No Swan, Holland, Carrecella, Maxwell, O'Brien and Richards =

[understudy]

Three midfielders down on our best and a distinct lack of run and flexibility in our back half and midfield/ruck set up.

Hopefully Holland (?), O'Brien, Rhyce Shaw (?) and Cam Cloke or Richards (?) back in this week.

Maybe Rowe, Yakka, Morrison or T Cloke for a spell.

Wakes might also be in doubt?

[magpies42]

Morrison(never to play a again), Lonie(get some balls), Rowe (trade)all out.
They were shocking we can ill afford to carry to many pasengers! Pendles, Thomas and yakka are enough!

In if fit Holland(Shaw), Maxy(Obrien), Swan(Davies) Richards (cloke)

We were just not composed and we lacked the skill and poise that we have had in previous weeks, all entrys into the 50 wnt sailing of rocca's head! shocking disposal!

[Vipertooth]

Welcome to the world of injuries, its fun hey?

[Pie 4 Life]

Welcome to the world of injuries, its fun hey?
See Collingwood's 2005 Season. :(

[Vipertooth]

See Collingwood's 2005 Season. :(

lol yeah true :( Lions got loads of injuries this year, ITS NOT FAIR :p

[Dundalis]

Morrison(never to play a again), Lonie(get some balls), Rowe (trade)all out.
They were shocking we can ill afford to carry to many pasengers! Pendles, Thomas and yakka are enough!

In if fit Holland(Shaw), Maxy(Obrien), Swan(Davies) Richards (cloke)

We were just not composed and we lacked the skill and poise that we have had in previous weeks, all entrys into the 50 wnt sailing of rocca's head! shocking disposal!
If Rowe goes out then Iaccobucci goes out as well, because he was invisible today. At least I noticed Rowe somewhat. Holland, Swan, Richards in for Rowe, Iaccobucci and Morrison. I have a feeling Morrison will get another game though, as Malthouse will probably treat him the same way he treated our other West Coast reject when he was playing like ****e. In that case Cloke will probably go out. But I would keep Cloke in at CHB, and possibly drop either Wakelin or Thomas for O'Brien.

[Coin_Toss]

The loss of Swan hurt. He has been in stellar form.

But, no excuses. Melbourne wanted it more! :(

[Dundalis]

The reason we lost is because of lack of composure. Which is a part of lack of experience. We faced similar pressure when playing West Coast, but despite losing played much better and our skills held up well. Today it was shocking. I think losing Wakelin also didn't help because we were lacking in the cool heads department down back making too many poor rushed decisions and he is one of our best in that regard. We also carried passengers like Rowe Iaccobucci and Pendlebury(until it was already lost) which we haven't really before. The changes were forced but I don't really want many more than one of these players playing in our bigger games this season. We can't afford them in those games.

[Barge]

I'm sure if we had have got up Melbourne fans would have been whinging they missed Bizzell, McLean, Miller, Whelan, Moloney, Brown, Ferguson .....

Every team gets em fellas - some more than others, some at more important stages of the year than others.

[magpies42]

If Rowe goes out then Iaccobucci goes out as well, because he was invisible today. At least I noticed Rowe somewhat. Holland, Swan, Richards in for Rowe, Iaccobucci and Morrison. I have a feeling Morrison will get another game though, as Malthouse will probably treat him the same way he treated our other West Coast reject when he was playing like ****e. In that case Cloke will probably go out. But I would keep Cloke in at CHB, and possibly drop either Wakelin or Thomas for O'Brien.
I think that yakka should get a gig ahead of rowe because of the fact that he can fill the void left by holland better then rowe. Yakka needs a few games to adjust to teh pace of the game and i dont think it is fair for him to get dropped when he didnt get much of a chance in a losing midfield today. Perhaps thomas will make way for him i dont know!
I dont really rate rowe, i think he should be traded at seasons end

[Dundalis]

I don't rate either, and I don't think Iaccobucci fills anything, much less any gap left by one of our better midfielders. I just think he is a bit of a stupid footballer, doesn't really know where to go to find the ball. Rowe actually has a bit of intelligence with that, but lacks the composure to execute under pressure. Both IMO won't be here in two years. I can understand playing them because predicting whether a kid will make the grade is never an exact science, but they shouldn't be in at the expense of someone who you are much more confident of making the grade.

[HorseHead]

I don't rate either, and I don't think Iaccobucci fills anything, much less any gap left by one of our better midfielders. I just think he is a bit of a stupid footballer, doesn't really know where to go to find the ball. Rowe actually has a bit of intelligence with that, but lacks the composure to execute under pressure. Both IMO won't be here in two years. I can understand playing them because predicting whether a kid will make the grade is never an exact science, but they shouldn't be in at the expense of someone who you are much more confident of making the grade.Agreed. I think what it illustrates most of all is that there is an alarming gap between our top tier of players and the rest. All of a sudden we get a few injuries and we look pretty ordinary. I'm not jumping off the 'Pies by any stretch of the imagination, though. You could put today down to simply a poor day (though Malthouse clearly being out-coached by Daniher, Chad Morrison playing as Melbourne's 19th man and Rocca not getting a sniff certainly didn't help us). It will be very interesting to see how we go against the Swans next week...

[HotPies!]

It will be very interesting to see how we go against the Swans next fortnight...

Thank god for the week off. Give us some time to get our fitness back up to scratch and hopefully see Swan back in.

[Dazman]

The week off should see us get more people on the park. I am eagerly awaiting the return of both Holland and Swan. We just missed their presence in and around the clearances today.

Hopefully by the Sydney game O'Brien has been elevated to the senior list, Wakelin and Richards are alright and Rhyce Shaw is pushing for a return to senior football.

Am a bit resigned to the fact that Caracella and Maxwell will be a bit longer but IMO they aren't that important to our structure.

[magpies42]

I don't rate either, and I don't think Iaccobucci fills anything, much less any gap left by one of our better midfielders. I just think he is a bit of a stupid footballer, doesn't really know where to go to find the ball. Rowe actually has a bit of intelligence with that, but lacks the composure to execute under pressure. Both IMO won't be here in two years. I can understand playing them because predicting whether a kid will make the grade is never an exact science, but they shouldn't be in at the expense of someone who you are much more confident of making the grade.
you are spot on, but if there is no scope for improvement then why are they still on the list and where is this so called depth of ours that people have been talking about!
I think that we can afford to carry yakka when the rest of the midfielders are firing so that he can learn and develop. I think he is our best midfield shot at the moment (given that this years batch of draftees are not all ready for selection) and i think its worth investing some time in him! Rowe is a waste of time we have to many outside players and he is one of the worst!

[rick James]

Melbourne had bigger outs for that game than Collingwood did.

McLean, Sylvia, Moloney, Miller

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Melbourne had bigger outs for that game than Collingwood did.

McLean, Sylvia, Moloney, Miller

Nobody's making excuses. Its just being pointed out that our so-called depth is not as good as we think it is.

[pieman1]

Melbourne had bigger outs for that game than Collingwood did.

McLean, Sylvia, Moloney, Miller
I'll pay the first two but Miller has been shocking all year, the Dee's are playing better without him. No excuses, we were smashed in just about every department. Our midfield has no depth with Swan, Holland and Caracella missing our run and carry were well down, 59 forward 50 entries to 44 (our lowest of the year) is a belting. On a positive note, We'll be much better the next time we meet.

[jimmy35]

The loss of Holland and Swan hurt us in the run department . Thomas looks to need a run in the ressies to give him a break. Harry in as well for mine.

[goalpie]

The loss of Holland and Swan hurt us in the run department . Thomas looks to need a run in the ressies to give him a break. Harry in as well for mine.

Just had a break.

[jimmy35]

Just had a break.

He needs an extended run in a lesser atmosphere where he can get some quality game time and ball.

[MarkT]

Understudy, those names = excuses for failure. Swan has been important but he has played a handful of quality games in his career. The rest are bit part players. The problem is that the like of Rowe and Yakka are not good enough at this point and arguably won’t ever be. They still have a bit of time on their side but the reality is we can’t lose players because we have traded and drafted poorly for a long time.

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The problem is that the like of Rowe and Yakka are not good enough at this point and arguably won’t ever be. .

In their defence, they were both fourth round picks, and therefore longshots. Yakka deserves a bit of time and patience. Rowe should have developed by now and just cannot kick. His head must be on the chopping block.

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Just had a break.

He should not have been rested, he should have been dropped to the VFL. He had an ordinary month prior to being rested and should have come back through the reserves after his break.

We are keeping him in cotton wool when we should treat him like any other player. He does not deserve favoritism. Nobody does.

[rick James]

I'll pay the first two but Miller has been shocking all year, the Dee's are playing better without him. No excuses, we were smashed in just about every department. Our midfield has no depth with Swan, Holland and Caracella missing our run and carry were well down, 59 forward 50 entries to 44 (our lowest of the year) is a belting. On a positive note, We'll be much better the next time we meet.

Point taken

[Dundalis]

you are spot on, but if there is no scope for improvement then why are they still on the list and where is this so called depth of ours that people have been talking about!
I think that we can afford to carry yakka when the rest of the midfielders are firing so that he can learn and develop. I think he is our best midfield shot at the moment (given that this years batch of draftees are not all ready for selection) and i think its worth investing some time in him! Rowe is a waste of time we have to many outside players and he is one of the worst!
The depth was due to the form our players have showed for Williamstown. But that doesn't mean it will translate into the AFL. Players like the Clokes, in particular Cameron and Travis haven't shown the improvement that some had hoped would come this season and Rhyce Shaw unfortunately hasn't yet been able to get back his fitness and form, because IMO he could make a huge difference to our team if he were able to play the way he did last season, our run out of defence and through midfield would improve even more but he clearly isn't fit enough yet.

This Melbourne game showed that we CAN'T carry a player like Yakka. Because we will already be carrying better youngsters than him in Thomas and Pendlebury. As far as I am concerned both of those players are better options in midfield despite being first year players and both without yet having a body which is suited to playing midfield, which is saying something about where Iaccobucci is at. I don't think he can get enough ball at AFL level to have any real impact. Whereas I could see Pendles getting 20 possessions a game every week spending most of his time on the wing or down back until he bulks up more to play midfield full time. Plus you know Pendles will not only make the grade, but be a star at AFL level. So I wouldn't waste time with Iaccobucci as we can't afford both in the team along with Thomas. I would even go further than that and say that I believe Davies can make the grade, where Iaccobucci and Rowe won't. He gets the ball more than Yakka, as much as Rowe, is hard at it, has pace and has a decent kick which I think will improve. He won't be a star, but I think he will eventually be a good AFL player.

[pieman1]

Ben davies is a shocking kick and well below league average. He also relies on other players to get him the ball as his % of contested possessions is also very poor. You might need to rethink your assessment of Davies because at the moment its wide of the mark.

[MarkT]

Davies is an ex rookie list and as such has rookie list type deficiencies that prevented him being drafted in the first place. He could become serviceable but the chances of him being a top liner are remote. At this point there are quite a few ahead of him for delisting or trading so he has a year or two up his sleeve but he will come under consideration before too long. My bet is he won’t be on the list in 2 to 3 years as we trawl the draft and rookie list for a nugget.

[Dundalis]

He is a better kick than someone like Shane O'Bree. And the fact is he does get a lot of the ball. I don't think his kicking is anywhere near as bad as you say. It is for example much better than Ben Johnson's used to be. I also don't expect him to be a top liner. But I think he has more chance of making it than Iaccobucci and Rowe.

[woodz]

I think we have great depth its just that u cant replace 3 or 4 midfielders in 1 week . I think if u took out 3 or 4 players from west coast midfield they would struggle aswell. We have been doing ok through out the yr with playing 1 or 2 of those 1st and 2nd yr plyrs last week we had 3 - 5 of those guys running through our midfield against one in form team in melb

[MarkT]

In their defence, they were both fourth round picks, and therefore longshots. Yakka deserves a bit of time and patience. Rowe should have developed by now and just cannot kick. His head must be on the chopping block.Agree with all of that.

[pieman1]

He is a better kick than someone like Shane O'Bree. And the fact is he does get a lot of the ball. I don't think his kicking is anywhere near as bad as you say. It is for example much better than Ben Johnson's used to be. I also don't expect him to be a top liner. But I think he has more chance of making it than Iaccobucci and Rowe.
Don't rely on what your eyes tell you, they lie.

Ben Davies kicking efficiency % 2005 68.1 and its not much better this year.

Ben Johnson kicking efficiency
2001 79.5
2002 81.2
2003 79.6
2004 76.7
2005 73.9 (extenuating circumstances, he was injured AND out of form as a result)
2006 Was the BEST in the competition at one stage and is still right up there,
he was NEVER as bad as Davies is.
O'Bree is a poor kick but is accountable, tackles, and wins a fair percentage of his ball in contested situations. I think you draw a very long bow when you say Davies will develop into a decent player, his statistics are horrendous, can't kick, can't win the ball (is worse than Lonie ever was) and he relies on others to get him the pill and wastes it when he gets it. So what do you see that tells you he'll make it? He can run but so what.

[magpies42]

Don't rely on what your eyes tell you, they lie.

Ben Davies kicking efficiency % 2005 68.1 and its not much better this year.

Ben Johnson kicking efficiency
2001 79.5
2002 81.2
2003 79.6
2004 76.7
2005 73.9 (extenuating circumstances, he was injured AND out of form as a result)
2006 Was the BEST in the competition at one stage and is still right up there,
he was NEVER as bad as Davies is.
O'Bree is a poor kick but is accountable, tackles, and wins a fair percentage of his ball in contested situations. I think you draw a very long bow when you say Davies will develop into a decent player, his statistics are horrendous, can't kick, can't win the ball (is worse than Lonie ever was) and he relies on others to get him the pill and wastes it when he gets it. So what do you see that tells you he'll make it? He can run but so what.
he has courage and works hard, as well! i am undecided on him but i would give him another year or so.
i am suprised at johno's stats his kicking was horrendous early on, or maybe it was his decision making?

[pieman1]

he has courage and works hard, as well! i am undecided on him but i would give him another year or so.
i am suprised at johno's stats his kicking was horrendous early on, or maybe it was his decision making?
In my book the players with courage are the players who do the dirty work in close, which includes winning the hard ball and tackleling, and do it on a regular basis. Davies work in close is poor and he is both reactive and second to the ball. The ONLY onball job he could do is a run with role. He is almost exclusively an outside player but outside players without skill simply do not have any long term future. I saw him plenty of times in juniors and you always walked away thinking his game was blah and he was just a battler. Conversely I'm amazed at how many of our supporters hate Egan. In some of his junior games he was invisible, but in others he took them over and was a genuine match winner. Alan Jeans has always said "A player must have ability" the other things can be developed, Egan has ability, Davies doesn't.

I'm sure that given a game the kid would try his guts out but that reminds me to much of Jason Wild who somehow managed to play 66 games for our club. I've done my level best to suppress the memories of the Shawry years and Jason Wild, but Davies is giving me flash backs.

[bucksisbest]

In my book the players with courage are the players who do the dirty work in close, which includes winning the hard ball and tackleling, and do it on a regular basis. Davies work in close is poor and he is both reactive and second to the ball. The ONLY onball job he could do is a run with role. He is almost exclusively an outside player but outside players without skill simply do not have any long term future. I saw him plenty of times in juniors and you always walked away thinking his game was blah and he was just a battler. Conversely I'm amazed at how many of our supporters hate Egan. In some of his junior games he was invisible, but in others he took them over and was a genuine match winner. Alan Jeans has always said "A player must have ability" the other things can be developed, Egan has ability, Davies doesn't.

I'm sure that given a game the kid would try his guts out but that reminds me to much of Jason Wild who somehow managed to play 66 games for our club. I've done my level best to suppress the memories of the Shawry years and Jason Wild, but Davies is giving me flash backs.
He does run hard and he does tackle with vigour , but he is not first to the ball enough and does not have great skills. I think at this stage if he is to make it , tagging is his go.

[rick James]

I think we have great depth its just that u cant replace 3 or 4 midfielders in 1 week . I think if u took out 3 or 4 players from west coast midfield they would struggle aswell. We have been doing ok through out the yr with playing 1 or 2 of those 1st and 2nd yr plyrs last week we had 3 - 5 of those guys running through our midfield against one in form team in melb

Depth sides can lose 3 or 4 top liners and still win.

Melbourne had to play Phil Read, Simon Godfrey and Daniel Ward last week. that's the kind of thing that scares the hell out of me usually, but the whole team is playing committed football (except Godfrey because he's sh it) and it makes up for not always having your best players in.

[KissStephanie]

I think you draw a very long bow when you say Davies will develop into a decent player, his statistics are horrendous, can't kick, can't win the ball (is worse than Lonie ever was) and he relies on others to get him the pill and wastes it when he gets it.I'm quite amazed at some people that bag players of their own team instead of noticing positives.

I'm overseas, so I've only seen Davies once, but he is only 19, and it may not be until he is 21 until his ability can be truly judged. He is quick, and he can get the ball!

His contested possessions aren't too flash, but according to 'pro-stats (http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/player_profile?pid=2005035),' he has averaged 15 possessions and 5 marks in his two matches this season. He has also averaged 2 tackles and only 2 errors. He averaged 3 errors in 7 games last season.

He has also averaged 1.5 first possessions, 2.5 clearances, 4.5 inside 50's and 2 rebound 50's. Those stats match up fairly well, and even better in some areas, with Xavier Clarke of St.Kilda (http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/compare_players?tid1=104&pid1=2005035&tid2=113&pid2=2002117) for example, who is 22 and has played 70 games.

Aaron Davey of Melbourne (http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/player_profile?pid=2004066) is considered a star, and is 23 years old and has played 53 games. This season this star has averaged 15.5 possessions, 4.9 marks, 1.3 first possessions, 2.2 clearances, 2.9 inside 50's, 0.5 rebound 50's, only 0.5 contested possessions, and an amazing 4.3 errors! Ben Davies beats him in a lot of that!

I just simply don't see him as a lost cause at all for a 19 year old that has played just 9 games.

For the people that have been critical and looking at the worst about the loss to Melbourne last Monday, these are the two main causes for the poor performance in my opinion...

1) Collingwood were flat and were always going to be because the interchange bench could not be used against Brisbane, and players weren't able to rest.

2) Five forced changes are too many in the space of one week.

Of course there were other issues as well, but they are the two main reasons that stand out to me. I suppose I am just a Collingwood supporter.

Depth sides can lose 3 or 4 top liners and still win.And in my opinion, Collingwood have the depth to lose 3-4 important players and win. We proved that against West Coast last season.

Rarely though can any side lose 5 players in the space of one week without effect though. There is a definite difference between losing 5 players in one week, compared to losing 5 players over a 5 week period in my opinion.

[pieman1]

I'm quite amazed at some people that bag players of their own team instead of noticing positives.

I'm overseas, so I've only seen Davies once, but he is only 19, and it may not be until he is 21 until his ability can be truly judged. He is quick, and he can get the ball!

His contested possessions aren't too flash, but according to 'pro-stats (http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/player_profile?pid=2005035),' he has averaged 15 possessions and 5 marks in his two matches this season. He has also averaged 2 tackles and only 2 errors. He averaged 3 errors in 7 games last season.

He has also averaged 1.5 first possessions, 2.5 clearances, 4.5 inside 50's and 2 rebound 50's. Those stats match up fairly well, and even better in some areas, with Xavier Clarke of St.Kilda (http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/compare_players?tid1=104&pid1=2005035&tid2=113&pid2=2002117) for example, who is 22 and has played 70 games.

Aaron Davey of Melbourne (http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/player_profile?pid=2004066) is considered a star, and is 23 years old and has played 53 games. This season this star has averaged 15.5 possessions, 4.9 marks, 1.3 first possessions, 2.2 clearances, 2.9 inside 50's, 0.5 rebound 50's, only 0.5 contested possessions, and an amazing 4.3 errors! Ben Davies beats him in a lot of that!

I just simply don't see him as a lost cause at all for a 19 year old that has played just 9 games.

For the people that have been critical and looking at the worst about the loss to Melbourne last Monday, these are the two main causes for the poor performance in my opinion...

1) Collingwood were flat and were always going to be because the interchange bench could not be used against Brisbane, and players weren't able to rest.

2) Five forced changes are too many in the space of one week.

Of course there were other issues as well, but they are the two main reasons that stand out to me. I suppose I am just a Collingwood supporter.

And in my opinion, Collingwood have the depth to lose 3-4 important players and win. We proved that against West Coast last season.

Rarely though can any side lose 5 players in the space of one week without effect though. There is a definite difference between losing 5 players in one week, compared to losing 5 players over a 5 week period in my opinion.
Prowess stats are crap, the AFL don't use them and neither do the clubs because they aren't accurate. Champion Data are at the game and do another review during the week. I have a friend who works there and as soon as he answers his E-mail I'll give you an accurate critique of Davies and I can assure you it won't be pretty. I'll stand by what I said, pace without skill is a useless commodity.

[KissStephanie]

Prowess stats are crap, the AFL don't use them and neither do the clubs because they aren't accurate. Champion Data are at the game and do another review during the week. I have a friend who works there and as soon as he answers his E-mail I'll give you an accurate critique of Davies and I can assure you it won't be pretty. I'll stand by what I said, pace without skill is a useless commodity.I don't believe it. Of course stats can be slightly different, but surely you aren't suggesting that his 15 possessions each match are wrong. Surely you aren't suggestion that his 2 errors per match are in fact 6, or that Aaron Davey's 4.3 errors are in fact only 2?

I'm sure Champion Data are the best, but I've looked through Prowess stats, and they seem fairly reasonable to me too, yet I don't think that you're being fairly reasonable about a 19 year old that has played only 9 games.

[ROB48]

I'm quite amazed at some people that bag players of their own team instead of noticing positives.

I'm overseas, so I've only seen Davies once, but he is only 19, and it may not be until he is 21 until his ability can be truly judged. He is quick, and he can get the ball!


Aaron Davey of Melbourne (http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/player_profile?pid=2004066) is considered a star, and is 23 years old and has played 53 games. This season this star has averaged 15.5 possessions, 4.9 marks, 1.3 first possessions, 2.2 clearances, 2.9 inside 50's, 0.5 rebound 50's, only 0.5 contested possessions, and an amazing 4.3 errors! Ben Davies beats him in a lot of that!




So you are saying that you weren't even at the QB game but you can comment like you have on it?

Are you seriously suggesting that because of the Stats, that Davies is as good as Davey?

Stats are in the main just a very loose guide and if you are placing your faith in them then you just show that you have no idea and how little you know.

[rick James]

Prowess stats are crap, the AFL don't use them and neither do the clubs because they aren't accurate. Champion Data are at the game and do another review during the week. I have a friend who works there and as soon as he answers his E-mail I'll give you an accurate critique of Davies and I can assure you it won't be pretty. I'll stand by what I said, pace without skill is a useless commodity.

pieman, you're wasting your time. She thinks Brodie Holland is as good as Brock McLean, if not better.

She lives in the USA and thinks that stats make up for her not being able to watch games, she has no idea what has transpired this season outside of ladders, charts and numbers.


Fageddaboutit.

[MarkT]

pieman, you're wasting your time. She thinks Brodie Holland is as good as Brock McLean, if not better.

She lives in the USA and thinks that stats make up for her not being able to watch games, she has no idea what has transpired this season outside of ladders, charts and numbers.


Fageddaboutit.OK, Davies next to Davey is a joke no matter what the stats say and MM would make the swap in a heartbeat and give plenty of change but Holland is better than McLean right now and by a margin. McLean will get better and Brodie won’t but seriously take the blinkers off. Holland is a good second level midfielder who can be a play maker or a tagger and he can go forward and kick goals or kick goals while playing midfield. McLean will probably be a higher rated midfielder but he has to do it yet and at this stage he is a bottom level midfielder just out of being a fringe player. Don’t confuse potential with consistent year on tear output.

[KissStephanie]

pieman, you're wasting your time. She thinks Brodie Holland is as good as Brock McLean, if not better.

She lives in the USA and thinks that stats make up for her not being able to watch games, she has no idea what has transpired this season outside of ladders, charts and numbers.You are nothing but a Collingwood-basher. You have exaggerated my use of stats, and you only condone them because you didn't like what they showed you. It's not the only thing about footy, but it's better to use stats in an a discussion than it is to make things up and pluck theories out of the air as you have done, and nobody could deny that.

Now you have decided to ridicule me today, but I don't have to read your crap. You are a troll, and you cannot hold an argument without criticising stats, or me. Write any rubbish you like if you want, but I won't be able to read it because I have put you on ignore too.

It's pathetic when someone like you decides to choose a personal attack because you feel defeated in a debate. It's even more pathetic when you try to involve others as you have done in this post of yours. F-off!OK, Davies next to Davey is a joke no matter what the stats say and MM would make the swap in a heartbeatMy point was is that Davies is 19 and has played 9 games, while Davey is 23 and has played 53 games. It wasn't a comparison of the two at all, but just to point out that Davies real potential may not be realised for a few years yet.

[ROB48]

You are nothing but a Collingwood-basher. You have exaggerated my use of stats, and you only condone them because you didn't like what they showed you. It's not the only thing about footy, but it's better to use stats in an a discussion than it is to make things up and pluck theories out of the air as you have done, and nobody could deny that.

Now you have decided to ridicule me today, but I don't have to read your crap. You are a troll, and you cannot hold an argument without criticising stats, or me. Write any rubbish you like if you want, but I won't be able to read it because I have put you on ignore too.


Rick James may be a stirrer but he is not a troll, you just cannot cope with anyone that uses knowledge of football over stats.

In this day and age stats are meaningless when you have players kicking the ball to each other in the backline and racking up possession after possession, Bowden of Richmond had 20 marks in a game recently 17 uncontested.

If you continue to ignore other posters when they prove you wrong then you will soon be talking to yourself, stop behaving like a brat.

[ROB48]

OK, Davies next to Davey is a joke no matter what the stats say and MM would make the swap in a heartbeat and give plenty of change but Holland is better than McLean right now and by a margin. McLean will get better and Brodie won’t but seriously take the blinkers off. Holland is a good second level midfielder who can be a play maker or a tagger and he can go forward and kick goals or kick goals while playing midfield. McLean will probably be a higher rated midfielder but he has to do it yet and at this stage he is a bottom level midfielder just out of being a fringe player. Don’t confuse potential with consistent year on tear output.

I think that if you polled football supporters who have seen the two play you would find that McLean would come out on top, he is very good footballer, potential has nothing to do with it.

[Dundalis]

Mostly, I agree with KissStephanie. The fact of the matter is that Davies can find a lot of the ball, he has pace, and bring out all the stats you want, for me he is a decent kick. Maybe his decision making at the top level isn't there yet, hence the low kicking percentage, but for me the talent and the mental attitude is there for him to be a decent to good AFL player.

[pieman1]

Davies doesn't find the ball, the ball finds him and he's not a decent kick he's in the poor category. As for room for improvement, I don't see it and I think he's almost reached a level he won't go beyond. As for having talent why was he not drafted? Sixteen clubs overlooked him and I doubt if he was on the market and opposition club would have any interest. Thats not to say good players can't be found off the rookie list, its just that the chances are slim. The club made a blue promoting Davies (just a battler) ahead of Harry.

[rick James]

You are nothing but a Collingwood-basher. You have exaggerated my use of stats, and you only condone them because you didn't like what they showed you. It's not the only thing about footy, but it's better to use stats in an a discussion than it is to make things up and pluck theories out of the air as you have done, and nobody could deny that.

Now you have decided to ridicule me today, but I don't have to read your crap. You are a troll, and you cannot hold an argument without criticising stats, or me. Write any rubbish you like if you want, but I won't be able to read it because I have put you on ignore too.

It's pathetic when someone like you decides to choose a personal attack because you feel defeated in a debate. It's even more pathetic when you try to involve others as you have done in this post of yours. F-off!

Watch ya language sweetheart, it's un-ladylike.

I ask again, did you even see the game? To act as if stats can replace actually seeing the game is ridiculous, and nothing you say on it can be taken seriously unless you've actually SEEN the game.

Are you related to Robert Walls by any chance?

[FIGJAM]

I think that if you polled football supporters who have seen the two play you would find that McLean would come out on top, he is very good footballer, potential has nothing to do with it.
That's about as naive a post ever on BigFooty!

Potential and the fact that Brodie is a knob would dictate that McLean would come out on top. At this very instant however, Holland is a superior player, and is underrated (probably due to his knob-ness off the field).

Being a Collingwood player would also affect the result. You could compare McLean and Ben Johnson and McLean would win despite Johnno being clearly better (as at this point in time).

McLean's not far away from producing the mature consistency that these blokes show, but he's not there yet.

[harry 0]

That's about as naive a post ever on BigFooty!


A big call buddy!

[FIGJAM]

A big call buddy!
Big call, but I have big proof concerning the lack of objectivity of the random footy punter:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=148415&highlight=henneman+buckley

Nuff said!

[Nesian]

jeez give davies a chance, only 19 years old and only played 9 games, he hasnt even had the chance to string 2 or more games together this year to get some consistency going and find his feet, give him a break!! Talk about high expectations!

[Palmer Stoat]

I think that if you polled football supporters who have seen the two play you would find that McLean would come out on top, he is very good footballer, potential has nothing to do with it.

Have to agree with this. I like Holland, but for my money McLean is already better.

[Palmer Stoat]

Davies doesn't find the ball, the ball finds him and he's not a decent kick he's in the poor category. As for room for improvement, I don't see it and I think he's almost reached a level he won't go beyond. As for having talent why was he not drafted? Sixteen clubs overlooked him and I doubt if he was on the market and opposition club would have any interest. Thats not to say good players can't be found off the rookie list, its just that the chances are slim. The club made a blue promoting Davies (just a battler) ahead of Harry.

I agree with most of this. From my observations, most of his possessions come from run-to-receive type situations. On the positive side, knowing where to run and when to run there are essential skills for a mid -- I wish Yakka was a little better in this area. Both Davis and Rowe know how to do it. Unfortunately, if you're gonna play primarily as an outside runner of this type you have to be a good user, and neither Davies nor Rowe are. If Davies is gonna be anything more than a fringe player he has to win more contested ball. We want our silky players racking up handball receives and getting the ball in space, not Rowe and Davies.

I wouldn't delist Davies at this point, but I find it hard to imagine him ever being more than a fringe player.

[rick James]

McLean's not far away from producing the mature consistency that these blokes show, but he's not there yet.

This year he has been ultra consistent and would be close to the most productive clearance player in the league. In fact, even since his first season he's been consistent, he just gets better each game.

McLean is already a better player than Holland, and is a very different player to Ben Johnson.

[FIGJAM]

I've seen every Melbourne game this year, as my mate is a Dee's supporter and I'm always hungover on the couch watching them. I appreciate Brock's play, but cannot agree that he's had a better year than Holland.

Offensively, I think Brock might just be in front, but Holland is literally blanketing the oppo's best player, and doing a killer job of that, whilst still showing solid offensive capability. He pips McLean based purely on that tagging ability, which is only gained through experience, and Brock will develop this part of his game.

I'd have liked to have seen them line up together, but if Holland was playing, Johnstone would have been his man, and Johnstone would have all of a sudden had an ordinary day, instead of a good one. That's an attribute which you are underrating, and most ignore it in assessing Brodie.

[rick James]

I've seen every Melbourne game this year, as my mate is a Dee's supporter and I'm always hungover on the couch watching them. I appreciate Brock's play, but cannot agree that he's had a better year than Holland.

Offensively, I think Brock might just be in front, but Holland is literally blanketing the oppo's best player, and doing a killer job of that, whilst still showing solid offensive capability. He pips McLean based purely on that tagging ability, which is only gained through experience, and Brock will develop this part of his game.

I'd have liked to have seen them line up together, but if Holland was playing, Johnstone would have been his man, and Johnstone would have all of a sudden had an ordinary day, instead of a good one. That's an attribute which you are underrating, and most ignore it in assessing Brodie.

Tagging is hardly a hard skill to learn though, we have an 18 year old taken at pick 53 in the last draft doing our primary tagging role. the main attribute required is fitness, not skill. Not saying Brodie isn't a handy player, but he's never going to be a gun player. IMO only one tagger in the league is a genuine gun, and that's Brett Kirk. Cam Bruce used to be a tagger too though so who knows.

I agree that Holland would have made a big difference in that he would have played on Johnstone and in all likelihood would have quitened him slightly, but Johnno doesn't really get affected by tags, in fact I reckon he plays better when he's being pressured all the time instead of picking up cheap kicks. Good example of that was in the St Kilda game when he went ape in the last quarter when it was close, but when we were clearly winning in the first half he was nowhere to be seen.

I tihnk we're just going to have to disagree on this one, as I already have McLean up with Bruce and Johnstone as Melbourne's best midfielders (too hard to split as all three play different roles) whereas Holland I'd put on par with a James McDonald type.

[MarkT]

1. You under rate Holland.
2. You over rate McLean's actual output and what it means as opposed to might mean down the track.

Right now McLean is not better at ANYTHING than Holland.

[rick James]

1. You under rate Holland.
2. You over rate McLean's actual output and what it means as opposed to might mean down the track.

Right now McLean is not better at ANYTHING than Holland.

See now you're underrating McLean and overrating Holland.

McLean is, for an example, better at clearances than Holland this season. He is also a better kick.

[Timmy from Thomastown]

See now you're underrating McLean and overrating Holland.

McLean is, for an example, better at clearances than Holland this season. He is also a better kick.

I thought you agreed to disagree?

Surely your time on this board is over, you've had a good hearing.

[bigdadymac]

1. You under rate Holland.
2. You over rate McLean's actual output and what it means as opposed to might mean down the track.

Right now McLean is not better at ANYTHING than Holland.

I agree with rJ on this.

Interesting to note Champion Data has McLean ranked as the 40th best player in the league, Holland is not within the top 200.

McLean also averaging a possie every 3 minutes, 3rd best in the AFL and clearly better than Holland.

McLean > Holland imo.

[FIGJAM]

I agree with rJ on this.

Interesting to note Champion Data has McLean ranked as the 40th best player in the league, Holland is not within the top 200.

McLean also averaging a possie every 3 minutes, 3rd best in the AFL and clearly better than Holland.

McLean > Holland imo.
It's what Holland would do to McLean's "possie every 3 minutes" average which is why we consider Holland superior (at this point in time).

Holland's negating abilities are top shelf.

http://www.finalsiren.com/PlayerCompare.asp?SeasonID=2006&Compare=Go&PlayerName1=&PlayerName2=&PlayerName3=&PlayerName4=&SelectedPlayers=1399%2C39%2C

That link says pretty even in my books, and I'll take Holland's 5 less ratings points, as he will negate his opponent probably 30 points!

McLean will most likely be the better player, but as at today, Holland is better, as he is more well rounded through experience. And despite oppo supporters freaking out, it's not a negative thing!

[bigdadymac]

It's what Holland would do to McLean's "possie every 3 minutes" average which is why we consider Holland superior (at this point in time).

Holland's negating abilities are top shelf.

http://www.finalsiren.com/PlayerCompare.asp?SeasonID=2006&Compare=Go&PlayerName1=&PlayerName2=&PlayerName3=&PlayerName4=&SelectedPlayers=1399%2C39%2C

That link says pretty even in my books, and I'll take Holland's 5 less ratings points, as he will negate his opponent probably 30 points!

McLean will most likely be the better player, but as at today, Holland is better, as he is more well rounded through experience. And despite oppo supporters freaking out, it's not a negative thing!


Sounds more to me like you expect that Holland could do a decent job on McLean, but acknowledge McLean is a better player.

Theorising over how holland would go over McLean is strange grounds for stating he's unequivocally better (or in MarkT's case is better than McLean in every facet of the game which has been proven wrong).

Going by stats, and from watching his game all year, McLean is undoubtedly better than Holland in a number of facets of the game. Tagging isn't one of them, but then, true gun players don't do the tagging. They get tagged.

[FIGJAM]

Sounds more to me like you expect that Holland could do a decent job on McLean, but acknowledge McLean is a better player.
I reckon he'd easily beat him. How would that make McLean the "better player" (IMO)??

As I said though, Holland would be playing on Johnstone, so it's an irrelevant argument. We'd probably sacrifice one of our slower midfielders for McLean, if we chose to tag him, with someone like Licuria or O'Bree, or maybe even one of the Shaw boys.

Theorising over how holland would go over McLean is strange grounds for stating he's unequivocally better (or in MarkT's case is better than McLean in every facet of the game which has been proven wrong).
I don't care what Mark says, I'm just expressing confidence from what I've seen Holland do to some of the games best midfielders over the past couple of years.

Going by stats, and from watching his game all year, McLean is undoubtedly better than Holland in a number of facets of the game. Tagging isn't one of them, but then, true gun players don't do the tagging. They get tagged.
I'm not saying that Holland is a gun player. In fact I've pretty much said that McLean will be. But as at today, Holland is superior, and that's that!

[bigdadymac]

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, even if it is really stupid.

[FIGJAM]

How's it stupid? I've supported it especially well, and even pitched it at a level that a Richmond Grog Squad member could understand!

The fact is, as I stated previously, that it's near impossible for people to go "I'll take this player" based solely on current form, especially when one of them has a longer and potentially brighter future.

I'd take Heath Shaw ahead of Brodie Holland too if forced to choose, but then I would be ignoring the current ability of a player, over the future ability and longevity of another. FWIW, Heath Shaw has better stats than McLean, but i wouldn't be stupid enough to suggest he's better at this stage of his career than Holland.

[Murray]

Sounds more to me like you expect that Holland could do a decent job on McLean, but acknowledge McLean is a better player.

Theorising over how holland would go over McLean is strange grounds for stating he's unequivocally better (or in MarkT's case is better than McLean in every facet of the game which has been proven wrong).

Going by stats, and from watching his game all year, McLean is undoubtedly better than Holland in a number of facets of the game. Tagging isn't one of them, but then, true gun players don't do the tagging. They get tagged.
sup fiddycent, what yu doin on da werds bord homie

[ROB48]

That's about as naive a post ever on BigFooty!



I reckon he'd easily beat him. How would that make McLean the "better player" (IMO)??

Haven't been on the Collingwood board for a while but just a little look and I come across this and then the statement that you made later on.

Talk about naive, "I reckon he'd easily beat him", what do you base this on, facts or naivety?

Are you suggesting that if confronted with a question that was genuine, football supporters couldn’t be objective?

I think you may find that even some of your own would support McLean over Holland and I am far from a Holland basher I quite like him.

[FIGJAM]

I reckon he'd easily beat him. How would that make McLean the "better player" (IMO)??

Haven't been on the Collingwood board for a while but just a little look and I come across this and then the statement that you made later on.

Talk about naive, "I reckon he'd easily beat him", what do you base this on, facts or naivety?
I've seen Holland beat better and more experienced midfielders than McLean, so I'm basing it on probability derived from fact.

Are you suggesting that if confronted with a question that was genuine, football supporters couldn’t be objective?
Yes. I reckon I'd find it personally impossible to be objective if asked who would you have, "McLean or Holland"...for your team as at today. The mind gravitates to the crux of the issue, which is "McLean or Holland" and the last bit is ignored. For the remainder of our year, I think Holland will be of more value to our team then McLean would. I think as at today, he will be more reliable, he is more flexible (back or forward) and can provide a nullifying role which is up there with the best taggers in the business. As it stands, McLean is an emerging star, and is getting good personal stats (as is H. Shaw), but is still a boy and is nowhere near as well rounded as Brodie.

I think you may find that even some of your own would support McLean over Holland and I am far from a Holland basher I quite like him.

Again, it's not "McLean vs Holland" in perpetuity that we're discussing. It's McLean over Holland for the balance of season 2006 based on current form (although both have had injuries).

Who would I take if offered both of them? Brock. In a heartbeat!

Who would I prefer for the remainder of 2006? Brodie. In a heartbeat!

[ROB48]

Again, it's not "McLean vs Holland" in perpetuity that we're discussing. It's McLean over Holland for the balance of season 2006 based on current form (although both have had injuries).

Who would I take if offered both of them? Brock. In a heartbeat!

Who would I prefer for the remainder of 2006? Brodie. In a heartbeat!

I guess that we have to agree to disagree, that's football.

[MarkT]

(or in MarkT's case is better than McLean in every facet of the game which has been proven wrong).How has it been proven wrong exactly? With stats? Assuming stats can decide these things then Figjam’s point stands. You can conclude McLean is a batter ball winner because he averages more possessions because they are not playing the same role.