View Full Version : Clinton Young - the season so far discussion thread
I know there is alot of Young bashing going on this forum, and its mostly for the way he handles him self in contested situations. I think its safe to say, with his frame and size he tends to either go in half arsed at the contest, or he is completely outbodied. Alot of peoples defence to this was "Young has a role in the team, that is to play outside, work hard to get the football and use his disposal as a link man to the forward line" and I would have to agree that is his role in the team.
So in knowing he was last year our number 1 inside 50 getter, and in the early part of the year alot of members considered he was having a ripper year as our link man, I took it upon my self to look at his disposal efficency as I am one to believe it has been quite overated for some time now.
Young---Team Average
68%------79%
48%------77%
69%------80%
77%------83%
57%------81%
79%------79%
76%------83%
63%------80%
80%------78%
78%------75%
Youngs disposal efficency= 69.5%
Team's total efficency= 79.5%
As you can see Young has only matched or bettered the teams efficency average on 3 occaisions in 10 rounds! His total average sits well below average. I actually cant recall even Tim Clarke having games at 48% efficency! I think its fair to say the majority of fans thought he was having a stellar 4 opening rounds, for us to realise his disposal was infact below average.
Now if its Youngs role to be our link man, and to be our number 1 inside 50m getter, then why has his disposal been so bad? Is he infact failing in what is supposed to be his strength? Last year we had the worst inside 50 m conversion rate, and I was thinking was this more to do with the disposal coming into the inside 50, or was it really just the lack of Rioli's pressure? I would think its a combination of both.
I am not trying to kill Young, but I am trying to let people know that even what is seemed to be a great start of the year for Young has actually been pretty below average. Ok his role may not be to win contested football like Sewell, but if his role is to play a hard running link man, you would hope he could dispose the football up to atleast team average! I hope for Clints sake he can step up on the departments he is supposed to be good at.
I have defended Youngy on this board and I can see he is struggling at the moment (I assume the majority of Hawks fan see he is struggling?) I suspect it may be through carrying some form of injury?
He is certainly not alone on this front and while he looks really good when the side is flying, he can stand out (as performing poorly) when we are not travelling so well.
Thats all well and good, so then the point is....
ok if Youngy is struggling and we need to replace him, who do we turn to from our list of remaining "fit"(available) players?
Is Youngy in our best 22 at the moment? If not, then lets bring someone else in and let him have a break to get "right".....
If he is in our best 22 available, lets support him and hope he can get a good game under his belt to get the confidence back.
I have defended Youngy on this board and I can see he is struggling at the moment (I assume the majority of Hawks fan see he is struggling?) I suspect it may be through carrying some form of injury?
He is certainly not alone on this front and while he looks really good when the side is flying, he can stand out (as performing poorly) when we are not travelling so well.
Thats all well and good, so then the point is....
ok if Youngy is struggling and we need to replace him, who do we turn to from our list of remaining "fit"(available) players?
Is Youngy in our best 22 at the moment? If not, then lets bring someone else in and let him have a break to get "right".....
If he is in our best 22 available, lets support him and hope he can get a good game under his belt to get the confidence back.
I have also read people suspecting he is carrying an injury, but this had only been brought up from the last couple of weeks, I doubt he was carrying one from the start of the season where he recorded below average efficency.
I understand that there may not be any ready replacements right now, but if he is injured and Hodge is returning why wouldnt they just rest him a week? Sure there is Murphy who should probably get dropped first, but is an injured Clinton Young beneficial to the team? I know "Thats Deliberate" would love to see Whitecross in?
This thread is more to point out that, Young has been pretty off with his disposal all year and I personally think 48% is an inexcusable. That is 32% of the teams average that game! I want to point out that maybe its not just his contested work Young needs to work on, its what is supposed to be his strong point in his disposal?
RedDevils99
2 Jun 2008, 13:42
I also know we've gone on about Youngy before,
but over the last few weeks all I seem to be noticing is him giving the ball away, fumbling, not holding tackles and not even attemting tackles at times.
I agree, when the Hawks are flying he looks great, but it's the times that the hawks are struggling that Clinton doesnt respond.
I believe he isnt the sort of player that can turn a game and
maybe he needs a spell in the 2's to get some hunger back.
lickmerocks
2 Jun 2008, 13:43
Shadders where are you"?
Shadders where are you"?
I admire Shadforths support for his man Clinton Young, he is obviously a huge fan and by no means am I trying to sledge Youngy I think he has the ability to be a very good winger but he definatly has areas of improvement the statistics speak for it self.
noosa hawk mad
2 Jun 2008, 13:46
I know there is alot of Young bashing going on this forum, and its mostly for the way he handles him self in contested situations. I think its safe to say, with his frame and size he tends to either go in half arsed at the contest, or he is completely outbodied. Alot of peoples defence to this was "Young has a role in the team, that is to play outside, work hard to get the football and use his disposal as a link man to the forward line" and I would have to agree that is his role in the team.
So in knowing he was last year our number 1 inside 50 getter, and in the early part of the year alot of members considered he was having a ripper year as our link man, I took it upon my self to look at his disposal efficency as I am one to believe it has been quite overated for some time now.
Young---Team Average
68%------79%
48%------77%
69%------80%
77%------83%
57%------81%
79%------79%
76%------83%
63%------80%
80%------78%
78%------75%
Youngs disposal efficency= 69.5%
Team's total efficency= 79.5%
As you can see Young has only matched or bettered the teams efficency average on 3 occaisions in 10 rounds! His total average sits well below average. I actually cant recall even Tim Clarke having games at 48% efficency! I think its fair to say the majority of fans thought he was having a stellar 4 opening rounds, for us to realise his disposal was infact below average.
Now if its Youngs role to be our link man, and to be our number 1 inside 50m getter, then why has his disposal been so bad? Is he infact failing in what is supposed to be his strength? Last year we had the worst inside 50 m conversion rate, and I was thinking was this more to do with the disposal coming into the inside 50, or was it really just the lack of Rioli's pressure? I would think its a combination of both.
I am not trying to kill Young, but I am trying to let people know that even what is seemed to be a great start of the year for Young has actually been pretty below average. Ok his role may not be to win contested football like Sewell, but if his role is to play a hard running link man, you would hope he could dispose the football up to atleast team average! I hope for Clints sake he can step up on the departments he is supposed to be good at.Has had 3 below par games know in a row with his attack on the contested ball being very average!Interesting stats on his kicking efficacy thought they would of been higher not good enough when his strength is his kicking! Let's hope he can bounce back & play some good footy.:thumbsu:
His role in the team is to gain yards. Receive a mark in space (see the high mark stat), run his measure, maybe have a bounce or two and kick long. When you kick long on more occassions, you are going to have a lower efficiency rating. That is why lots of teams kick short and maintain possession - it is harder to be efficient over distance unless your name is Dew or Guerra.
To me, he seems to be carrying something. Not many runs down the wing of late.
Has anyone noticed a tag put on him at all? He just doesn't seem to have the space or time he used to have.
Has had 3 below par games know in a row with his attack on the contested ball being very average!Interesting stats on his kicking efficacy thought they would of been higher not good enough when his strength is his kicking! Let's hope he can bounce back & play some good footy.:thumbsu:
Spot on Noosa, if we are going to defend Youngs lack of pressence in a contested situation he really needs to start dominating in what is supposed to be his strength. I think there is no doubt Young can bounce back, its just a question of when?
Do those stats indicate that a certain percentage of his kicks would be bombs long to the forward line (And a Contest)
Because in that case obviously his % is going to be lower than someone like Gilham who is going to be kicking the ball to someone NOT in a contest?
Gary Shadforth
2 Jun 2008, 15:57
.
I have a motto: In Clarkson I trust!
Mervyn Beasley
2 Jun 2008, 16:05
Do those stats indicate that a certain percentage of his kicks would be bombs long to the forward line (And a Contest)
Because in that case obviously his % is going to be lower than someone like Gilham who is going to be kicking the ball to someone NOT in a contest?
Would definitely be a factor.
FWIW though I'm sick of these threads on Young.
Earlier in season it was Ellis.
They'll continue until he plays a good one and/or gets dropped and then it will be I told u so threads depending on which way it goes!!
Youngy certainly wasnt the worst on Sat by the way.
TBoyleSuperstar
2 Jun 2008, 16:29
Tough to compare Youngy's kicking efficiency to others as his role is to pump it long into the forward line, usually a contest. Happy for him to be tracking in the 60s due to that.
Didn't seem to run as much as normal on the weekend, and didn't seem to either against Melboourne. Might just be the fact that we have struggled in both those games. Could also be that we haven't had as many guys around the ball to feed it out. Hodgey, Crawf etc, plus Goo would get it to him a fair bit from the switch. Wouldn't be to concerned.
From the prospectus
"Ineffective kick-A kick of less than 40 metres to a contest, or a kick of more than 40 metres to a worse than 50/50 contest for the team. The ball is in dispute-the players has not improved his team's chances".
From this definition used by Champion Data, you can argue that the majority of Youngs kicks are long (infact he averages 7 a game). The problem is his long kicks would then more or less cater to ineffective disposals as the kicks must than obviously put our forwards in a less then 50/50 contest. But he only averages 0.6 goal assists a game, so by no means are his inside 50 entries "setting up a teammate in an uncontested manner and a goal/score results". So his long kicks arent putting his forwards in a good position, and are equating to ineffective, which I would then suspect leads to our low conversion rate.
So I guess you can argue for one point that his long kicks get in there, long and quick. But they arent helping our forwards at all. You could then say, well its helping our crumbers like Rioli who only averages 1 a game. So is the 7 long kicks doing much? or just equating to the poor conversion rate?
You can say you hate these threads, but I have the evidence to back it up, its not just saying "Youngs soft" "Youngs this" "Youngs that", its showing with the long kicks Young provides they arent putting our forwards in a better then 50/50 contest. Nor are we recording a high ammount of crumbing goals.
That's deliberate
2 Jun 2008, 17:30
Clinton Young sits in the 20-24 picked players.
Forget efficiency stats - 9 times out of 10 he is kicking it 700 meters.
TAKE NOTE ALL CLINTON YOUNG BASHES
He plays because he hurts sides.
Like it or not, Youngy is instructed each and every week to take risks, play on, kick the ball long and run the lines.
He will get caught, make mistakes and turn the ball over at times ...so be it...keep running and keep kicking it long. The Port game was evident of that - yes he made a shit load of mistakes but also kicked a goal in the last and pumped the ball forward 3-4 times in the last qtr when it counted.
He'll also kick goals and gain 80 yards for the side more often then not.
The coaches do not want him at the bottom of the packs and is INSTRUCTED to play outside. It is not his job and more often then not he goes when he needs to go.
Some perspective please.
Young also averages 2.3 clangers a game, now this is at team average so nothing to worry about there. But if people are suggesting that his efficency is down because the long kicks to less then 50/50 contests are counted as ineffective that would then mean 9.3 of his 17 disposals a game would be ineffective and that obviously isnt the case.
So that would mean that he is an overall below average disposal of the football.
Leather Poisoning
2 Jun 2008, 17:46
Young also averages 2.3 clangers a game, now this is at team average so nothing to worry about there. But if people are suggesting that his efficency is down because the long kicks to less then 50/50 contests are counted as ineffective that would then mean 9.3 of his 17 disposals a game would be ineffective and that obviously isnt the case.
So that would mean that he is an overall below average disposal of the football.
It's all about the eyebrows roughie.
That sounds stupid I know, but when Youngy looks determined, the eyebrows are down and it's generally a good, long kick. When his eyebrows are up it's a clanger.
Watch closely, you'll see what I mean. I think it's a confidence think.
Clinton Young sits in the 20-24 picked players.
Forget efficiency stats - 9 times out of 10 he is kicking it 700 meters.
TAKE NOTE ALL CLINTON YOUNG BASHES
He plays because he hurts sides.
Like it or not, Youngy is instructed each and every week to take risks, play on, kick the ball long and run the lines.
He will get caught, make mistakes and turn the ball over at times ...so be it...keep running and keep kicking it long. The Port game was evident of that - yes he made a shit load of mistakes but also kicked a goal in the last and pumped the ball forward 3-4 times in the last qtr when it counted.
He'll also kick goals and gain 80 yards for the side more often then not.
The coaches do not want him at the bottom of the packs and is INSTRUCTED to play outside. It is not his job and more often then not he goes when he needs to go.
Some perspective please.
Some perspective please? The perspective is the majority of this long kicks arent efficent and do contribute to why we were considered the lowest converting forward line in the league last year. Hell changa can kick 50 metres, so can Hodge, Birchall, Lewis, Sewell, and all these guys can run, why dont we send them all out to do it? Why? Because it isnt needed all the time! You need smart and good entries, see Ladson a perfect example of a player who will spot up targets. See the players who get goal assists, because they lead the forward into good areas with their kicks.
We all know what Young can do, he runs, he kicks long, but whats the use if they are getting rebounded out constantly? He doesnt rack up the goal assits needed in leading our forwards into the right position, nor does he have a great efficency rate. So if he kicks long constantly, the kicks are considered to less then 50/50 contests, for me I rather see our forwards get the advantage more times then not.
It's all about the eyebrows roughie.
That sounds stupid I know, but when Youngy looks determined, the eyebrows are down and it's generally a good, long kick. When his eyebrows are up it's a clanger.
Watch closely, you'll see what I mean. I think it's a confidence think.
I definatly know what you mean, I have seen Young kick some beautiful lace out kicks to our forwards, but if he is kicking better long kicks, that would then mean he must be chopping up his under 40 metre kicks.
He is a kid who needs the confidence and he is down on it the last couple weeks, I was just trying to point out that people defend Young for being outside, yet his strong point (kicking) seems to be pretty overated.
People can check back, I have defended this kid constantly in other threads but after seeing his effective disposal rate I have realised maybe we are overating his ability? Teams have worked harder then ever on rebounding abilities, look at the likes of the crows, they get their numbers back hard and rebound with Bock, Rutten, Stiff, Mcleod and Bassett, a combination of runners and talls. If you are pumping it long constantly against a team like this, they have the ability to kill on the rebound as do many teams in todays game. Long gone are the days that long kicks equal imediate success, with the likes of Franko and Roughie I rather see more goal assists from Young then long kicks to less then 50/50 contests that are bound to be rebounded out.
That's deliberate
2 Jun 2008, 18:10
We all know what Young can do, he runs, he kicks long, but whats the use if they are getting rebounded out constantly? He doesnt rack up the goal assits needed in leading our forwards into the right position, .
OK well,
I would argue he hits up just as many forwards as the next guy.
I would argue that he would have the most penetrating kick in the team or the equal of.
I would argue that he runs just as hard as anyone in the team.
I would argue that most of his turnovers occur 6000 meters upfield because more often then not he kicks it 6000 meters upfield as opposed to effing around with it...i'd rather he bomb it long in the goal square from the wing and 'create' a contest that spoils to the ground and we score from , which is not regarded as an effective disposal as opposed to stuffing around with it and going sideways to a 50/50.
I would argue that the opposition knows that he is a damaging kick and set up there defence that way so all he needs to do is lower his vision and hit up the short target at times to be even more dangerous.
i would also argue that the opposition defence cack themselves when he gets it because they know he will kick it to a damaging position 15 meters out and they have work to do to defend the goals...not considered an effective kick but i would argue it is 'the best' kick during a pressure cooker last qtr and or final when the game is in the balance.
Point is he has weapons....unlike afew that took the field last week.
I'll also add he is far from my favorite player and i want to kill him when he turns it over but i also understand and acknowledge his role and more often then not his positives outweigh his negatives.
That's my 36.5 cents:p
Dixie Flatline
2 Jun 2008, 18:28
IMO, he's lucky that the midfield stocks have been decimated by injury and suspension, because if we had our full complement to pick from, he would be first in line to get some confidence back at Box Hill.
OK well,
I would argue he hits up just as many forwards as the next guy.
I would argue that he would have the most penetrating kick in the team or the equal of.
I would argue that he runs just as hard as anyone in the team.
I would argue that most of his turnovers occur 6000 meters upfield because more often then not he kicks it 6000 meters upfield as opposed to effing around with it...i'd rather he bomb it long in the goal square from the wing and 'create' a contest that spoils to the ground and we score from , which is not regarded as an effective disposal as opposed to stuffing around with it and going sideways to a 50/50.
I would argue that the opposition knows that he is a damaging kick and set up there defence that way so all he needs to do is lower his vision and hit up the short target at times to be even more dangerous.
i would also argue that the opposition defence cack themselves when he gets it because they know he will kick it to a damaging position 15 meters out and they have work to do to defend the goals...not considered an effective kick but i would argue it is 'the best' kick during a pressure cooker last qtr and or final when the game is in the balance.
Point is he has weapons....unlike afew that took the field last week.
I'll also add he is far from my favorite player and i want to kill him when he turns it over but i also understand and acknowledge his role and more often then not his positives outweigh his negatives.
That's my 36.5 cents:p
If he hits up more forwards he would have more goal assists unless! His kicking isnt efficent, which would put our forwards in less then a 50/50 if its a long kick or its an over contested football for an under 40 metre kick. Which would then lead to lower efficency percentage that falls below average, and would most likely lead to a less favourable position for our forwards which then inturn hurts the team.
I am not arguing that he isnt a hard runner, or a big kick, these are givens we know this. I am arguing its his disposal that lets him down. He is giving our forwards no favours by looking at the stats, which say he averages less then one goal assist a game, and his efficency is below average. If his disposal is below average but his doing all these kicks into our forwards line then isnt that hurting our forwards? And could this contribute to our low conversion rate? I believe it certaintly would. I am begging for some better use of the disposal when sending it forward, we shouldnt make our forwards battle under a 50/50 chance, these guys should be getting the best chance to score from a good entry and I think no one could argue with that.
That's deliberate
2 Jun 2008, 19:09
. we shouldnt make our forwards battle under a 50/50 chance, these guys should be getting the best chance to score from a good entry and I think no one could argue with that.
Maybe,
I'd suggest that as a forward i would want the ball delivered into my area as quickly as possible...lace out or not....that is a good entry.
Buddy, Ruffy & Willo one out in the goal square would win the contest more often then not , regardless of how it comes in and if they didn't win the ball there would be a spillage and opportunity for a second contest
What the stats don't tell you is that a ball delivered in that manner is regarded as an inefficent kick when the truth is it is the best kick.
No forward expects to be hit in the chest, what all forwards want is a 50/50 to beat there opponent without 16 blokes jumping on them.
My point is you can throw your stats out the window, they mean didleys.
Clinton Young is a superb kick of the football (no one can argue with that) and no stat will make me think otherwise...
This efficiency stat you quote along with 99.5% of all stats mean didldleys and IMO is a load of bollox.
When a long range kick to a 50/50 contest 15 meters out is considered an ineffective kick you know it is a rubbish stat.
Stard Picket
2 Jun 2008, 19:10
I am not seeing the same Young from the opening rounds lately, he appears to have lost that dash and carry that we saw earlier in the year which was adding serious meters to his kicks as he was carrying it 50. He does appear to be on the decline and it would not surprise me at all if he was suffering from OP. When I checked his stats I was surprised to see that he is averaging 3 tackles a game and 3.3 1% which is solid for an outside player. Another of his strengths is inside 50's which he is averaging 4.7 and 2.4 rebound 50's which is also solid. I think he is one of several hawk players who could use some time off to recover, and spend some time on his disposal.
I just found from zekes research in this thread
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=450744
Clinton Young is our least effective disposal this season.
No forward expects to be hit in the chest, what all forwards want is a 50/50 to beat there opponent without 16 blokes jumping on them.
No forwards expect to be hit on the chest? I am sure they expect the football to be kicked to their advantage they are playing LEAGUE AFL not VFL. Why wouldnt the forwards expect a good kick to them? You say all the forwards want is a 50/50 without 16 blokes jumping on them, well what is Youngs 40+ metre kicks? They are proven to be ineffective (which is defined as below a 50/50 contest) so that crosses out their 50/50 chance, and they dont want 16 blokes jumping on them, well when you bomb it players are going to zone off so our forwards will get multiple defenders. So you can cross that off. So your pretty much saying the forwards dont want Youngs trade mark long kicks then?
My suggestions:
1. Rename the thread: "Clinton Young - the Scapegoat so far discussion thread"
2. Analyse someone else for a change
3. Delete Roughie's posts and reduce the thread to about 3 lines
Davo23
My suggestions:
1. Rename the thread: "Clinton Young - the Scapegoat so far discussion thread"
2. Analyse someone else for a change
3. Delete Roughie's posts and reduce the thread to about 3 lines
Davo23
1-Where have I made Young look like the scapegoat we are 9-1 FFS! Read the thread before you comment
2-Post where my thread has failed, and look on my thread history, this is my first Young thread douche
3-Delete my posts? How about writing a rebuttle?
Everyone is quick to torch Clarkes poor disposal yet Young gets a free run, hmm that makes sense :rolleyes:
Stard Picket
3 Jun 2008, 10:29
My suggestions:
1. Rename the thread: "Clinton Young - the Scapegoat so far discussion thread"
2. Analyse someone else for a change
3. Delete Roughie's posts and reduce the thread to about 3 lines
Davo23
Mate you need to relax Roughie is running a discussion on Young’s season so far and basing it on stats and facts that’s what this forum is for. And I highly rate that he has taken the time to respond to what others have written rather than leave a hero statement and then dissapear and not man up to any rebuttle.
Mate you need to relax Roughie is running a discussion on Young’s season so far and basing it on stats and facts that’s what this forum is for. And I highly rate that he has taken the time to respond to what others have written rather than leave a hero statement and then dissapear and not man up to any rebuttle.
I'm just bored with all the Clinton Young threads - my post was not meant to be completely serious.
Why not give Clinton a rest and analyse some other player now?
.
I'm just bored with all the Clinton Young threads - my post was not meant to be completely serious.
Why not give Clinton a rest and analyse some other player now?
.
I thought in making this thread it was unlike the majority of Clinton Young threads. Unlike the other threads made it wasnt just some crap about him being soft and thats it. I have actually shown some proof, and I have criticised something that is supposed to be his strength. By no means am I Young basher, if you actually look back on my past posts I have supported him. I had supported he and his outside role in thinking he was an efficent disposal, just to be shocked in finding he is our worst. I thought highlighting that the bloke is actually poor at his role that everyone defended him in was pretty interesting. By no means do I think we should drop him, as there is no one to replace him right now, I just think after everyone made a big deal about Tim Clarkes poor kicking skills, now we can see that maybe Youngs long bombs to stagnant forwards, with multiple defenders peeling off isnt a good thing.
boozeDragon
3 Jun 2008, 13:40
I thought in making this thread it was unlike the majority of Clinton Young threads. Unlike the other threads made it wasnt just some crap about him being soft and thats it. I have actually shown some proof, and I have criticised something that is supposed to be his strength. By no means am I Young basher, if you actually look back on my past posts I have supported him. I had supported he and his outside role in thinking he was an efficent disposal, just to be shocked in finding he is our worst. I thought highlighting that the bloke is actually poor at his role that everyone defended him in was pretty interesting. By no means do I think we should drop him, as there is no one to replace him right now, I just think after everyone made a big deal about Tim Clarkes poor kicking skills, now we can see that maybe Youngs long bombs to stagnant forwards, with multiple defenders peeling off isnt a good thing.
I agree with you champ. Your post had some facts behind it and presented a very thought provoking discussion. I don't see many 'pro-Young' fans within this thread using any factual evidence to rebut your argument. I used to be a fan of Clinton Young but I believe that he's either injured at the moment or not good enough. If he is indeed injured then he shouldn't be out there when not 100%. My opinion of him is waning and your stats only consolidated this in my mind.
I agree with you champ. Your post had some facts behind it and presented a very thought provoking discussion. I don't see many 'pro-Young' fans within this thread using any factual evidence to rebut your argument. I used to be a fan of Clinton Young but I believe that he's either injured at the moment or not good enough. If he is indeed injured then he shouldn't be out there when not 100%. My opinion of him is waning and your stats only consolidated this in my mind.
Thank you Gilly, and that was exactly what I was trying to portray in my thread.
When a long range kick to a 50/50 contest 15 meters out is considered an ineffective kick you know it is a rubbish stat.
I think you've done a good job with the thread roughie, but i have to agree with TD here. Especially when we have power forwards like Roughie and Buddy. In reality a 50/50 kick to them one out, or even sometimes 2 on 1 is more likely to be to our advantage.
I hope i made sense there
I think you've done a good job with the thread roughie, but i have to agree with TD here. Especially when we have power forwards like Roughie and Buddy. In reality a 50/50 kick to them one out, or even sometimes 2 on 1 is more likely to be to our advantage.
I hope i made sense there
You did, but I am sorry I disagree. If you think you can long kick 2 on 1, on buddy against a good defence you will get torched. The only time I have seen it work was against Port, and thats because it was a very inexperienced defence. You cant expect to kick 2 on 1, against Geelong. Those guys are experts at sheparding the forward as they drop in front to take the mark.
If kicking 2 on 1 was so effective, we wouldnt bother with the overlap handballs down the corridor, we would just be pumping it long like in the 80's. Hell if the run and long kick is an effective gameplan I reckon half of our posters would be drafted, I am sure there are some people on here who can kick 50 metres.
I believe Youngs long kicks are less effective then anything, but I also believe that his kicking in general is pretty overated. Ill make it my goal over the next few week to count how many times his 50 metre kicks have turned directly into a goal. If they result to more than I expect ill appologies in this thread, but if not ill make it a point that he has the ability to try pin point passes but he doesnt do it enough, thus why his effectiveness is down.
Point taken roughie, i actually had the port game in mind when i thought of Roughie taking a few ig grabs about 15 metres out. I didn't really take into account that the Port defense was so inexperienced.
FWIW i do agree that Young's kicking is overrated.
He has looked shaky in the last few games and i think it was also the port game where he turned over a few short kicks that resulted in goals.
Hopefully he stays on board this week and can start working his wasy back into some form
Point taken roughie, i actually had the port game in mind when i thought of Roughie taking a few ig grabs about 15 metres out. I didn't really take into account that the Port defense was so inexperienced.
FWIW i do agree that Young's kicking is overrated.
He has looked shaky in the last few games and i think it was also the port game where he turned over a few short kicks that resulted in goals.
Hopefully he stays on board this week and can start working his wasy back into some form
I think what gets under members most is that Young can do better, and he is ever improving. Unlike someone like Clarke where we know what you see is what you get, and unfortunatly it isnt much. There is no doubt in my mind Young will improve, and will become more effective.
...
ok if Youngy is struggling and we need to replace him, who do we turn to from our list of remaining "fit"(available) players?
Is Youngy in our best 22 at the moment? If not, then lets bring someone else in and let him have a break to get "right".....
If he is in our best 22 available, lets support him and hope he can get a good game under his belt to get the confidence back.
I think what gets under members most is that Young can do better, and he is ever improving. Unlike someone like Clarke where we know what you see is what you get, and unfortunatly it isnt much. There is no doubt in my mind Young will improve, and will become more effective.
I agree with you Roughie on this point and thats what I was trying to highlight (though not as well as you have here)...if he is in our best 22, then lets support him and do whatever we can to start getting that improvement.....
Dixie Flatline
4 Jun 2008, 18:06
According to FootyWire, Young and Bateman are each tied on 46 inside-50s for the season, but Young has played one game more than Changa. Marc Murphy leads the count overall, with 60 from 10 games.
Bateman, however, leads the league with 18 goal assists from 9 games. Clinton Young has had 6 goal assists from 10 games, to be ranked equal 79th in the league (Xavier Ellis also has had 6 goal assists from 10 games).
And that stat shows that the majority of Young's inside 50s are a result from his long kicks, unfortunatly they dont lead to goal assists. He has the same ammount of assists too a half back flanker is saying something. He needs to pin point more.
boozeDragon
4 Jun 2008, 18:44
Goal Assist coupled with Inside Fifty Stat only reinforce Roughie's argument. No one is disputing he kicks long to the fifty. What is becoming more evident is that he's doing it but we're not reaping many rewards for it.