Review Cats squash Giants by 53

Remove this Banner Ad

Ratcat said:
The guy that's been really impressing me lately is Brad Close, fast, clever, willing tackler, and can contest overhead for his size.
Not much I don't like about him in the forward structure!
Click to expand...
Getting to the point where maybe a shift to midfield could be on. Imagine Selwood getting the ball out to him. Super quick, you know he will put in tackles, just wonder if he has the tank for it.
 
And_ROOS said:
Getting to the point where maybe a shift to midfield could be on. Imagine Selwood getting the ball out to him. Super quick, you know he will put in tackles, just wonder if he has the tank for it.
Click to expand...

Don't think his tank is a problem.
Seems to cover the ground really well, and last year his gps numbers for repeated sprints were really good.

Think it's maybe a size thing. His strengths are his speed and his endurance - perhaps playing inside doesn't help him play to these. High half forward/wing seems to be his best position - love the way he gets back first and kicks goals. Hitting the scoreboard more and lifting assists is the next development for him I reckon. Tracking very nicely, hard not to love him.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

catempire said:
Youth as a concept means nothing in winning football games. Getting good players and getting them under good value for “money” is what drives performance.
Click to expand...
True. But thats not why you go for youth. Youth are potentially 12 plus year players if you know how to spot them. 27 year old mature players potential is only 6 years or less. 30 year old mature players potential is only 3-4 years or less. Its a math equation.

its why we currently have virtually no good players in their peak performance years between 22-28 And explains why we got run off our feet by the better teams in finals last year (and recent previous years)
 
Catempire's trade summary is very good indeed - very few of those we've recruited through trading were worth the price or the effort. And while it's easy to say we got players cheap, the fact is even picks in the 30's and 40's can yield A-graders as in the glory days of one S. Wells.

True, we got Danger but we still get flogged in finals. Cameron could well be retired by the time we're genuine contenders again, albeit he is a tremendous player. On balance I would have preferred us to keep the picks.

Aaron Black played several excellent games for us down back at one stage when we had injuries; then he did his knee, which was bad luck for all.
 
PeasFC said:
That's not entirely true.
Higgins was about 38 or something.
Jenkins was 37 but we got a future in the 40's back.

Ablett & Cameron cost us more, but would you take either back?

Stevens/Higgins/Jenkins definitely didn't bare any fruit.
I think of picks above 30 as lottery balls - the more picks you take, the more likely one will hit!
For this reason, in hindsight you'd love us to have had three goes at finding a good young player with these picks but it's far from a guarantee.
Click to expand...
I wouldnt of brought in cameron or ablett and definately not higgins. It was already obvious at that point that we were done and had major list management problems on the horizon. Mature age recruits who cost us no picks were fine though. As they only kept out rookie picks.

henderson, smith, dangerfield was worth pursuing though. As was clark and stanley.
 
In Defense of Narkle.
When reviewing players performances the tendency here to pick faults.
Bemoaning a players desperation, fitness, skills and decisions
It comes from the anxiety and frustration of wanting success
If only he was, faster, taller, stronger, smarter... perfect

The wisdom of armchair experts is aided by hindsight and time.
Just like tribunal by slow-mo vision distorts the blink speed of reality
So too, judging a player against an imaginary ideal distorts reality.
Sure some things can appear optically bad, often made worse by camera angles.
These actions will be scrutinized and misinterpreted by amateur body language decoders.
Narkle is quickly labeled lazy for not chasing a faster opponent he will not catch.
Falsely compared effort to his short burst of evasive speed with the ball in hand.
Menegola looked lazy, only jogging when chasing a fleet footed Tiger in the 2020 GF
Selwood v Pies was caught jogging, conceding a free kick, 50m and easy goal.
Trust that every player taking the field is trying their best
Dahlhaus always gives his best, but is now too slow, as the game has passed him by.
Observe, soccer superstar Renaldo is lazy in defence; saving his explosive speed for best value
Gifted players like Narkle are rare and often frustrating.
Reliable hard working battlers like Atkins are common.
Good teams need a balance of both types.

Understand, every player has limitations, strengths and weaknesses.
Especially, don't write off youngsters too quickly... Zuthrie says G'Day.
Best judge by what a player delivers, offers and if he is improving.
Replace them only when a better player delivers more value.
Remember Jordan Clark? players leave when held back and unhappy.
 
Heckler said:
In Defense of Narkle.
When reviewing players performances the tendency here to pick faults.
Bemoaning a players desperation, fitness, skills and decisions
It comes from the anxiety and frustration of wanting success
If only he was, faster, taller, stronger, smarter... perfect

The wisdom of armchair experts is aided by hindsight and time.

Understand, every player has limitations, strengths and weaknesses.
Especially, don't write off youngsters too quickly... Zuthrie says G'Day.
Best judge by what a player delivers, offers and if he is improving.
Replace them only when a better player delivers more value.
Remember Jordan Clark? players leave when held back and unhappy.
Click to expand...
Narkle could have left any time he liked over the past two trade periods. Just no meaningful interest from any other club in him, I'm afraid.

So it appears that the list management teams at all 17 other clubs are as much in your 'armchair expert' category as some of us here.
 
Heckler said:
In Defense of Narkle.
When reviewing players performances the tendency here to pick faults.
Bemoaning a players desperation, fitness, skills and decisions
It comes from the anxiety and frustration of wanting success
If only he was, faster, taller, stronger, smarter... perfect

The wisdom of armchair experts is aided by hindsight and time.
Just like tribunal by slow-mo vision distorts the blink speed of reality
So too, judging a player against an imaginary ideal distorts reality.
Sure some things can appear optically bad, often made worse by camera angles.
These actions will be scrutinized and misinterpreted by amateur body language decoders.
Narkle is quickly labeled lazy for not chasing a faster opponent he will not catch.
Falsely compared effort to his short burst of evasive speed with the ball in hand.
Menegola looked lazy, only jogging when chasing a fleet footed Tiger in the 2020 GF
Selwood v Pies was caught jogging, conceding a free kick, 50m and easy goal.
Trust that every player taking the field is trying their best
Dahlhaus always gives his best, but is now too slow, as the game has passed him by.
Observe, soccer superstar Renaldo is lazy in defence; saving his explosive speed for best value
Gifted players like Narkle are rare and often frustrating.
Reliable hard working battlers like Atkins are common.
Good teams need a balance of both types.

Understand, every player has limitations, strengths and weaknesses.
Especially, don't write off youngsters too quickly... Zuthrie says G'Day.
Best judge by what a player delivers, offers and if he is improving.
Replace them only when a better player delivers more value.
Remember Jordan Clark? players leave when held back and unhappy.
Click to expand...

You say that Narkle gets labelled lazy for not chasing a faster opponent - sorry but that's laughable:
  • Narkle isn't slow himself, as often shown when we're in an offensive position and we see the speed he has to offer in an attacking position
  • Narkle gets labelled lazy for being selective when he applies himself during matches, and this was even called out by Brad Johnson during Saturday's clash with GWS. It's not something only noticed by "armchair experts", but by those who've had involvement with the club over a number of years & are now calling it out

Narkle's first half on Saturday was lazy & he was an easy omission at that stage; his second half was a much improved effort and may have bought him a second week in the seniors depending on player availablity, but if he is omitted there's no one to blamed but himself


I would also question the description of Narkle as a "gifted player which is rare and often frustrating" - yes he has a skill set that not all on our list have, but we need to remember that he dropped to pick 60 in his draft year, which would suggest that if he's such a "gifted player" there's still some underlying concerns which should be factored in with clubs deciding to repeatedly pass on him. The other thing to take into in regards to his draft position - from 35 players drafted at pick 60, they have played an average of 37 matches, and Narkle is currently on 32 matches - so he's actually tracking on average for what's expected when a player is taken at such time of the draft
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Just on Dahl, I was at the ground for the first half, a bit of rain, fluctuating wind and direction. I was surprised to see him in the midfield but he got a lot of pressure possessions, he helped rally the team after they had a slow start, and as always, he put in the effort. I think his second half disposal count dropped and I don't want him first choice in the seniors, but he is a team man.
 
cats_09 said:
You say that Narkle gets labelled lazy for not chasing a faster opponent - sorry but that's laughable:
  • Narkle isn't slow himself, as often shown when we're in an offensive position and we see the speed he has to offer in an attacking position
  • Narkle gets labelled lazy for being selective when he applies himself during matches, and this was even called out by Brad Johnson during Saturday's clash with GWS. It's not something only noticed by "armchair experts", but by those who've had involvement with the club over a number of years & are now calling it out

Narkle's first half on Saturday was lazy & he was an easy omission at that stage; his second half was a much improved effort and may have bought him a second week in the seniors depending on player availablity, but if he is omitted there's no one to blamed but himself


I would also question the description of Narkle as a "gifted player which is rare and often frustrating" - yes he has a skill set that not all on our list have, but we need to remember that he dropped to pick 60 in his draft year, which would suggest that if he's such a "gifted player" there's still some underlying concerns which should be factored in with clubs deciding to repeatedly pass on him. The other thing to take into in regards to his draft position - from 35 players drafted at pick 60, they have played an average of 37 matches, and Narkle is currently on 32 matches - so he's actually tracking on average for what's expected when a player is taken at such time of the draft
Click to expand...
Exactly Narkle reminds me of Motlop someone who has talent but only ever tries when it suits him.

Mots is a perfect example look at the years when he was out of contract to see what he was capable of and look at what he did when he had a contract.

Now i am not saying Narkle is as talented as Mots but they have similar attitudes from my view.

Watch Atkins/Bews hell even Zuthrie apply themselves when most would agree that Narkle has more talent yet plays worse than all 3 most of the time.
 
Seeds said:
True. But thats not why you go for youth. Youth are potentially 12 plus year players if you know how to spot them. 27 year old mature players potential is only 6 years or less. 30 year old mature players potential is only 3-4 years or less. Its a math equation.

its why we currently have virtually no good players in their peak performance years between 22-28 And explains why we got run off our feet by the better teams in finals last year (and recent previous years)
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware that we couldn't just replace late pick 30 year old blow ins with more late pick 30 year old blow ins while investing the good picks in kids. Huge if true
 
CatToTheFuture said:
I wasn't aware that we couldn't just replace late pick 30 year old blow ins with more late pick 30 year old blow ins while investing the good picks in kids. Huge if true
Click to expand...
You can. Who said you couldnt.

many of our best drafted players over the last 25 years have come from those late second rounders and early third rounders though.
 
Seeds said:
You can. Who said you couldnt.

many of our best drafted players over the last 25 years have come from those late second rounders and early third rounders though.
Click to expand...
It was tongue in cheek on the basis that you're looking for a 12 year player in the back end of the draft. It's tremendously unlikely you find one there.

Note of you can sign 4x 30 year olds one after the other for nothing you have your 12 year player.

The reality is our needs case by case assessment. In my view i can think of only one f*** up in recent history and that's Higgins
 
Seeds said:
ps.as much as i love cameron the player. Exactly the sort of player i watch football for. He aint playing in a flag for us. He cost us three high draft picks and helped kept us up the ladder denying us further high picks. He is an xx for me.
Click to expand...
Agree. We thought we were better than we really were and chased the mirage. I like Cameron too, but 3 picks was too much...XX
 
cats_09 said:
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to hear more opinions on Mark's game. I know many on here had him bog as apparently did the coaches. My first impression after watching the match (on replay) was that it wasn't necessarily his best. I mean he competed well in the ruck all day under trying circumstances and was in the right places around the ground at the right times defensively as he often does. I didn't think that he was very damaging with his possessions though. Especially his clearances which almost always went to the opposition. Looking at the coaches votes though, I feel like he probably played a very clever tactical role. While I was getting frustrated with him bombing it haphazardly out of the centre every time rather than looking for players on the outside, I wonder if that was part of the plan. He was probably told to make his presence felt at ground level in the centre and get the ball forward as quickly as possible - then get organised behind the ball to win back the interception. He's definitely a coaches favourite for a reason and having a stellar season so far. I'm really glad they haven't just shoved him back to FB to cover over our key defensive frailties. I said it before the season started that I thought that would be a reactive move.
 
CatToTheFuture said:
Well we got back 2 so it was really only one of you count them that way
Click to expand...
Some people including the media completely stuff up wat was actually got and given in trades.

Example 1 Cameron trade most think we gave up 3 picks but ignore the ones we got back
Example 2 Tuohy trade was really just a downgrade of picks
Example 3 Ablett trade same as the above trade if i remember correctly
 
standupand said:
I'd be interested to hear more opinions on Mark's game. I know many on here had him bog as apparently did the coaches. My first impression after watching the match (on replay) was that it wasn't necessarily his best. I mean he competed well in the ruck all day under trying circumstances and was in the right places around the ground at the right times defensively as he often does. I didn't think that he was very damaging with his possessions though. Especially his clearances which almost always went to the opposition. Looking at the coaches votes though, I feel like he probably played a very clever tactical role. While I was getting frustrated with him bombing it haphazardly out of the centre every time rather than looking for players on the outside, I wonder if that was part of the plan. He was probably told to make his presence felt at ground level in the centre and get the ball forward as quickly as possible - then get organised behind the ball to win back the interception. He's definitely a coaches favourite for a reason and having a stellar season so far. I'm really glad they haven't just shoved him back to FB to cover over our key defensive frailties. I said it before the season started that I thought that would be a reactive move.
Click to expand...
He led the match for clearances

I'm not sure what I can add to that
 
Gunf said:
Some people including the media completely stuff up wat was actually got and given in trades.

Example 1 Cameron trade most think we gave up 3 picks but ignore the ones we got back
Example 2 Tuohy trade was really just a downgrade of picks
Example 3 Ablett trade same as the above trade if i remember correctly
Click to expand...
I used to love it when people said that we gave up a first round pick for Ablett.

Narrator: they did not
 
standupand said:
I'd be interested to hear more opinions on Mark's game. I know many on here had him bog as apparently did the coaches. My first impression after watching the match (on replay) was that it wasn't necessarily his best. I mean he competed well in the ruck all day under trying circumstances and was in the right places around the ground at the right times defensively as he often does. I didn't think that he was very damaging with his possessions though. Especially his clearances which almost always went to the opposition. Looking at the coaches votes though, I feel like he probably played a very clever tactical role. While I was getting frustrated with him bombing it haphazardly out of the centre every time rather than looking for players on the outside, I wonder if that was part of the plan. He was probably told to make his presence felt at ground level in the centre and get the ball forward as quickly as possible - then get organised behind the ball to win back the interception. He's definitely a coaches favourite for a reason and having a stellar season so far. I'm really glad they haven't just shoved him back to FB to cover over our key defensive frailties. I said it before the season started that I thought that would be a reactive move.
Click to expand...
He was easily best on ground for me

Clearances , drifted to defence to help , acted as an extra link tall player between the arcs , not to mention his work in the ruck , Worked off his direct opponent multiple times to give an option out of defence etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dazbroncos
Review Cats down Blues by 13 points.
25 26 27 28 29
Replies
712
Views
14K
Commando
Commando
dazbroncos
Review Cats demolish North by 75 points.
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
321
Views
8K
Generalissimo
G
dazbroncos
Review Cats defeat Crows by 19 at AO
17 18 19 20 21
Replies
507
Views
15K
kcattatac
K
dazbroncos
Review Cats drown Hawks by 36 points in Tommas 350
23 24 25 26 27
Replies
663
Views
16K
Sttew
Sttew
dazbroncos
Review Cats down Doggies by 4 points to go 4-0
15 16 17 18 19
Replies
473
Views
13K
Generalissimo
G
dazbroncos
Review Cats turn Lions into wet pussies at the Gabba by 26 points
18 19 20 21 22
Replies
549
Views
14K
Lana
Lana
The rabbi
Injury 2024 Season Geelong Cats Injury Thread
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
216
Views
11K
Commando
Commando

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top