Preview AFL NAB Challenge 2 - Geelong v Adelaide, Simonds Stadium, 7:10PM Thursday 12 March

[thegerman]

Do you think Mackie was a bit 'ho-hum'? When we remember previous years the vets seemed a bit meh about some games against teams lower on the ladder, but turned it on for the blockbusters. I'm not saying it is, just posing the question.

Definitely, and I think first game back you'd expect that. However, leaving a lot out on the ground in your previous two games, plus a few comments from those senior players and Selwood's own comment at the Carji, you would have expectations from that as a supporter.

I didn't see any urgency, or hunger, if you must say. Albeit it's game one in the slap and tickle format.

That's why I think Mackie needs a better run at it.

 

[Seeds]

Mackies been ho hum for over a year now, even in finals.

 

[4quarter_cat]

That has always been the criticism of Mackie though so I don't buy it. Even when he was AA, people were still commenting on his seemingly 'laconic' style.

It might be true that Mackie has lost the fire in his belly, but I doubt it. My guess is that it just seems that way to armchair critics and keyboard warriors.

 

[Partridge]

Thanks Glen- very interesting. We seem to be gathering quite a farmyard, with a bull and now a pig.

Tempted to argue that explains all the bullshit as well.

 

[cynical]

rest the oldies and bring in the kids

playing Hawkins is unnecessary, much better for Clark if he is the prime target anyway

no point wasting games on Lucey he isn't close to AFL level, might as well play Walker as second ruck

Jansen needs games, doesn't matter if his disposal is average, winning clearances or at least making it harder for other teams to win clearances matters more

 

[Partridge]

no point wasting games on Lucey he isn't close to AFL level, might as well play Walker as second ruck

Jansen needs games, doesn't matter if his disposal is average, winning clearances or at least making it harder for other teams to win clearances matters more

As I said, giving the odd game to a rookie or two is fine. But the senior 22 (plus really a few extras) for Round 1 need to be matchfit. It's already looking like our ruck division is going to be depleted and/or underdone again. So I'd be playing Simpson for sure and hopefully McIntosh and Stanley too.

 

[cynical]

As I said, giving the odd game to a rookie or two is fine. But the senior 22 (plus really a few extras) for Round 1 need to be matchfit. It's already looking like our ruck division is going to be depleted and/or underdone again. So I'd be playing Simpson for sure and hopefully McIntosh and Stanley too.

seasoned campaigners over 26yo(minus guys coming off injuries) don't need to play 3 nab cup games, they already have the fitness

most of the vets who played in the first game should and likely will be rested

in nab 3 we will have close to a round 1 team

 

[CatTricks]

rest the oldies and bring in the kids

playing Hawkins is unnecessary, much better for Clark if he is the prime target anyway

no point wasting games on Lucey he isn't close to AFL level, might as well play Walker as second ruck

Jansen needs games, doesn't matter if his disposal is average, winning clearances or at least making it harder for other teams to win clearances matters more

Would like to see Simpson given a stint as a forward alongside Clark to see if he can take a few grabs and kick a few snags.

 

[WaxiesDargle]

Would like to see Simpson given a stint as a forward alongside Clark to see if he can take a few grabs and kick a few snags.

I think my head would explode if I had to watch Simpson for 4 quarters trying to take a mark inside 50.
He definitely needs to start taking a few though because at this stage he just doesn't bring enough. If it wasn't for fact that he is our only plausible ruck option at the moment I don't know if he should be getting a game. (and I'm not basing that purely on NAB 1 as I understand he is coming of an injury and is a bit rusty)

 

[Jimmy Yamazaki]

Would like to see Simpson given a stint as a forward alongside Clark to see if he can take a few grabs and kick a few snags.

Nope, needs to learn how to win taps first.

 

[Rainfall]

Mate my Top5 Favourites are:

1. Daniel Menzel
2. Darcy Lang
3. Jackson Thurlow
4. Jarrad Jansen
5. Nakia Cockatoo

So if I talked Cockatoo up like that, imagine how much I would talk the others up

not bad id go
1. Nakia Cockatoo
2. Jackson Thurlow
3. Dean Gore
4. Darcy Lang
5. Jarrad Jansen

 

[Teriyakicat]

Would like to see Simpson given a stint as a forward alongside Clark to see if he can take a few grabs and kick a few snags.

I think we've got too many tall forwards as it is- or did you mean just give him a run in the NAB to see if he can rest forward when playing ruck?

 

[Lana]

not bad id go
1. Nakia Cockatoo
2. Jackson Thurlow
3. Dean Gore
4. Darcy Lang
5. Jarrad Jansen

I'd go
1. Menzel
2. Vardy
3. Cowan
4. McCarthy
5. Smedts

 

[Rainfall]

I'd go
1. Menzel
2. Vardy
3. Cowan
4. McCarthy
5. Smedts

4 players who cant catch a break and one who is 50/50 on making it?

 

[Lana]

4 players who cant catch a break and one who is 50/50 on making it?

When I back a player I don't abandon ship until it is at the bottom of the ocean. I thought that the 09 and 10 drafts would be our next 99 and 01. Shame how that turned out. But I guarantee that 4 of those players will play at AFL level at some point this year the only one that won't is McCarthy.

 

[Teriyakicat]

When I back a player I don't abandon ship until it is at the bottom of the ocean. I thought that the 09 and 10 drafts would be our next 99 and 01. Shame how that turned out. But I guarantee that 4 of those players will play at AFL level at some point this year the only one that won't is McCarthy.

Gee, 10lana, I hope you're right!!

 

[CatTricks]

I think my head would explode if I had to watch Simpson for 4 quarters trying to take a mark inside 50.
He definitely needs to start taking a few though because at this stage he just doesn't bring enough. If it wasn't for fact that he is our only plausible ruck option at the moment I don't know if he should be getting a game. (and I'm not basing that purely on NAB 1 as I understand he is coming of an injury and is a bit rusty)

Nope, needs to learn how to win taps first.

Sorry, should have been more specific.
By stint, I mean a quarter or a half or something like that. Not a whole game.
He needs to build his fitness base and do it fast.

 

[The rabbi]

Mate my Top5 Favourites are:

1. Daniel Menzel
2. Darcy Lang
3. Jackson Thurlow
4. Jarrad Jansen
5. Nakia Cockatoo

So if I talked Cockatoo up like that, imagine how much I would talk the others up

Admit it. You are just a floosey.

 

[ChookNorris]

not bad id go
1. Nakia Cockatoo
2. Jackson Thurlow
3. Dean Gore
4. Darcy Lang
5. Jarrad Jansen

I'd have to go:
Menzel
Hartman
Gregson
Lang
Cockatoo

 

[ChookNorris]

Talk of Dawson Simpson taking contested marks makes me giggle.

 

[dazbroncos]

Talk of Dawson Simpson taking contested marks makes me giggle.

Daws vs Frodo.

Done deal. And the best bit is Daws could fall on him and crush him at the same time. 2 birds one stone.

Go Catters

 

[Turbocat]

Can not remember which thread I read it in ,...

but if the only worry about Jansen is his neatness of disposal then I say its time to bring in the.......

​

 

[thegerman]

That has always been the criticism of Mackie though so I don't buy it. Even when he was AA, people were still commenting on his seemingly 'laconic' style.

It might be true that Mackie has lost the fire in his belly, but I doubt it. My guess is that it just seems that way to armchair critics and keyboard warriors.

So a critic who can be taken seriously, is whom? It's laughable that raising a point about a favourite player, often points to being 'only' an armchair critic. Aren't we all?

I understand that we should be positive of the team, my point was that he looked far from fit, in regard to the other veterans. Kelly, Bartel, and Enright all look considerably fitter. That perception, weighed against being the first game of the season in fairly oppressive conditions.

The question was asked to why I thought he'd need the extra run, which wasn't due to his AA form, nor his laconic style.

There has been a lot of huff n puff by the senior players; Selwood included.

Is he a good enough critic?

 

[dazbroncos]

So a critic who can be taken seriously, is whom? It's laughable that raising a point about a favourite player, often points to being 'only' an armchair critic. Aren't we all?

I understand that we should be positive of the team, my point was that he looked far from fit, in regard to the other veterans. Kelly, Bartel, and Enright all look considerably fitter. That perception, weighed against being the first game of the season in fairly oppressive conditions.

The question was asked to why I thought he'd need the extra run, which wasn't due to his AA form, nor his laconic style.

There has been a lot of huff n puff by the senior players; Selwood included.

Is he a good enough critic?

Mackie should be there round 1 for us.

That said, I agree he gave the appearance of being very rusty against GCS. He got sold completely up the river by Mots and had ever right to lie on the ground thinking this is just not worth it ( practice matches) but there were several other times where he didn't take the first option ( the right one) and got burned by youthful enthusiasm. Usually skill, experience and guile beats youthful enthusiasm - not in this case.

On his fitness or the perception of it - I can recall several variations of fitness styles passing try the GFC system - bigger, smaller, leaner, powerful, lithe over the last 10 years. What has not changed is Mackie's look. Knots on cotton from day one and it the same today.

I'd expect a much more switched on Mackie on his next appearance or he will face some serious questions.

Go Catters

 

[4quarter_cat]

So a critic who can be taken seriously, is whom? It's laughable that raising a point about a favourite player, often points to being 'only' an armchair critic. Aren't we all?

I understand that we should be positive of the team, my point was that he looked far from fit, in regard to the other veterans. Kelly, Bartel, and Enright all look considerably fitter. That perception, weighed against being the first game of the season in fairly oppressive conditions.

The question was asked to why I thought he'd need the extra run, which wasn't due to his AA form, nor his laconic style.

There has been a lot of huff n puff by the senior players; Selwood included.

Is he a good enough critic?

Relax TG its called irony, sorry I didn't do a good enough job of making that clear.

I was simply pointing out that even at his best his laconic style has been the knock on AM, and wanted to do it in good humour.