Opinion 10 Burning Questions (Thursday 15th FINAL QUESTION)

[Vdubs]

you are not

Easily the majority.

 

[you pick one]

The majority here would have kept Kersten and Mitch Brown,I take no f--king notice of others opinion of Geelong players on this board.Most tend to over rate and those who under rate have trouble with their ego in acknowledging improvement in players they have baged.

 

[Partridge]

Always looking at ways to improve though; aren't they all?
Do you seriously suggest that if we put Blic out for trade, there would be very little interest?
I would suggest the opposite.
Anyway, so far, the MC seems to agree that he has some value for us.

Maybe. There are a lot of teams. Plenty of them average. I would definitely suggest he may lose his golden ticket at the selection table if he went to a club without Chris Scott coaching.

It comes back to the same questions - what is he, and what does he offer?

Is he a ruckman? He averages less than 10 hitouts a game over his entire career. He averaged 6 hitouts a game last season.

So he's a midfielder then? He averaged 16 touches a game last year. Nowhere near enough. He doesn't get enough of it, he's indecisive with it, and he doesn't hurt the opposition.

So, he must be a tagger? In that case it would have been nice if he could have helped stop the midfields of Richmond and Adelaide. He got 12 touches in each game while their midfields murdered us. I do remember him being unable to tackle the mighty Shane Edwards however. To put it mildly, for someone with over 100 games now, and no danger of ever being dropped, that is nowhere near good enough.

And I'm not sure the amount of potential interest a player might attract should be used as justification for keeping them entrenched in the team when the output is so poor.

 

[Partridge]

Q8. ARE OUR STRUGGLES AWAY FROM KP OVERBLOWN OR CAUSE FOR GENUINE CONCERN?

Somewhere in between. I do think it papers over some cracks that grow to gaping chasms in September.

 

[ATSAM]

Maybe. There are a lot of teams. Plenty of them average. I would definitely suggest he may lose his golden ticket at the selection table if he went to a club without Chris Scott coaching.

It comes back to the same questions - what is he, and what does he offer?

Is he a ruckman? He averages less than 10 hitouts a game over his entire career. He averaged 6 hitouts a game last season.

So he's a midfielder then? He averaged 16 touches a game last year. Nowhere near enough. He doesn't get enough of it, he's indecisive with it, and he doesn't hurt the opposition.

So, he must be a tagger? In that case it would have been nice if he could have helped stop the midfields of Richmond and Adelaide. He got 12 touches in each game while their midfields murdered us. I do remember him being unable to tackle the mighty Shane Edwards however. To put it mildly, for someone with over 100 games now, and no danger of ever being dropped, that is nowhere near good enough.

And I'm not sure the amount of potential interest a player might attract should be used as justification for keeping them entrenched in the team when the output is so poor.

Problem is that Scott hasn't found a consistent spot for him since 3rd man up went. Problem is that Scott thinks players can play anywhere and everywhere and therefore they don't become experts in a position, role or line-up.

 

[Partridge]

Problem is that Scott hasn't found a consistent spot for him since 3rd man up went. Problem is that Scott thinks players can play anywhere and everywhere and therefore they don't become experts in a position, role or line-up.

Tom Hawkins has somehow overcome this liability to play one position quite well.

 

[Turbocat]

Q8. ARE OUR STRUGGLES AWAY FROM KP OVERBLOWN OR CAUSE FOR GENUINE CONCERN?

I think KP hides our deficiencies.. its a ground that is narrow and allows easy coverage of the fat side.

 

[Larry Donohue]

Q8. ARE OUR STRUGGLES AWAY FROM KP OVERBLOWN OR CAUSE FOR GENUINE CONCERN?

I think they are cause for growth.
We picked up kelly for a bit of pace and fogarty for forward pressure. Ithink with a more mobile defense, a more brilliant midfield (with gaz and kelly), and a forwardline able to keep the ball there with fogarty, mccarthy, cocky and the cram meister, some of that growth may show from early on

 

[Hello Kitty]

I think they are cause for growth.
We picked up kelly for a bit of pace and fogarty for forward pressure. Ithink with a more mobile defense, a more brilliant midfield (with gaz and kelly), and a forwardline able to keep the ball there with fogarty, mccarthy, cocky and the cram meister, some of that growth may show from early on

I like your thinking - such a proactive post

 

[you pick one]

I think they are cause for growth.
We picked up kelly for a bit of pace and fogarty for forward pressure. Ithink with a more mobile defense, a more brilliant midfield (with gaz and kelly), and a forwardline able to keep the ball there with fogarty, mccarthy, cocky and the cram meister, some of that growth may show from early on

Yep if the list stays healthy,we are in a better position to field a better balanced and quicker side,but up to the match committee to pick it of cause they might still prefer the taller slower out fit.

 

[Vdubs]

Maybe. There are a lot of teams. Plenty of them average. I would definitely suggest he may lose his golden ticket at the selection table if he went to a club without Chris Scott coaching.

It comes back to the same questions - what is he, and what does he offer?

Is he a ruckman? He averages less than 10 hitouts a game over his entire career. He averaged 6 hitouts a game last season.

So he's a midfielder then? He averaged 16 touches a game last year. Nowhere near enough. He doesn't get enough of it, he's indecisive with it, and he doesn't hurt the opposition.

So, he must be a tagger? In that case it would have been nice if he could have helped stop the midfields of Richmond and Adelaide. He got 12 touches in each game while their midfields murdered us. I do remember him being unable to tackle the mighty Shane Edwards however. To put it mildly, for someone with over 100 games now, and no danger of ever being dropped, that is nowhere near good enough.

And I'm not sure the amount of potential interest a player might attract should be used as justification for keeping them entrenched in the team when the output is so poor.

He is in part all of the above, when needed. Sure, he is not "elite" at any of those roles, but he can be relied upon every week to do a job
I don't know what he is, but we do know he can kick goals- a good shot at goal when he goes forward, he can play in the ruck, he can tag, he can play wing. I actually like that versatility. I don't expect him to be a star in any of those spots, but appreciate his ability to be spak-filla.

2017
Played 20 games
Ave 4 Marks a game (82)
Ave 16 Disposals a game (324)
Ave 5 Tackles a game (102)
Ave 6 Hitouts a game (121)
Ave 2 Inside 50's a game (40)
Ave 2 Clearances a game (40)
Ave 2.5 Clangers a game (50)
12 goals
That's a handy contribution by anyone's estimates- goals, hitouts, tackles....
He is , by definition, a UTILITY. We missed him after that Crows game, and yes, he struggled somewhat to regain that impact he was having.

 

[Landgraft]

Q8. ARE OUR STRUGGLES AWAY FROM KP OVERBLOWN OR CAUSE FOR GENUINE CONCERN?

Imo definitely overblown. All teams are worse away, to the point that the only team to win a final away from their home ground last year was WC v Port.

Sure we need to be better. The really good teams can take it on the road. But the extent to which so many treat this as a uniquely Geelong phenomenon is just silly.

 

[Larry Donohue]

Yep if the list stays healthy,we are in a better position to field a better balanced and quicker side,but up to the match committee to pick it of cause they might still prefer the taller slower out fit.

Please no

 

[Sttew]

Q8. ARE OUR STRUGGLES AWAY FROM KP OVERBLOWN OR CAUSE FOR GENUINE CONCERN?

If we are to be a genuine premiership threat then our inability win away is a matter of genuine concern.....maybe we kid ourselves about just how good we are. Afterall Geelong of 2007 - 2011 could win virtually anywhere.

 

[Willo_]

Problem is that Scott hasn't found a consistent spot for him since 3rd man up went. Problem is that Scott thinks players can play anywhere and everywhere and therefore they don't become experts in a position, role or line-up.

I think part of the problem is also trying to create a role for a player who simply may not be good enough in most positions... but who size and athletically wise is off the charts so should work somewhere

 

[Vdubs]

Q8. ARE OUR STRUGGLES AWAY FROM KP OVERBLOWN OR CAUSE FOR GENUINE CONCERN?

If we are to be a genuine premiership threat then our inability win away is a matter of genuine concern.....maybe we kid ourselves about just how good we are. After all Geelong of 2007 - 2011 could win virtually anywhere.

True on both points.

As I keep reading,
we have so many crap players- Stanley, Murdoch, Blicavs, GHS-
and then a host of young, developing players that will contribute inconsistently- Parsons, Parfitt, Z Guthrie, Simpson, Buzza-
and additionally , multiple frequently injured players- SS, McCarthy, Gregson, Menzel- that's 13 players already. What hope do we have with a bottom 13 like that?!

And our away performances are very iffy, highlighted as always, by the last game we played.
with no small forwards.


But, SERIOUSLY, we made top 4 again, with all those issues....

Overall, we are near the top because that's where we are at.
-Great home ground advantage.
-Superb match winners in Danger and now GAJ
-Excellent mids in Selwoods and Duncan
-Very good defenders in Taylor, Hendo, Bews, Kolo, Stewart
-Very good ruckman in Smith with good backup in Stanley and Blicavs
-A good powerforward in Hawkins with assistance from a very accurate Menzel
-And the rest, including a clever, respected, thorough coach.

That gives us a position anywhere from 1-10, dependent on injuries and luck.
If we were better AWAY, we would be a better team, not a team struggling with retirees who have left holes, and others not fulfilling potential, and others still developing. A bit of reality checking does not go astray. We are thereabouts, but we are far from the 07-11 combo. I am personally rapt that we are still in contention every year because it is very hard to patch up the holes, yet CS/MC is partly successful.

 

[catswhiskers]

Pulling Thurlow out of defense would be a mistake, he has everything we like in a defender, great a winning intercept possessions, great footskills. He looked lost when he was played up the ground. I just haven't seen enough of Cunico to back him in, reminds me of Cowan which is a good start.

Cunico is a far better kick than Cowan. In fact that's his strength. Bigger body too and stronger (with more to develop) than Cowan. So far no major injury to reduce his ceiling.

On the other hand his ball winning ability (based on VFL viewings) will need to improve if he is to get anywhere near Duncan.

 

[catswhiskers]

In the long run I am on the Parsons bandwagon for being that quality winger we need.

Playing as a defensive forward last year he showed:

He could get involved (obviously run out of puff tho at the back end on the season - but we had no other small forward ready/fit).
Creativity / sharp reaction times.
Pace.
Good kick.
A good defensive mindset / tackler.

Probably a year away from full time midfield role (needs more body) but I wouldn't be surprised if he steps right up.

 

[Willo_]

Q9. LOOKING BACK, WAS THE HARRY TAYLOR FORWARD EXPERIMENT A WORTHY VENTURE OR WASTE OF TIME?

you pick one

 

[catswhiskers]

Q9. LOOKING BACK, WAS THE HARRY TAYLOR FORWARD EXPERIMENT A WORTHY VENTURE OR WASTE OF TIME?

you pick one

Was never going to work.

Harry is one of the best intercept and one on one marks available in the AFL today. BUT marking as a forward is far different to marking as the defender. Most defenders when they go forward seem to surprised when a defender or two block their run or they get their arms chopped !

Harry lacked the pace and agility and gut running power the quality tall forwards have.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Q9. LOOKING BACK, WAS THE HARRY TAYLOR FORWARD EXPERIMENT A WORTHY VENTURE OR WASTE OF TIME?

you pick one

Absolutely worth it purely for the potential to succeed and the fact we had a tall and slow backline even without him down there.
Did it work? Partly. He contributed without staring (bar 1 or 2 games), probably kicked lesser goals than would have hoped and took a bit long to get going but it certainly wasn’t a failure.
I’m glad we have a club that tries left field ideas instead of sit on their hands and do nothing.

 

[Sttew]

Q9. LOOKING BACK, WAS THE HARRY TAYLOR FORWARD EXPERIMENT A WORTHY VENTURE OR WASTE OF TIME?
The move should have been done without any fanfare and on a needs basis. Instead, Harry carried the world on his shoulders because he was going to be the great white hope up forward.

22 goals is a fair to average return

 

[Turbocat]

Q9. LOOKING BACK, WAS THE HARRY TAYLOR FORWARD EXPERIMENT A WORTHY VENTURE OR WASTE OF TIME?

you pick one

I never liked , although he did gradually settle when having a setshot. True is he can play forward but he is just a forward..a switch hit type but is a great backman...

 

[you pick one]

Q9. LOOKING BACK, WAS THE HARRY TAYLOR FORWARD EXPERIMENT A WORTHY VENTURE OR WASTE OF TIME?

you pick one

I thought we might have had to discuss his Wayne Closter hair cut to get a gig in this prime spot.

 

[Vdubs]

Absolutely worth it purely for the potential to succeed and the fact we had a tall and slow backline even without him down there.
Did it work? Partly. He contributed without staring (bar 1 or 2 games), probably kicked lesser goals than would have hoped and took a bit long to get going but it certainly wasn’t a failure.
I’m glad we have a club that tries left field ideas instead of sit on their hands and do nothing.

perfect