View Full Version : andrew mackie
gocats88
17 Apr 2007, 15:03
what do you guys think of his last two rounds against the blues and dees.
cat in sydney
17 Apr 2007, 15:27
what do you guys think of his last two rounds against the blues and dees.
To be honest, I thought he was the weakest player on the side. While his disposal is probably above average for our team, he is slow (regularly gets beaten to the ball and is outrun when chasing), and falls over way too much.
In two victories where it was hard to say we had any bad players, he was the least best... I don't think I'd have him in my best 22, however, due to structure and injuries I think he's definitely needed on the list.
gocats88
17 Apr 2007, 15:38
To be honest, I thought he was the weakest player on the side. While his disposal is probably above average for our team, he is slow (regularly gets beaten to the ball and is outrun when chasing), and falls over way too much.
In two victories where it was hard to say we had any bad players, he was the least best... I don't think I'd have him in my best 22, however, due to structure and injuries I think he's definitely needed on the list.
i think your wrong he was good against the blues he rebound very well kicks the ball long and i reckon he does have some pace about him. sure he falls over and gets bumped to easily but thats because hes really skinny if he beefed up his legs and body he wouldn't have these promblems. and against melbourne he was playing on there chf miller and i think he outplayed miller excecpt for the 3rd quarter. he spoiled well and i noticed once he rebounded from near there 50 and booted in our 50. he is defitnely in our best 22 atm.
Pretty damn average to be honest.
Someone suggested the club may be trialling him in the Hinkley-type role down back, but last weekend's mach-up against Brad Miller was horrendous. He is not a key backman.
Tonycam*
17 Apr 2007, 15:44
what do you guys think of his last two rounds against the blues and dees.
Mack put in a shocker last weekend against Melbourne , think he got about 7 or so disposals . But I thought he wasnt too bad against the Blues the week before , thought he tried hard all night and I couldnt fault him , although agreed he is slow. But I think I would normaly have him in my 22. again last weekends game was bad so he may need a stint in the twos to get some form back
cat in sydney
17 Apr 2007, 15:52
Yeah, he only got 7 possies or something because although the ball came near him several times, he was just too slow or pushed off it too easily to pick a possession.
And, yes, he played alright against Carlton, but who didn't?! Again, he was least best.
Andrew Mackie is the best part of 6 feet 5 inches (192cm) For that height he has terrific athletic ability and his skills seem to be of a high standard (improvement on last year). His speed is not super but is quite good, his ability to get the ball is great. At 84kg he is 2 pre seasons of being the perfect build for a medium tall forward or defender. In the future i suspect Mackie will be used in a similar way to Milburn or even Adam Hunter for WC.
His first 2 games have been average but i think Geelong must and will persist with him on the basis that Mackies potential to improve is massive.
CatmanForever
17 Apr 2007, 16:45
Thought he played well against Carlton as most of the guys did. When we played Melbourne he had his nose broken in the 1st half which put him off for the rest of the day. He certainly was down after that and went off the field about 3 times with the blood rule because of it.
thegerman
17 Apr 2007, 20:34
I think he is a mediocre player, he does fall over too much which lets his opposition in a fair amount of the time.
He is too slight to be in the backline, he gets pushed around a fair bit, saw that a little against Carlton. He did play ok though, but so did the whole team.
I am unsure to whether he has a place in the best 22, however at the moment he probably does, but only just.
what do you guys think of his last two rounds against the blues and dees.
One word - servicable
Cat in Newcastle
18 Apr 2007, 01:32
He has had enough time to develop. Has not performed to the level expected. Like everyone else has said, his first couple of games this year have been serviceable only.
CatmanForever
18 Apr 2007, 08:52
He has had enough time to develop. Has not performed to the level expected. Like everyone else has said, his first couple of games this year have been serviceable only.
I guess people can no longer bag NAblett and Varcoe and to a lessor extent Ling on this board....so you now move on to a new target. Mackie was terrific last season, so let's give him a chance to get back to that form before we give up on him. SHEESH:rolleyes:
Larakin15
18 Apr 2007, 10:39
I guess people can no longer bag NAblett and Varcoe and to a lessor extent Ling on this board....so you now move on to a new target. Mackie was terrific last season, so let's give him a chance to get back to that form before we give up on him. SHEESH:rolleyes:
I agree totally, we have been flying the last couple of weeks, why cant people just enjoy the times that we are playing well instead of finding targets to pick on and have a whinge about???? :confused:
I agree totally, we have been flying the last couple of weeks, why cant people just enjoy the times that we are playing well instead of finding targets to pick on and have a whinge about???? :confused:
coz we strive for the best and we want 22 stars on the field...
mackie had a gr8 run at the end of the season and that earnt him a contract.
he will never bulk...this kid finds it really really hard to put weight on and thats it...we have to come to terms with the fact that hes skinny forever.
he can play upforword but it seems his future is in the backline and it would resolve alot of the worries ppl are having about the next generation of defenders at geelong.
look give him till end of season...if hes still average maybe we can trade him or else he would become a squad rotation playing 12-13games a season....
but ive given up on this boy puting some seriouse muscle.
PoidaCat
18 Apr 2007, 11:43
I cringe whenever he gets the ball.
He may as well have kicked 4 goals for Carlton when we played them.
Andrew Mackie is the best part of 6 feet 5 inches (192cm) For that height he has terrific athletic ability and his skills seem to be of a high standard (improvement on last year). His speed is not super but is quite good, his ability to get the ball is great. At 84kg he is 2 pre seasons of being the perfect build for a medium tall forward or defender. In the future i suspect Mackie will be used in a similar way to Milburn or even Adam Hunter for WC.
His first 2 games have been average but i think Geelong must and will persist with him on the basis that Mackies potential to improve is massive.
No thats wrong. 6ft 5 is 195.58cm, 6ft 4 is 193.04cm. So he's actually only about 6ft 3 1/2
thejester
18 Apr 2007, 12:43
As has been said, he showed his best form last season on the wing, yet seems to have spent a lot of time this season in the backline. He's not a KPP, and to judge him based on his services in that role is stupid.
I think he should build his game based on the Birdman's. I wouldn't drop him. In fact I would probably give hime the job on Franklin this week.
Unwritten_Law
18 Apr 2007, 14:17
I think he should build his game based on the Birdman's. I wouldn't drop him. In fact I would probably give hime the job on Franklin this week.
I have been thinking recently that Mackie being switched to defence was a result of Franklin burning Harley up last year and Bomber looking for a more athletic defensive option to run with players like buddy. The problem is, which others have highlighted, is that Mackie while slight is not quick. Franklin will burn him for pace and probably strength overhead (Franklin's weakness) as well :o I hope we don't go that way, it will be ugly.
really think he should be playing on the wing like late last year...
Give the kids time. He if he can develop into a defender is a perfect option on those guys in between heights. ie Williams, Johnson, Welsh etc. He just needs to continue to learn down there.
scottydeewah
18 Apr 2007, 16:46
Mackie was terrific last season - lol turn it up, he had a good couple of games at the end of the year, which doesn't make a season.
LOL, people make up anything to try and prove a point.
I have been saying for years the guy has all the attributes accept one, he is a ****ing pansy. He is the first bloke in the AFL i would choose to fight, not because i honestly think i am stronger or would win, but because i doubt his ability to do any real damage, and if i made footstep sounds loud enough the poor little poof would be running for the hills.
Tonycam*
18 Apr 2007, 19:14
- lol turn it up, he had a good couple of games at the end of the year, which doesn't make a season.
LOL, people make up anything to try and prove a point.
I have been saying for years the guy has all the attributes accept one, he is a ****ing pansy. He is the first bloke in the AFL i would choose to fight, not because i honestly think i am stronger or would win, but because i doubt his ability to do any real damage, and if i made footstep sounds loud enough the poor little poof would be running for the hills.
so tell me Scotty , what do you really think of Mackie
BlueOyster
18 Apr 2007, 21:02
so did the cats err in chosing this smokey with such a high draft pick?
catswhiskers
18 Apr 2007, 21:13
Their judgement will be vindicated when they buy him some long stops.
nananana catman
18 Apr 2007, 21:43
He belongs on the wing, not as a key backman manning up a tall forward. Hard to be an effective player when you are being played out of position.
catempire
18 Apr 2007, 21:46
so did the cats err in chosing this smokey with such a high draft pick?
This is who went between Mackie at pick 7 and our next pick (Lonergan at pick 23):
Luke Brennan
Hamish McIntosh
Jason Laycock
Jason Winderlich
Jay Schulz
Byron Schammer
Daniel Bell
Nicholas Smith
Stephen Gilham
Cameron Faulkner
Kris Shore
Troy Selwood
Will Minson
Bo Nixon
Matthew Ferguson
Would you trade Mackie for any of these in a straight swap now?
Borderline. There are a couple you might consider but none a any great deal better than Mackie.
nananana catman
18 Apr 2007, 21:48
This is who went between Mackie at pick 7 and our next pick (Lonergan at pick 23):
Luke Brennan
Hamish McIntosh
Jason Laycock
Jason Winderlich
Jay Schulz
Byron Schammer
Daniel Bell
Nicholas Smith
Stephen Gilham
Cameron Faulkner
Kris Shore
Troy Selwood
Will Minson
Bo Nixon
Matthew Ferguson
Would you trade Mackie for any of these in a straight swap now?
Borderline. There are a couple you might consider but none a any great deal better than Mackie.
Puts it into perspective a bit.
Methinks the recent success of guys like Gram, Swan, Shaw - the play-making loose men - has prompted the move down back for Mackie. Whether or not this is his best role is debatable (he did play a similar loose role on the wing in his best games last season), but as long as he's there, the coaching staff need to at least get the match-ups right. The aforementioned players don't play on opposition KPP's, neither should Mackie.
sarah.13
19 Apr 2007, 00:23
It might take another year and 10 kgs but I can see him replacing Milburn as the Utility in the side. When he's not rushed he is a beautiful kick. This is his 4th year and has played 40 odd games,now has some experience and is starting to cement a position in the side. He will get better and better and be a very good player. He is only just starting to hit his prime.
thejester
19 Apr 2007, 11:29
It might take another year and 10 kgs but I can see him replacing Milburn as the Utility in the side. When he's not rushed he is a beautiful kick. This is his 4th year and has played 40 odd games,now has some experience and is starting to cement a position in the side. He will get better and better and be a very good player. He is only just starting to hit his prime.
Personally I think they're grooming Callan for that role.
darren forssman
19 Apr 2007, 14:51
Personally I think they're grooming Callan for that role.
callan could not get into the side when david johnson was injured...he will be deilsted at years end if his contract is up.
Rustybugles
19 Apr 2007, 14:59
Personally I think they're grooming Callan for that role.
I would be surprised to see Tim Callan in the side permanently. He has been overlooked too often - I think, just named an emergency.
Mackie worries me. He has been around long enough to be able to hold his ground - mates disagree with me and stress his good long kicking - I think we must have been watching different players sometimes!
fishman
19 Apr 2007, 15:41
If I were Callan I would be asked to be traded. But then again I arent so I might be talking poo.
Mackie getting picked early may not be relevant - I mean really, Stokes would probably get a decent player in a trade though he went at 61. Mackie is a winger moving down to half forward. Not easy to man up a 192cm bloke running thru the lines. Not as good as a Gary Ablett or a Corey but gives an extra hassle for the opposition.
If I were Callan I would be asked to be traded. But then again I arent so I might be talking poo.
Already tried that last year, didn't he? From memory, St Kilda were the potential buyers.
Anyway, I'm not sure what more (and I'm sure Fresh is asking the same question) he can do. There've been too many instances where he's been overlooked for a spot in favour of lesser players (if we are to talk form-wise, position-wise, whatever really), and I can't see that trend reversing anytime soon. His treatment in the odd scenario that he actually cracks the team has been less than admiral.
I still think he has plenty to offer the team though, if he were given the chance. Defensively he's shown himself capable as a small defender (the few times he's been shown up for can be attributed to experience more than a 'lacking' of anything more often than not), he plays his man tight and is steady one-on-one, his constant mindset to run off the rebound is invaluable really, and his disposal is, if at all, no worse than quite a few currently getting a gig.
scottydeewah
21 Apr 2007, 01:20
Mackie is a squib...dont like squibs...DONT LIKE EM!!!
I think we all understand he has great skills and can sometimes even find the ball but the guy is a SQUIB of the highest degree. He is pushed off the ball SO often, he backs out of contests, wont put his head over the ball, finds it hard to lay a tackle.
If it came down to him running into a contest against Barry Hall for the GF knowing that all he had to do was compete and we would win....we still wouldnt have a flag.
If he can fix his courage and natural SQUIB abilities then I will forgive. But I will never forget!
gocats88
30 Apr 2007, 15:59
after 2 rounds i think he has esally been in our top 5. but no one is giving this kid any wraps why not? He played on franklin and absoloulty killed him and petrie who didn't do that much. makie has a excellent kick and pushes forward a lot. he also kicked a 70 metre goal so he must be able to kick it long with more confidence with this kid he could be a star.
crosby123
30 Apr 2007, 16:10
after 2 rounds i think he has esally been in our top 5. but no one is giving this kid any wraps why not? He played on franklin and absoloulty killed him and petrie who didn't do that much. makie has a excellent kick and pushes forward a lot. he also kicked a 70 metre goal so he must be able to kick it long with more confidence with this kid he could be a star.
Agree, I nearly put him in my votes.
Big Nasty
30 Apr 2007, 16:19
Yeah Mackie has been awesome, but is still is copping it from cat supporters. He better not be dropped from the back line when Harley comes back in.
gocats88
30 Apr 2007, 16:23
Yeah Mackie has been awesome, but is still is copping it from cat supporters. He better not be dropped from the back line when Harley comes back in.
thats even better when harley comes back in so Makie can play on the wing and use his good kicking skills to our forwards or kick from outside 50. p.s i give Makie a little bit of shite too about his balance.
DoSomething
30 Apr 2007, 17:00
Agree, I nearly put him in my votes.
You are all joking right?
Mackie is lucky to be in this team. Can you imagine any other club allowing his types of performances to go rewarded? This is part of our problem as a club and as supporters - we just accept mediocrity. He is not, and never will be, a solid player - tough, reliable, accountable.
"He's young, wait till he bulks up" - no and no. Nablett, Hawkins, Selwood, Varcoe, DJ2 are young - Mackie has had time. He will not bulk up - he's been in the system long enough and had enough seasons. His time is up.
Like Kelly, he refuses to get his head over the ball. Could learn a lot from Selwood. He is gawn once Thompson leaves - no other coach would accept what he gives.
crosby123
30 Apr 2007, 17:20
You are all joking right?
Mackie is lucky to be in this team. Can you imagine any other club allowing his types of performances to go rewarded? This is part of our problem as a club and as supporters - we just accept mediocrity. He is not, and never will be, a solid player - tough, reliable, accountable.
"He's young, wait till he bulks up" - no and no. Nablett, Hawkins, Selwood, Varcoe, DJ2 are young - Mackie has had time. He will not bulk up - he's been in the system long enough and had enough seasons. His time is up.
Like Kelly, he refuses to get his head over the ball. Could learn a lot from Selwood. He is gawn once Thompson leaves - no other coach would accept what he gives.
He beat Petrie, kicked a wonderful goal, and set up thrusts through the middle. Good enough for me.
DoSomething
30 Apr 2007, 17:50
He beat Petrie, kicked a wonderful goal, and set up thrusts through the middle. Good enough for me.
He didn't beat Petrie - got easily pushed aside on numerous occasions. Sure, Petrie didn't set the world on fire, but that had nothing to do with Mackie.
The goal was great, full stop.
Mackie would have been lucky to hit a target by foot or hand coming out of defence all day, many of his disposals got cutt off too easily. If someone has his effective disposal stats I'd love to see them.
I hate to be negative, but we have to start seeing a few of our guys for what they are.