- Nov 7, 2010
- 26,894
- 35,628
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- WADA
Sorry for the confusion Blicavs wasn't even in my thoughts,it was just a statement on our friend Brown.
Strategy What are we going to do about centre half forward?
- Thread starter vinum coupe
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I've never said he shouldn't. I explicitly said above he needs to do more. Go back and check. I even said put in Walker instead to keep the baying mob happy. At least he's actually played CHF in the seniors before. Brown out - this week - Walker in. Done deal.
Blicavs had more impact? 0.2 from 6 possessions, compared to 0.2 from 10 possessions. I'd say neither had much impact based on that. I guess you could argue Blicavs offered more around the ground........except Brown laid 1 tackle, and Blicavs 0. So, not so much.
What is becoming increasingly clear is there is one line of thinking permitted on here, and any deviance whatsoever is not on. Just try and consider this for a moment - Blicavs is NOT a key forward. He has not played there for the seniors. He is barely a footballer. Given that he is still learning his role in the team, and this year a new position on the wing, why would you suddenly decide he's a key forward? It seems little more than getting Brown out of the team by any means necessary, and absolutely anyone is guaranteed to be a great improvement. Maybe, but I'm a bit more circumspect about how fast players develop in a tough position, such as CHF. Whether it's Brown or Vardy or Kersten or Blicavs, none of them are going to effortlessly dominate this year. And if the club isn't careful, next year could be just as bad or worse.
Here's a very possible reality too - assume Brown is chopped, what if Walker or Blicavs aren't any better? What if they have 7 possession games like Brown did against Brisbane? What then? Do you demand changes immediately?
cats_09
Otters United
- Jun 21, 2011
- 56,598
- 114,320
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Moderator
- #129
At the Adelaide game, talking to others I sit around (and we aren't the biggest fans of Brown), we agreed that if the club wants to play Brown forward then they need to give him a chance to prove himself in that position without fear of getting dropped due to 1 poor game. We were all pleasantly surprised by his performance against the Crows, and while I didn't think we would get the same goal output from Brown each week, I was hoping we would see better endeavor from his this past fortnight then we have. If Brown was given another chance against the Eagles this weekend I wouldn't be upset, but if he isn't hitting the scoreboard he needs to have an impact in other areas otherwise his spot should be in jeopardy for the match against the Hawks.
He looked good against the Crows, he seemed to be getting more confident as the game went on and ended up with 14 disposals, 3 marks, 3 goals & 3 tackles; yet in his 2 games since he has had 17 disposals, 4 marks, 2 behinds & 1 tackles (yes he was subbed out against the Pies). He needs to work out a way to get himself involved in the game when he has been quiet and the ball isn't coming in his direction; maybe run the wings while someone like Blicavs goes forward, swapping for 5 minutes and show intent.
3 goals this weekend from Brown would be great, but I would be just as impressed if he ended up with 3 or 4 tackles, 3 or 4 1%'s or pressure acts and a couple of score involvements/goal assists which shows he kept himself involved.
Blicavs took 2 marks when fresh, missed his shots and ended up with a huge 6 disposals with 38% GT.
Brown didn't do enough but he at least matched what Blicavs did.
If it was up to me Brown would stay because there are no other real options and he deserves his shot. (If he continues to offer up pitiful efforts in the coming weeks then Walker can get his chance.)
Blicavs would be in the VFL because apart from running to space he doesn't offer anything.
A sub who plays over 1 and a half quarters should get somewhere around 10 disposals and have an impact. Better off having Burbury/Thurlow/Smedts or even your lock McCarthy as sub.
That's pretty much what everyone agrees on. What I found odd was that when he was mentioned post game, Scott was very relaxed about him, almost like he wasn't bothered at all by his performance. Then again, they know a lot more about what they want from the players than we do.
Horlin-Smith got close - he had 9 touches and kicked 2 goals. I thought Burbury showed at least as much as McCarthy has, I'd be more than happy to keep him in. I'd have Caddy as the sub, but he's another who is untouchable.
- Nov 7, 2010
- 26,894
- 35,628
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- WADA
There would be at least 8 clubs that would take walker if he was delisted thanks for the Vid.
Somehow think it would take a very good deal for him to be delisted. My impression is the powers that be see quite some upside in him.
One thing you can be sure about is he'll give 100% every time he hits the field.
Have a feeling that due to the conditions he'll be an 'in' this week. Maybe at MBs cost.
David the Cat
Moderator
- Moderator
- #135
TheJimmyCartel
Club Legend
- Jan 21, 2013
- 2,654
- 4,990
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Spurs
Also, gets more disposals, marks and tackles per game than the coveted Nathan Vardy
Not to mention only one less hit out per game, has a far superior tank, has had much less development and doesn't appear to be injury prone.Not a bad option really...
- Aug 20, 2013
- 2,551
- 3,256
I agree. Realistic, unbiased and accurate on every account.
meto
Norm Smith Medallist
When you think of the way he finished 2013 and now his current form of 2014, he might well be more ready and able this time round if given a senior game at CHF.
He can run all day and no doubt his strength and aggression.
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,390
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Thread starter
- #142
Gee guys.
This is not a bagging thread.
What have we come up with?
Nothing more than Brown gets a game or 2 more and the other option is Walker?
Lucky we aren't the MC.
If their thinking was that shallow I'd be a bit peeved.
(not a crack at Walker!! I reckon they'd have more options)
This is not a bagging thread.
What have we come up with?
Nothing more than Brown gets a game or 2 more and the other option is Walker?
Lucky we aren't the MC.
If their thinking was that shallow I'd be a bit peeved.
(not a crack at Walker!! I reckon they'd have more options)
Jon Douglas
Premiership Player
- Jan 8, 2013
- 3,020
- 2,638
- AFL Club
- Geelong
If we look at what GFC have done re selections I think we can get a fair idea of who they are trying to develop and who they think is their best fit in the early part of the 2014.
So what does that mean ? It means they saw Brown as the best CHF option when Vardy went down. They also selected Blicavs when we had two rucks in the team. This means they see a future in Blicavs and want to develop him ASAP into a decent senior player by giving him a lot of exposure in senior games. Who would have thought GFC would select Simpson, HMc and Blicvs in the same team ? Not me.
Now I have written whoever we selected to take over from Vardy should get a decent run at the CHF position - as whoever it would be would be an inexperienced footballer. So I would normally have said stick with Brown for 2-3 more games but on this one occasion, because of the weather forecast of being wet and windy - which negates his marking power - I would go with makeshift CHF this week. If the club wants to persist with two big rucks and Blicavs in the same team - then given the predicted conditions - take Blicavs away from the sub position and put a smaller crumber type player in that role. To keep Blicavs in the team which the club seems to want to do - play him at CHF this week.
Then, weather permitting, get Brown back in and let him play some more senior footy when conditions suit him better. Hopefully he will build up confidence and experience.
But right now if the weather is wet and footy slippery I di not see Brown being any more effective marker of the ball than Blitz. Blitz probably attacks the ball more and is just as likely to lay a tackle as Brown. He will certainly add some more run to the side than Brown and can pinch hit in the ruck when required. So he really offers more than Brown when marking overhead is unlikely (Brown is also a far better kick than Blitz).
But this decision fits best for what GFC want to do. Keep in Simpson, HMac and Blicavs in the same team. Its get Simpson and HMac more match fitness, it could allow us to nullify one of WC's strengths (their ruck division) and also provides Blitz with another senior game. It does not make Brown play in conditions that do not suit him presently and decrease his confidence by the possibility of another poor performance in wet conditions like last week.
If Brown then plays for another 3 senior games (in better marking conditions) and plays well - all good and well. If he fails then at least he has had a decent run at CHF.
I think he is far more suited to being the third tall forward but with Vardy out that option disappeared somewhat (and with Kersten's injury as well).
Maybe they will go back to Jimmy being a CHF for week game as he does contest well and can mark as well as anyone in these type of conditions. We just do not want to go in too tall in a wet game IMO.
So what does that mean ? It means they saw Brown as the best CHF option when Vardy went down. They also selected Blicavs when we had two rucks in the team. This means they see a future in Blicavs and want to develop him ASAP into a decent senior player by giving him a lot of exposure in senior games. Who would have thought GFC would select Simpson, HMc and Blicvs in the same team ? Not me.
Now I have written whoever we selected to take over from Vardy should get a decent run at the CHF position - as whoever it would be would be an inexperienced footballer. So I would normally have said stick with Brown for 2-3 more games but on this one occasion, because of the weather forecast of being wet and windy - which negates his marking power - I would go with makeshift CHF this week. If the club wants to persist with two big rucks and Blicavs in the same team - then given the predicted conditions - take Blicavs away from the sub position and put a smaller crumber type player in that role. To keep Blicavs in the team which the club seems to want to do - play him at CHF this week.
Then, weather permitting, get Brown back in and let him play some more senior footy when conditions suit him better. Hopefully he will build up confidence and experience.
But right now if the weather is wet and footy slippery I di not see Brown being any more effective marker of the ball than Blitz. Blitz probably attacks the ball more and is just as likely to lay a tackle as Brown. He will certainly add some more run to the side than Brown and can pinch hit in the ruck when required. So he really offers more than Brown when marking overhead is unlikely (Brown is also a far better kick than Blitz).
But this decision fits best for what GFC want to do. Keep in Simpson, HMac and Blicavs in the same team. Its get Simpson and HMac more match fitness, it could allow us to nullify one of WC's strengths (their ruck division) and also provides Blitz with another senior game. It does not make Brown play in conditions that do not suit him presently and decrease his confidence by the possibility of another poor performance in wet conditions like last week.
If Brown then plays for another 3 senior games (in better marking conditions) and plays well - all good and well. If he fails then at least he has had a decent run at CHF.
I think he is far more suited to being the third tall forward but with Vardy out that option disappeared somewhat (and with Kersten's injury as well).
Maybe they will go back to Jimmy being a CHF for week game as he does contest well and can mark as well as anyone in these type of conditions. We just do not want to go in too tall in a wet game IMO.
They are the only real options right now.
I get the feeling people are annoyed or angry that we don't have a star centre half forward in waiting. Hate to break the suspense, but we don't. We have on our list three contenders for one position, and all are very inexperienced. None are established players yet. Brown on 13 games, Walker on 10 games, and Vardy on 21 games who's out for the year. There's a possibility that even if they make changes we're not going to get any improvement in output. So whoever they choose, I hope they give them a few games in a row, and a lot more than 3.
Agree that it's a very good thing we're not the match committee. Otherwise we'll have a different CHF every week, and by the end of the season be no closer to finding a long term solution.
I would be VERY surprised if the MC are not way ahead of all of us on BF. Whilst it's nice to speculate at the end of the day it means jack.
The MC will do what the MC does. So sayeth the MC.
So why not Bartel? Why is the solution to having too many tall forwards to replace the CHF with someone even taller? Explain to me why wet weather hurts Brown's marking but somehow enhances that of Blicavs? Blicavs played in the wet in Brisbane and like Brown took exactly 1 mark. So why is it a weakness of one and not the other?
Not last week he wasn't. Brown 1 tackle, Blicavs 0.
As opposed to the wonderful boost in confidence he'll get by being told he can't play in wet weather.
So drop someone else. Or if you must drop Brown (which seems to be the absolutely predictable view on here now), why not bring in Walker? Someone who is actually playing that position in the VFL, someone who is coming off a good game, and someone who at least has played as a forward at senior level. Of course he may not be better, and could be worse, but that mustn't be considered.
The fact that Blicavs drifted into the forward line twice Saturday night doesn't make him a key forward. Hopefully they coaches won't be tempted to demonstrate that for us.
SleazySimon
Club Legend
Has Blicavs taken a contested mark yet? at any level?
I would have thought Caddy has earnt the patience of all of us if he has the odd quiet game or two
He is still a kid and will be inconsistent sometimes - all the good ones do that
He has been awesome in many of his last few games - keep him on the field and let him do his thing
Without doubt, unless or until he has an absolute dog of a game, and I think that is unlikely.
It's not that, but the sub has to be a midfielder, and ideally someone who you know can impact the game. Blicavs has already had it twice, GHS once, and he's ruled himself out this week (at least he should) by playing a very good game against Collingwood. So pick another midfielder to be the sub.
Similar threads
