a running player. You need to let this go BT, for my sake. Every time you bring it up it makes my blood boil, please see sense!

[bulldogtragic]

It hasn't been a problem until now, he's probably outperformed every other sub in the competition. I don't give a flying duck if he's a forward pocket, he's consistently made an impact. You have absolutely no reason to suggest that the sub should be a running player. You need to let this go BT, for my sake. Every time you bring it up it makes my blood boil, please see sense!

I guessed this reaction, see the extra post above.

[chef]

If we win its great and if we lose its shit it seems.

[azabob]

If we win its great and if we lose its shit it seems.

Isn't that the nature of this board though regardless of the topic?

[bulldogtragic]

If we win its great and if we lose its shit it seems.

Completely wrong. Dead wrong. If you read the thread from last week I said Gia showed he's in the best 6 forwards so he should be starting and picking a sub that can play a variety of roles, like every other AFL club does. So if you lose a defender or midfielder the coaching box has options.

[Scorlibo]

I guessed this reaction, see the extra post above.

When Gia comes on forward, it can release Dahlhaus to the midfield, or Hrovat, or Stevens. Thinking that the sub has to be the one fill the role of the player subbed out is just stupid. It's about the flow on effect. If Stevens, a running player who can play multiple positions, was the sub we'd be structuring up exactly the same as we are now.

[chef]

Isn't that the nature of this board though regardless of the topic?

Yep. Hell of a lot of flip flopping.

[chef]

He won't be playing next week.

[bulldogtragic]

Gia getting 2 weeks suspension. I guess it's taken out of the clubs hands...

[Scorlibo]

Gia getting 2 weeks suspension. I guess it's taken out of the clubs hands...

Maybe that will stop your bleating.

[bulldogtragic]

Yep. Hell of a lot of flip flopping.

If anything I've been consistent. Moot point now.

[bulldogtragic]

Maybe that will stop your bleating.

So disagreeing and going into depth about why I think a particular way, not making any personal or offensive remarks to anyone at club besides saying I disagree, and being consistent about my view is bleating....

[G-Mo77]

Yep. Hell of a lot of flip flopping.

Pack your bags McCartney will be up again tonight. :)

[Scorlibo]

So disagreeing and going into depth about why I think a particular way, not making any personal or offensive remarks to anyone at club besides saying I disagree, and being consistent about my view is bleating....

What depth? All that you keep on saying is that 'everyone else has a running player, we should have a running player, we don't have any flexibility'. It's bleating because every time you say it you also completely ignore the impact that Gia has consistently had as the sub. His record in the role is outstanding. Him playing the sub's role means that a young player doesn't have to. Him playing the sub's role has been nothing short of a raging success this season, it's plain for anyone to see, yet you continue to cover your eyes.

[bulldogtragic]

What depth? All that you keep on saying is that 'everyone else has a running player, we should have a running player, we don't have any flexibility'. It's bleating because every time you say it you also completely ignore the impact that Gia has consistently had as the sub. His record in the role is outstanding. Him playing the sub's role means that a young player doesn't have to. Him playing the sub's role has been nothing short of a raging success this season, it's plain for anyone to see, yet you continue to cover your eyes.

Raging success... Clearly we have different views on this strategy. We are not going to agree, but not agreeing on a match day tactic need not involve comments such as bleating.

[bulldogtragic]

Time to reassess for mine. I don't think any of the criticism is aimed at Gia at all, certainly not from me.

The issue is the use of Gia. For me either he plays all game or not at all. Macca is still having problems with the sub (see North in Round 2) and having Gia as a sub is so predictable that we are giving away any tactical advantage ebfore the game has even started. It's not like we can afford to gift away any advantages at the moment.

So if he is still ahead of Stringer, Hunter, Dahl, Hrovat, Grant, Dickson, Crameri, Honeychurch, Murphy or mids who could play defensive forward like Smith, Higgins, Stevens etc, or talls like Jones, Campbell, Ayce - Then play him on the ground and let form take its course.

If he's not in ahead of 6 names from that list then have him play VFL as a playing assistant coach until such time that he is considered in the top 6 forwards on the list. If the argument is that kids can develop well in the VFL (which is true), the extending that thought to Honeychurch and Hrovat (etc) playing alongside him in the VFL will give them even more hand in developing as smaller players, not least of which Gia can pinch hit in the centre at VFL level and give added experience to those guys.

We've been out-coached with Gia as the sub this year, and giving Gia 15 minutes only against North just goes to show this best laid plan might need a re-think. I think we need to step back from this as a 'the MC are wrong', 'don't Gia bash' or 'Macca needs to be believed in'. It's not about those things, its asking now one third of the season down how would we rate the strategy of the inclusion of Gia in the side, especially as the sub. I suggest the plan hasn't worked successfully enough to continue as a specialised sub player.

I think we go back to basics, real basics, that being either he's good enough to be best 21 or he is not. Having a 32 old slow-ish forward pocket as the sub isn't a savvy idea, its just not. Gia can't play any other role on the ground. Hypothetically, we give Aaron Davey a year contract last year. If the debate was over Aaron Davey playing as a boarderline permanent sub after 1/3 of a season without it being a success, would the discussion be different?

If the match committee and coaches think he holds down a spot over a kid, then that's a decision for them and another debate.

I went into depth here. Plus the next 2 posts from others advising that the post was 'terrific'.....

[Scorlibo]

Raging success... Clearly we have different views on this strategy. We are not going to agree, but not agreeing on a match day tactic need not involve comments such as bleating.

That Gia has played well when coming on as the sub this year is not a 'view', it's a fact. Answer: has Gia played well as the sub this year?


I went into depth here. Plus the next 2 posts from others advising that the post was 'terrific'.....

I've read that post before, all you've said, in a very laborious way, is that you think that Gia as the sub means we're at a tactical disadvantage. You do absolutely nothing to substantiate that claim, nothing. This argument and this post is as deep as a puddle, and that doesn't change simply because you've used more words than is necessary to say what you want to say.

Gia's good performance negates half your argument on tactics - he's still performing despite coaches knowing that he's going to come on - and the flow-on effect negates the other half. What do you have left? Nothing, zip, zilch, zero.

As I've said all along, I don't have a problem, or at least I have less of a problem, with you saying that Gia should be playing full games. But when you say, 'he should either be playing full games or not playing at all', well that makes NO sense, and really infuriates me.

[GVGjr]

I don't get the weekly fascination with Gia being played, being used as a sub or being dropped. We have many more pressing issues to focus on than what role Gia is playing. He is a good contributor in whatever role he has been used.

[Max469]

Maybe that will stop your bleating.

I agree with you. I am over the way he goes on about Gia. He is going to be pretty bored for the next couple of weeks and next year when he is gone. Oh that's right, he will start on about his coaching.

We know he is far from perfect. But for Gods sake - give it a rest. Like a broken down old record.

[bulldogtragic]

I agree with you. I am over the way he goes on about Gia. He is going to be pretty bored for the next couple of weeks and next year when he is gone. Oh that's right, he will start on about his coaching.

We know he is far from perfect. But for Gods sake - give it a rest. Like a broken down old record.

I find much of this personally offensive and deeply insulting...

I love Gia and always have, in fact I was a massive defender of his when people were potting him very unfairly for many years. He's a club champion and I've gone to great lengths to highlight that my issue is with a strategy or match day tactic in which doesn't relate to him as a person or player. I don't get the comments about my high regard for his coaching attributes or him being or not being perfect. I have no idea why you think I think his coaching wouldn't be valued and that he would make an excellent coach. I've not once attacked Gia, not once. I've not slandered anyone. I've asserted that a strategy/tactic of a permanent sub isn't working. That's it. I'm assuming if this strategy/tactic is so good that all the others clubs would have caught on by now. There's nothing personal whatsoever, no malice or I'll will. I've gone to pains to make clear it's about our subbing strategy only. But apparently posting about an issue I'm passionate about, because I see an opportunity for us to potentially succeed or improve must be jumped all over with inane comments insinuating something other than what the issue is I'd like to highlight. Some people disagree on list management, players we retained last year, people disagree on in and outs, people disagree on strategy such as one or two rucks, or methods of development and a myriad of other things etc, etc. It doesn't mean it's negative, trite to other. We are all trying to work to ultimate success and as members or supporters we all have some different views about how we achieve premiership nirvana or win from week to week on the journey.

[Scorlibo]

BT, I'm sorry if I've been rude. I should remind myself in the future to wait at least an hour after losses to post. Of course you are entitled to your view. The issue for me on this particular topic is that your view contradicts the evidence, and opposes the views of everyone else here. At the very least, it is not in keeping with the priorities of everyone else. This is a topic you're too invested in. You need to accept defeat on this one and drop it. Otherwise all you're showing is disrespect for the views you claim to hold so dear.

[bulldogtragic]

BT, I'm sorry if I've been rude. I should remind myself in the future to wait at least an hour after losses to post. Of course you are entitled to your view. The issue for me on this particular topic is that your view contradicts the evidence, and opposes the views of everyone else here. At the very least, it is not in keeping with the priorities of everyone else. This is a topic you're too invested in. You need to accept defeat on this one and drop it. Otherwise all you're showing is disrespect for the views you claim to hold so dear.

No mate, no issue with you although bleating was a tad harsh, but thanks for your post just now. I don't mind people passionately disagreeing with me, not at all. I disagree that this issue is null and void but our views are clear, and I don't have an issue with disagreement. The reality is all footy clubs including ours make mistakes with all sorts of issues, it's an inevitability because you can't not make some mistakes over a long enough time. Sometimes I see in my opinion mistakes being made and say so, and this is one such issue. At the time people have lauded decisions as great (see much of the Rhode era) but history says otherwise. But I tend to agree that I'm in the minority although others have intermittently agreed with me and not seen since (! :) ) so I will park it, but the other post from Max was rubbish and ignorant of every post in here lauding Gia, but again I appreciate your post.

[bulldogtragic]

We need an unpopular opinions thread. I thought Wallis was poor today yet some posters have him in their votes

I'm not game enough to start it, :) , but it would be a brilliant thread for exchanging opinion in a vacuum of that being the basis for the thread.