AFL Player 1: Andrew "Pidge" McGrath (vc) - The skip we didn't know we needed

[Beerfish]

Contract Status: Unrestricted Free Agent 2030
My Boy Draft 2024: Pick 13, Vindicater

 

[boncer34]

10 years from now all that will be remembered from this horrendous final in Perth is how Nic Nac cried when his hair was pulled and how well Andy McGrath played in his first final.

Gun of a kid.

Why will people remember his game against Sydney coz of last night?

 

[windyhill]

Thank God for him on Thursday

 

[ant555]

Playing really well but is also part of the issues we have. Our best players are our worst offenders at turning the footy over. Has gone in the 50% range in a number of games this year. Now I am not suggesting we move him on or he is no good but if we are to take the next step our best players having to be going in the 70% to 80% range week in and week out. Going at 50% is not going to cut it long term. He has to return to his under 18 levels as far as disposal goes.

 

[boncer34]

Playing really well but is also part of the issues we have. Our best players are our worst offenders at turning the footy over. Has gone in the 50% range in a number of games this year. Now I am not suggesting we move him on or he is no good but if we are to take the next step our best players having to be going in the 70% to 80% range week in and week out. Going at 50% is not going to cut it long term. He has to return to his under 18 levels as far as disposal goes.

With all due respect unless I've missed some he did that twice this year. Once against the Blues, which incidentally he went at 90% next week v the Hawks, and once against the Dogs when everyone had a shit night.

He went at 70% for the season. McGrath's disposal is pretty good for a player his age, he'll slide it up as he gets more mature.

 

[ant555]

With all due respect unless I've missed some he did that twice this year. Once against the Blues, which incidentally he went at 90% next week v the Hawks, and once against the Dogs when everyone had a s**t night.

He went at 70% for the season. McGrath's disposal is pretty good for a player his age, he'll slide it up as he gets more mature.

With all due respect I am simply pointing out where he has to improve. Did not say he could not improve and in the under 18's he went at 80% plus most of the time. If we are to be a good side he has to be one of our better ball movers. Next year if he goes at 75% we are a better side. He was a critical draft selection for us and is a very good player. All I am saying is like everyone he has to be better for us to be better. He can not afford to be at 50% in big games going forward.

 

[boncer34]

With all due respect I am simply pointing out where he has to improve. Did not say he could not improve and in the under 18's he went at 80% plus most of the time. If we are to be a good side he has to be one of our better ball movers. Next year if he goes at 75% we are a better side. He was a critical draft selection for us and is a very good player. All I am saying is like everyone he has to be better for us to be better. He can not afford to be at 50% in big games going forward.

Yeah.

But he doesn't go at 50% in big games. I agree our main ball winners need to improve with ball in hand, but McGrath is low on the list of those that need to.

I mean I read "has gone 50% range in a number of games this year" and it reads to me like a massive problem.

But I counted twice. I think you've identified an issue the side faces but attributed it to the wrong player.

 

[afairgo]

Time for him to be more an inside mid in my view. Would be change from being a fill in across the backline/wing. Has incredible upside in my view. Calm, clear in disposal. Gets the ball from following up others mistakes so many times. Great leadership sense. Does not like losing - you will not catch him smiling after a loss. Between he and Parish they can build something in the inside, in a team that admittedly has a lack of inside strength. Needs to get comfortable tackling - that is an area of obvious weakness. (BTW they missed a good tackler inside the contests- Clarke or Smith - on Thursday).

 

[ant555]

Yeah.

But he doesn't go at 50% in big games. I agree our main ball winners need to improve with ball in hand, but McGrath is low on the list of those that need to.

I mean I read "has gone 50% range in a number of games this year" and it reads to me like a massive problem.

But I counted twice. I think you've identified an issue the side faces but attributed it to the wrong player.

Thursday was not a big game ?
Fine he does not need to improve and has played like Pendlebury did last night all season. Shit he should have been in the AA side.
The side has a problem yes. 70% for someone who was in the elite 80% range as an under 18 is an area to improve on.
Think you are getting tied up with semantics here.
I will say it again. If we are going to be a better side a player of his ability has to be at 75% to 80% most weeks. 70% is good but he is capable of better than good. Everyone has room for improvement.

 

[boncer34]

Thursday was not a big game ?

It was, and he didn't go in the 50% range did he? He went mid 70's. Smack bang in the range you identified as where our good players should be going:

but if we are to take the next step our best players having to be going in the 70% to 80% range week in and week out.

Fine he does not need to improve and has played like Pendlebury did last night all season. s**t he should have been in the AA side.

Weird, I've never said he shouldn't improve. Or that he's beyond criticism, simply that on the list of people we should be worried about improving their efficiency he's on the lower end.

The side has a problem yes. 70% for someone who was in the elite 80% range as an under 18 is an area to improve on.
Think you are getting tied up with semantics here.

Maybe I am but all I was pointing out was he hasn't hit 50% all that often like you said he was. Why are you allowed to say he went 50% range to often and that's perfectly ok, but me pointing out he didn't is "getting tied up with semantics"? Honestly, you're seemingly getting upset because I corrected one tiny portion of your post.

I will say it again. If we are going to be a better side a player of his ability has to be at 75% to 80% most weeks. 70% is good but he is capable of better than good. Everyone has room for improvement.

Well actually that's the first time you've said that, above you clearly said 70% which he hit and have now upped it to 75% which he hasn't hit and does need to improve to get too.

Ant I've never once said he doesn't need to improve but he's a 21 year old mid playing his 2nd season in the midfield. The improvement will come through natural progression. Its players like Merrett, Shiel, Heppell etc that need to find a way to lift more then McGrath.

And again, not disagreeing that he needs to improve, I was simply pointing something.

 

[DapperJong]

bored boncer

 

[ant555]

It was, and he didn't go in the 50% range did he? He went mid 70's. Smack bang in the range you identified as where our good players should be going:



Weird, I've never said he shouldn't improve. Or that he's beyond criticism, simply that on the list of people we should be worried about improving their efficiency he's on the lower end.


Maybe I am but all I was pointing out was he hasn't hit 50% all that often like you said he was. Why are you allowed to say he went 50% range to often and that's perfectly ok, but me pointing out he didn't is "getting tied up with semantics"? Honestly, you're seemingly getting upset because I corrected one tiny portion of your post.


Well actually that's the first time you've said that, above you clearly said 70% which he hit and have now upped it to 75% which he hasn't hit and does need to improve to get too.

Ant I've never once said he doesn't need to improve but he's a 21 year old mid playing his 2nd season in the midfield. The improvement will come through natural progression. Its players like Merrett, Shiel, Heppell etc that need to find a way to lift more then McGrath.

And again, not disagreeing that he needs to improve, I was simply pointing something.

I did say 75%.

"With all due respect I am simply pointing out where he has to improve. Did not say he could not improve and in the under 18's he went at 80% plus most of the time. If we are to be a good side he has to be one of our better ball movers. Next year if he goes at 75% we are a better side. He was a critical draft selection for us and is a very good player. All I am saying is like everyone he has to be better for us to be better. He can not afford to be at 50% in big games going forward."


My bad about Thursday . I was thinking about the Pies game when it was 57% and the difference in the game was Collingwood going at mid 70% in the midfield compared to us at around 60%. We lose by 10 . We win and we are not playing the reigning premiers in Perth.

The problem is yes you where pointing out something but the fact remains I am not wrong. Why is it when you say a young player needs to improve there is always a "yes but " comment. There should be no issue at all with me wanting our very good players to be even better. I have been even and said all of them need to find 5% to 10%.

Despite the semantics the truth is we need him to be at his best. If he is capable of playing at 80% plus in games then why should I not expect him to get better as he goes along ? Why do i need to be challenged on whether it is 2 50% games or 4 games under 65 % or 6 games under 70% when he has shown he can even go in to 90% plus. The simple fact is i said he can be better and never said he would not be able to achieve that.

The other thing is I am not upset despite throwing in a sarcastic line.
If I was upset I would have called you a ****wit.

 

[boncer34]

I did say 75%.

With all due respect I am simply pointing out where he has to improve. Did not say he could not improve and in the under 18's he went at 80% plus most of the time. If we are to be a good side he has to be one of our better ball movers. Next year if he goes at 75% we are a better side. He was a critical draft selection for us and is a very good player. All I am saying is like everyone he has to be better for us to be better. He can not afford to be at 50% in big games going forward.


My bad about Thursday . I was thinking about the Pies game when it was 57% and the difference in the game was Collingwood going at mid 70% in the midfield compared to us at around 60%. We lose by 10 . We win and we are not playing the reigning premiers in Perth.

The problem is yes you where pointing out something but the fact remains I am not wrong. Why is it when you say a young player needs to improve there is always a "yes but " comment. There should be no issue at all with me wanting our very good players to be even better. I have been even and said all of them need to find 5% to 10%.

Fair enough Ant. Missed the 75%, I was referring to your original range, my apologies.

I still think you're initial 50% stat was wrong but not worth polluting this thread for the next 3 pages since we're quite clearly on the same page about the main points.

 

[rumply]

Derm just anointed McGrath as the next Essendon Captain, reckons he should be appointed for next season & let Hepp concentrate on getting his body right.

Maybe he's ready, maybe he's not, stood up well in a final is a big tick.

 

[TonaldDrump]

Derm just anointed McGrath as the next Essendon Captain, reckons he should be appointed for next season & let Hepp concentrate on getting his body right.

Maybe he's ready, maybe he's not, stood up well in a final is a big tick.

Captaining next season is ridiculous. Heppell is still only 27 or 28.

Mcgrath isn't even good anyway. Would rather Taranto

 

[IggypopsTshirt]

Derm just anointed McGrath as the next Essendon Captain, reckons he should be appointed for next season & let Hepp concentrate on getting his body right.

Maybe he's ready, maybe he's not, stood up well in a final is a big tick.

Heard the show and they made some very good points regarding Essendon.

 

[citizen-erased]

Derm just anointed McGrath as the next Essendon Captain, reckons he should be appointed for next season & let Hepp concentrate on getting his body right.

Maybe he's ready, maybe he's not, stood up well in a final is a big tick.

Not wrong, but a touch early

I don't mind changing captains.
Merrett leading with a couple of VC's (one being McGrath, the other being either Hooker or Hurley).

His game Thursday night was promising to see.
Clean below his knees under WCE pressure.

Comparing his 3rd year to Merrett's, he's on track to be elite.

 

[blitzer]

Happy with McGrath's effort in the final but the calls for him to be captain are absolutely ridiculous its way too early. 25 is a young age to captain, McGrath is like 21. He's a good 4 years away. Heppell will and should continue to lead. Maybe Merrett will have a stint in there. I do see McGrath as a good future captain option though.

 

[IggypopsTshirt]

Our leadership group this year included Razzle, Daniher and Myers. We’ve explored the depths of stupidity when it comes to leaders at the club and we could (and have) do a hell of a lot worse than a bloke who’s effort is a non negotiable. And that’s a trait that’s seriously lacking from a large portion of our list.
Imagine the shift with a Voss or Mitchell type coaching and leaders such as McGrath, Smith, Stringer, Hooker setting the standard in the group. This years batch of leaders are more suited to starting a ****ing boy band.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Comparing his 3rd year to Merrett's, he's on track to be elite.

McGrath's third year wasn't a patch on Merrett's.

Andrew McGrath and Zachary Merrett AFL Stats Comparison

Andrew McGrath and Zachary Merrett AFL Stats Comparison.

www.footywire.com

 

[NAB777]

McGrath's third year wasn't a patch on Merrett's.

Andrew McGrath and Zachary Merrett AFL Stats Comparison

Andrew McGrath and Zachary Merrett AFL Stats Comparison.

www.footywire.com

Meters gained.....

McGrath is not going to be any sort of answer in the midfield whilst he kicks the way he does.

 

[Zach Package]

More penetration in his kicking will come with more meat on the bones.

I expect him to captain the club at some stage, but having said that I also expect Heppell to continue on for at least a couple of years

 

[NAB777]

More penetration in his kicking will come with more meat on the bones.

I expect him to captain the club at some stage, but having said that I also expect Heppell to continue on for at least a couple of years

Kicking penetration is all about timing & technique. That's why some 15 year olds who are 5'11 & 65kgs can kick it 50 with both feet.
McGrath's kicking issues are to do with his action/technique. He has come kinks that need ironing out.

 

[Cold Sober]

Let McGrath play football and make Merrett Captain, frees Hepps up to get his mind back on footy instead of 'The Brand'.

 

[blitzer]

Let McGrath play football and make Merrett Captain, frees Hepps up to get his mind back on footy instead of 'The Brand'.

What evidence is there that Heppell even needs 'freeing up' . He was close to our best in the final despite struggling with his foot injury which will get fixed up post season. Other than the foot issue I don't see that Heppell has any major issues. In fact out of leaders he was one of the few that actually stood up and played well, most of the rest were disappointing.

 

[boncer34]

Meters gained.....

Is only a metre-ish more per possession. Not massive.