Player Watch #29: Will Phillips

[Epictetus]

Not really.

After Dow you had LDU, Cerra and a number of high quality players picked straight after.

Slim pickings after Phillips.

Logan was/is a flight risk. He’d have looked very average in our forward line.

I was purely comparing the players. Not what went after them.

 

[Devil Fish]

What was wrong with his game on the weekend?

The lack of defensive run. Watch the game and tell me if Powell really runs back defensively with any serious intent? When he doesn’t have the ball, it’s a 1/2 paced run back while opposition midfielders sprint past him.

 

[Devil Fish]

We just need to play him

Why?

 

[The Nostradamus]

Why?

Because he’s better than laz and shiels

 

[ferball]

The lack of defensive run. Watch the game and tell me if Powell really runs back defensively with any serious intent? When he doesn’t have the ball, it’s a 1/2 paced run back while opposition midfielders sprint past him.

Fair enough. I have noticed that.

But you implied he'd never be a good player.

LDU (the player with no ndefensive side allegedly) showed the same lack of defensive run when younger and on the weekend chased a player down, dived full length and had a hold of him for a split second, while the player took a bounce. Won a free kick for it.

Its worth keeping an eye on and calling out but is also something Powell can develop with time.

 

[Warlord69]

Because he’s better than laz and shiels

Will is a much better inside mid than those two.
But it’s essential two be capable of playing another role if you’re fighting for second/third string midfield minutes

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Fair enough. I have noticed that.

But you implied he'd never be a good player.

LDU (the player with no ndefensive side allegedly) showed the same lack of defensive run when younger and on the weekend chased a player down, dived full length and had a hold of him for a split second, while the player took a bounce. Won a free kick for it.

Its worth keeping an eye on and calling out but is also something Powell can develop with time.

I did like LDU's effort there, but it was a horrendous free kick. Just nonsensical umpiring.

 

[ferball]

I did like LDU's effort there, but it was a horrendous free kick. Just nonsensical umpiring.

I've seen exactly the same thing payed against us before and against other players in neutral games, so I was happy to see us get it payed as well. Its the way the rule is written or interpreted.

But yeah it should be changed.

 

[Lomas]

I've seen exactly the same thing payed against us before and against other players in neutral games, so I was happy to see us get it payed as well. Its the way the rule is written or interpreted.

But yeah it should be changed.

It’s such a technical rule. Belongs in rugby union.
Especially when players are allowed to just drop the ball and shuffle it foward when tackled 50 times a match.

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

I did like LDU's effort there, but it was a horrendous free kick. Just nonsensical umpiring.

I've seen exactly the same thing payed against us before and against other players in neutral games, so I was happy to see us get it payed as well. Its the way the rule is written or interpreted.

But yeah it should be changed.

After watching Kevin Bartlett and Leigh Matthews exploit the way the rule used to be written back in the day, I'm perfectly happy with the way things are now even if it leads to these very technical decisions.

 

[King Sheezel]

Not sure he's as talented as many claim, but happy enough if given a block of games to prove he is good enough.

 

[desie]

One of those experienced players adds value, the other adds nothing.

For clarity, get rid of Tucker. Shiels is a significantly better contributor.

I thought Shiels was brilliant for us last year but he was terrible when he came on on Saturday, his first two involvements directly led to Giants goals.

I’m happy to put it down to rustiness but I think we’ve reached the point where he’s a break glass in case of emergency option.

 

[Lomas]

I thought Shiels was brilliant for us last year but he was terrible when he came on on Saturday, his first two involvements directly led to Giants goals.

I’m happy to put it down to rustiness but I think we’ve reached the point where he’s a break glass in case of emergency option.

Agree. He has been a great pickup. See how he goes, but may be time to transition him to a more off field, at AFL level, as was presumably intended.

 

[Lomas]

After watching Kevin Bartlett and Leigh Matthews exploit the way the rule used to be written back in the day, I'm perfectly happy with the way things are now even if it leads to these very technical decisions.

I rarely do this, but can you expand on that?

 

[King Sheezel]

Agree. He has been a great pickup. See how he goes, but may be time to transition him to a more off field, at AFL level, as was presumably intended.

What's his ceiling?

People constantly compare to Cunners and Neale etc but I can't see it.

Either way comparisons aren't helpful in judging his own progress.

 

[Lomas]

What's his ceiling?

People constantly compare to Cunners and Neale etc but I can't see it.

Either way comparisons aren't helpful in judging his own progress.

I was talking about Shiels sorry.

Edit: I’ll try to stay on thread topics

 

[ferball]

It’s such a technical rule. Belongs in rugby union.
Especially when players are allowed to just drop the ball and shuffle it foward when tackled 50 times a match.

Bouncing a ball when being tackled is dropping the ball. Should we get rid of that? If we don't at what point is a player considered tackled.

The bolded bit is a game wrecking farce and the people responsible should be kicked up the arse.

 

[ferball]

After watching Kevin Bartlett and Leigh Matthews exploit the way the rule used to be written back in the day, I'm perfectly happy with the way things are now even if it leads to these very technical decisions.

Yeah I get that but there has to be some sort of inhibiting of the player with the ball that stops or at least significantly slows their momentum imo.

 

[ChairmanZia]

Jay Clark sounds like he inhales Helium from a balloon before he speaks..

That explains the brain damage with inhaling helium. Helium balloons are now banned at school formal or any other functions.

 

[ChairmanZia]

I was purely comparing the players. Not what went after them.

logan would be irrelevant until the midfield is built supporter by a solid backline. By then we probably have already bought another fwd

 

[Lomas]

Bouncing a ball when being tackled is dropping the ball. Should we get rid of that? If we don't at what point is a player considered tackled.

The bolded bit is a game wrecking farce and the people responsible should be kicked up the arse.

Fair point. Being too lenient in the first leads to the second.

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

I rarely do this, but can you expand on that?

Bartlett and Matthews perfected this tactic in which they would go for a run and take a bounce a split second before they were tackled but magically, the ball would not come back to them and so they were tackled without the ball, ie holding the man free kick. The trick was they threw the ball just far enough away that it was not meant to come back. Then as they were tackled, they'd throw their arms in the air theatrically and every single time, they'd win a free kick for holding the man. It was completely within the rules at the time - if you bounced the ball while being tackled, it was dropping the ball, but if you bounced it before being tackled, and if the ball didn't come back to you, it was holding the man. Eventually, the VFL changed the rule so that if you were tackled after bouncing it, you were pinged for holding the ball regardless of whether it came back to you or not.

Or as described by afl.com.au

Kevin Bartlett – 1970s – Bouncing while tackled ​

Always one step ahead of the game, Bartlett's bursts away from opponents often included an act that is now outlawed in the game. When attempting to break free, Bartlett would dispossess the ball at the same time as being tackled, winning a free kick for holding the man. In a rule that was overhauled – thanks to Bartlett – a player is deemed to be still in possession of the ball while taking a bounce, and is therefore adjudged holding the ball if tackled in the act of bouncing.

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

Yeah I get that but there has to be some sort of inhibiting of the player with the ball that stops or at least significantly slows their momentum imo.

Yeah true, that was the dodgy part about the LDU tackle, but the Kevin Bartlett rule when applied to the letter of the law tends to overlook that definition of what constitutes a tackle. I agree that LDU should have been requires to do more and that's where the touch or flag football accusation comes in.

 

[Lomas]

That explains the brain damage with inhaling helium. Helium balloons are now banned at school formal or any other functions.

And renditions of ‘Jolean’ are the worse for it.

 

[Lomas]

Bartlett and Matthews perfected this tactic in which they would go for a run and take a bounce a split second before they were tackled but magically, the ball would not come back to them and so they were tackled without the ball, ie holding the man free kick. The trick was they threw the ball just far enough away that it was not meant to come back. Then as they were tackled, they'd throw their arms in the air theatrically and every single time, they'd win a free kick for holding the man. It was completely within the rules at the time - if you bounced the ball while being tackled, it was dropping the ball, but if you bounced it before being tackled, and if the ball didn't come back to you, it was holding the man. Eventually, the VFL changed the rule so that if you were tackled after bouncing it, you were pinged for holding the ball regardless of whether it came back to you or not.

Or as described by afl.com.au

Kevin Bartlett – 1970s – Bouncing while tackled ​

Always one step ahead of the game, Bartlett's bursts away from opponents often included an act that is now outlawed in the game. When attempting to break free, Bartlett would dispossess the ball at the same time as being tackled, winning a free kick for holding the man. In a rule that was overhauled – thanks to Bartlett – a player is deemed to be still in possession of the ball while taking a bounce, and is therefore adjudged holding the ball if tackled in the act of bouncing.

Cheers.