Player Watch Charlie Dixon Part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Hellgood

Cancelled
10k Posts
May 21, 2006
10,084
8,713
WA
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Absolutely critical to us with his presence. Even when he's well checked by his man (and others), conditions are against him he's still there bullocking, crashing the packs and following up his work hunting down the short people who dare enter his zone.
 
Was noticeable that he was one of the only players on the ground that were one-grabbing it off the floor. Seriously good footballer.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

He is our best crumber, which is both amazing given his size and an indictment on our other forwards.

We need 3 of him.....

If only he could present for the mark at CHF, be front and centre for crumbing and then be leading out of FF.
 
With all due respect, you're having a bit of a laugh here, yeah?
Not when he is having such a poor marking day. He has some absolute shockers because he either has poor marking technique or needs to get his eyes checked. Its frustrating to watch a bloke gets his hands clean on it and under normal pressure, nothing special and drop absolute sitters. The other reason I said it is because we don't have and/or can't seem to train our small forwards to get in the right place for spilled marks and spoils. They are too worried about being in a position to create defensive pressure than get into a position to crumb and kick goals.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Not when he is having such a poor marking day. He has some absolute shockers because he either has poor marking technique or needs to get his eyes checked. Its frustrating to watch a bloke gets his hands clean on it and under normal pressure, nothing special and drop absolute sitters. The other reason I said it is because we don't have and/or can't seem to train our small forwards to get in the right place for spilled marks and spoils. They are too worried about being in a position to create defensive pressure than get into a position to crumb and kick goals.

If we are at a point where we are picking players in our forward line to do this we may as well just give Dixon a spell and play Lobbe at full forward.
 
If we are at a point where we are picking players in our forward line to do this we may as well just give Dixon a spell and play Lobbe at full forward.
Some of our games this year and our inside 50 entries we probably would have been more efficient doing that.
 
If our small forwards are confident that Charlie has the advantage going into a marking contest, they'll try to shark the spill.

If they don't, they'll get into a defensive position.

If we could free Charlie up more often and move the ball quickly to him, we'd have no issues here.
 
You don't tell your marquee marking tall forward not to try and mark the ball under any circumstances.

Also - unless you are Jackson Trengove. In which case just run around inside 50 and defend their defender.

Apparently.
 
Schulz would have been an excellent foil for him. Delisting Schulz and Butcher at the same time was a huge mistake. We should have tried to squeeze one more season out of Schulz if the alternative was playing Trengove as a KPF all season.

Or just play Howard. Schulz was done, just as Chad Cornes was done. As for Butcher.........*ducks for cover*....
 
Or just play Howard. Schulz was done, just as Chad Cornes was done. As for Butcher.........*ducks for cover*....

Howard was recovering from a knee. We started off playing Eddy but when we realised he wasn't fit enough we just played nobody.

Trying to squeeze a season out of Schulz was probably ideal, but even then you know i'll fight anyone to the death who tries to argue that Trengove has had a better season than Butcher would have had in the same role, even if Butcher had to ruck.

If Howard was fully fit, i'd have been fine with both of them being delisted, but we left ourselves a gaping hole that we haven't really filled at all and our forward structure has been s**t all year bar the 2nd half of the West Coast game at Subi.
 
Howard was recovering from a knee. We started off playing Eddy but when we realised he wasn't fit enough we just played nobody.
As soon as they decided Eddy wasn't fit enough, they should have said he had 'general soreness' as a 6-8 week injury and stuck him in a personalised pre-season to try and build some more base. He didn't need bulking up, so they could have concentrated on aerobic capacity. The only losers would have been the Magpies and really, for an Eddy that may have gotten up to in real consideration by this point in time, WTF cares about that?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top