Review R1: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly vs. Collingwood

[Mutineer]

Early days for McAndrew yet. We'll know more after a few weeks of him coming up against AFL quality ruckmen. English will be good test.
As far as his Sydney delisting goes, talls take time to hit their straps.

Ruck rules changes is basically the only reason all of a sudden McAndrew became a viable AFL ruckman. Height and/or leap are now king not so much body strength and brawn.

 

[AFC979810]

But why send him in there at all when you say ruck work and clearances don’t matter? Why not leave him up forward to kick goals and put someone else in there?

You need a ruckman. I have said that many many times. I have referenced the Essendon final of 2009 many times. Just someone who is competitive.

TT is over 200cm and has shown he can handle a small amount of ruck duties whilst still being an AA forward and kicking 60+ goals.

Here are my points - for the 1,000th time:

You need a ruckman - you can't go in with Trent Ormand Allen.

It doesn't really matter how good they are. Clearances aren't that important. That being said, despite the fact they are the least important position on the ground - if you can have a better one at a minimal salary hit thats better than having a shit one. That position also stands for boot studders, assistant to the assistant coaches, etc.

And for the final time you absolute brick head.

If we play TT in the ruck for 10 times a game - we can avoid playing an absolute potato like Toby Murray (who sits his ass on the bench for 68% of the game and hurts his back thats how long he was sitting) and get another runner in the game. The injury risk of playing TT in the ruck is almost 0. If that is too much for you or Nicksy - then throw Tex, or Fog, or Murray, or Butts in there. Thats my position.

You don’t care if we lose clearances.

Why wont you respond to my Collingwood argument.

We are 2-0 when we dont win clearances against Collingwood.

We are 0-2 when we don't lose clearances to Collingwood.

How important are clearances in that matchup and why would we have lost by more if we lost the clearances in the final?

 

[Velvet George]

Tbf he has said you need a ruckman just not a quality one which is why he’s fine with Rob.
I disagree and think a quality ruckman is an advantage to the team and midfield.

He’s also said clearances don’t matter, so if they don’t, why not choose another player and give up the clearances?

 

[AFC979810]

Tbf he has said you need a ruckman just not a quality one which is why he’s fine with Rob.
I disagree and think a quality ruckman is an advantage to the team and midfield.

You had me nodding in the first half....

 

[AFC979810]

He’s also said clearances don’t matter, so if they don’t, why not choose another player and give up the clearances?

And this is why you suck George.

Rather than discuss the actual argument (the importance of rucks) you lock in one statement as your whole argument to the exclusion of the actual argument.

I have clarified my position - you and your boomer friends suck.

P.S Answer my Collingwood question you keep avoiding.

 

[Velvet George]

You need a ruckman. I have said that many many times. I have referenced the Essendon final of 2009 many times. Just someone who is competitive.

TT is over 200cm and has shown he can handle a small amount of ruck duties whilst still being an AA forward and kicking 60+ goals.

Here are my points - for the 1,000th time:

You need a ruckman - you can't go in with Trent Ormand Allen.

It doesn't really matter how good they are. Clearances aren't that important. That being said, despite the fact they are the least important position on the ground - if you can have a better one at a minimal salary hit thats better than having a shit one. That position also stands for boot studders, assistant to the assistant coaches, etc.

And for the final time you absolute brick head.

If we play TT in the ruck for 10 times a game - we can avoid playing an absolute potato like Toby Murray (who sits his ass on the bench for 68% of the game and hurts his back thats how long he was sitting) and get another runner in the game. The injury risk of playing TT in the ruck is almost 0. If that is too much for you or Nicksy - then throw Tex, or Fog, or Murray, or Butts in there. Thats my position.





Why wont you respond to my Collingwood argument.

We are 2-0 when we dont win clearances against Collingwood.

We are 0-2 when we lose clearances to Collingwood.

How important are clearances in that matchup and why would we have lost by more if we lost the clearances in the final?

Someone seems to be getting a bit worked up and it’s because I’m showing the contradiction in your opinions.

Clearances don’t matter
We need to play TT in the ruck and not another player even though clearances don’t matter.

2-0 when we don’t win clearances, now you’re having a laugh. We were level with clearances with Collingwood, they didn’t beat us and we won centre clearances 16-9. Worrell was asked about this during the week and he said how good it was because it meant we weren’t immediately under the pump and the ball went up the other end. We had 3 points from centre clearance work with Pedlar, Ah Chee and can’t remember the third missing gettable goals.

We beat Collingwood with Murray playing limited game time despite your 50 posts before the game saying how bad a decision it was.

 

[Velvet George]

And this is why you suck George.

Rather than discuss the actual argument (the importance of rucks) you lock in one statement as your whole argument to the exclusion of the actual argument.

I have clarified my position - you and your boomer friends suck.

P.S Answer my Collingwood question you keep avoiding.

You mean your bullshit question? I just did.

You think I suck because I don’t swallow your bullshit and that’s why you’re getting worked up.

You need a ruck to win clearances. If you don’t believe clearances matter, which you don’t, then who cares who rucks? Get someone else besides TT.

And I’m not a boomer and even if I was, so what, you have a problem with older people?

 

[AFC979810]

Someone seems to be getting a bit worked up and it’s because I’m showing the contradiction in your opinions.

Not worked up. Just discussing footy old mate.

Clearances don’t matter

Not really. Like our games against Collingwood. The team that wins the clearances doesn't win the game. Far more important aspects of our game.

We need to play TT in the ruck and not another player even though clearances don’t matter.

What dribble. You have lost the plot. I have said a thousand times - we can spell our ruckman with TT, Tex, Murray, Butts and thats better than wasting a position on a guy who will do the same thing but sit on the bench for 68% of the game.

2-0 when we don’t win clearances, now you’re having a laugh.

Its correct. Lets look at the actual facts:

Rd 10 - 2025. We win clearances 39-29 and lose by 10 points.
Rd 23 - 2025. We lose clearances 52-38 and win by 3 points.
Finals 2025. We win clearances 35-33 and lose by 24 points.
Rd 1 2026. We draw even on clearances and win by 14 points.

From these 4 games your conclusion is that clearances really matter and that if we didnt win the clearances in the finals we would have lost by more. Impressive.

 

[AFC979810]

We beat Collingwood with Murray playing limited game time despite your 50 posts before the game saying how bad a decision it was.

We also beat Collingwood with Murphy in the team. Do you support playing him in Rd 23 even though we won?

Do you realize how stupid that is. Nope - you don't.

We won a grand final with Ben Marsh in the team. Jeez - you are terrible at this.

But you will most likely try and spin out of yet another shit opinion because thats what you do.

 

[cmndstab]

Didn't McAndrew outruck Rob in the early stages of 2025 pre season? Under the old rules. Rob wore him down but he has had 2 pre seasons since then.

McAndrew was always marginally better than ROB at centre clearances and worse than ROB at other stoppages. He was always better with his skills but worse in terms of endurance. All of those are the same now except for centre clearances where, under the new rules, McAndrew is light years ahead of ROB.

I'm sure McAndrew has improved marginally since last year, but it's fair to say that the rule changes are the primary reason why McAndrew was not considered a superior option to ROB last year, but is now.

 

[moogerfooger]

We are 2-0 when we dont win clearances against Collingwood.

We are 0-2 when we lose clearances to Collingwood.

?

 

[AFC979810]

?

My bad. Adjusted.

We are 2-0 when we dont win clearances against Collingwood.

We are 0-2 when we don't lose clearances to Collingwood.

 

[Golumless]

Ha ha ha - I know. Just playing the villain.



I thought he shouldn't have been selected, was bad on the night and should be dropped this week.

I was really surprised that he was ranked 427 out of 431 players this season. Does anyone know where Wheelio get their rankings from?

It's AFL rating points for each match. It does seem to really punish missed shots and bad turnovers for the most part, though I'm going to guess the dropped mark pushed Toby into the negatives.

 

[AFC979810]

It's AFL rating points for each match. It does seem to really punish missed shots and bad turnovers for the most part, though I'm going to guess the dropped mark pushed Toby into the negatives.

I have zero idea! Just want to re-affirm that I only posted it because it supported my position on Murray and Bond having shit games and suggesting they should be dropped.

I dont think it's a great system. A player that had 9 shots on goal is the worst ranked player out of 431 doesn't make sense. He at least scored 19 points by himself which is more than a lot of players in the league (looking at you potato Toby Murray).

 

[Velvet George]

Not worked up. Just discussing footy old mate.



Not really. Like our games against Collingwood. The team that wins the clearances doesn't win the game. Far more important aspects of our game.



What dribble. You have lost the plot. I have said a thousand times - we can spell our ruckman with TT, Tex, Murray, Butts and thats better than wasting a position on a guy who will do the same thing but sit on the bench for 68% of the game.



Its correct. Lets look at the actual facts:

Rd 10 - 2025. We win clearances 39-29 and lose by 10 points.
Rd 23 - 2025. We lose clearances 52-38 and win by 3 points.
Finals 2025. We win clearances 35-33 and lose by 24 points.
Rd 1 2026. We draw even on clearances and win by 14 points.

From these 4 games your conclusion is that clearances really matter and that if we didnt win the clearances in the finals we would have lost by more. Impressive.

Yeah not worked up:

You suck
You’re thick
Thick as a brick
Boomers suck

So clearances don’t matter according to you and yet you want TT our best forward playing ruck, yep, makes sense every time you post it

 

[AFC979810]

McAndrew was always marginally better than ROB at centre clearances and worse than ROB at other stoppages. He was always better with his skills but worse in terms of endurance. All of those are the same now except for centre clearances where, under the new rules, McAndrew is light years ahead of ROB.

I'm sure McAndrew has improved marginally since last year, but it's fair to say that the rule changes are the primary reason why McAndrew was not considered a superior option to ROB last year, but is now.

I am not so sure.

It feels like Ruckman 'click' a little more than regular positions. I mean look at Carlton - in 2010 their ruck stocks contained Warnock, Jacobs, Hampson, Krueger, O'hailpin and Casboult.

They kept 5 of em and let the only future All Australian walk.

The fact that Sydney let McAndrew walk means nothing. I said in previous posts (that old mate Bicks wont respond to) that they chose to keep Callum Sinclair as their number one ruck and trade Darcy Cameron for a pick in the 50's. Ruckman take time to develop (which is why it makes sense to poach them rather than draft em).

Ruckman take time. Poach em - don't try to develop em.

 

[Golumless]

I have zero idea! Just want to re-affirm that I only posted it because it supported my position on Murray and Bond having shit games and suggesting they should be dropped.

I dont think it's a great system. A player that had 9 shots on goal is the worst ranked player out of 431 doesn't make sense. He at least scored 19 points by himself which is more than a lot of players in the league (looking at you potato Toby Murray).

I disagree, that one does. Too many games are decided by one team taking their chances that you have to punish it when it doesn't happen. Flicking through the pdf it seemingly uses a primitive xscore kind of system that it rates the end product against the shot distance (i.e. missing a shot from 15 m out is more punishing then 60 m). It does this with field kicking as well by judging if it has improved their sides chances of scoring (and in Bond's case, I imagine that turnover in the 2nd did a serious number to his rating).

In terms of rating, it's fine. Occasionally it overrates certain positions (and pure shutdown defenders get smashed in it, though to be fair, I can't think of a rating system that represents them properly without ****ing it up for others), or will spit out outliers in a game-by-game sense but over a season it generates the results you mostly expect it to produce.

 

[AFC979810]

Yeah not worked up:

You suck
You’re thick
Thick as a brick
Boomers suck

These are all true.

So clearances don’t matter according to you and yet you want TT our best forward playing ruck, yep, makes sense every time you post it

Explain our matchups against Collingwood with regards to clearances.

Answer this George please - You have not answered it directly.

In the last 4 games vs Collingwood- we lose the two games we win the clearances.

We win the 2 games we don't win the clearances. Yet you argue that in the final we would have lost by more if we if we didnt win the clearances...

And yes - for the millionth time. We should play TT for a very small amount of time in the ruck because the risk of injury is minimal and we dont waste playing a potato like Tmurray. Seems very logical.

 

[beartoo]

He had 4 pre-seasons before then too, at Sydney.

The AFC showed no inclination to pick him ahead of ROB in 2025, and there are precisely zero reasons to think that would have changed in 2026 without the AFL's changes to the ruck rules.

Except that McAndrew may have still been developing as a ruckman. I accept that the new rules favour McA, but maybe there's more to it than that.

 

[AFC979810]

I disagree, that one does. Too many games are decided by one team taking their chances that you have to punish it when it doesn't happen. Flicking through the pdf it seemingly uses a primitive xscore kind of system that it rates the end product against the shot distance (i.e. missing a shot from 15 m out is more punishing then 60 m). It does this with field kicking as well by judging if it has improved their sides chances of scoring (and in Bond's case, I imagine that turnover in the 2nd did a serious number to his rating).

In terms of rating, it's fine. Occasionally it overrates certain positions (and pure shutdown defenders get smashed in it, though to be fair, I can't think of a rating system that represents them properly without ****ing it up for others), or will spit out outliers in a game-by-game sense but over a season it generates the results you mostly expect it to produce.

I guess my issue is who was worse?

Toby Murray or Lynch?

Lynch at least contributed over 25% of his teams points. Murray sat on his ass hurting his back for 68% of the game. When he got on he had a 5 meter kick and a handball to Pendlebury that cost us an I50. He also dropped an easy mark that the turnover cost us a goal.

Lynch still kicked 2 goals. Murray had 2 possessions (and one was a direct handball to the opposition that resulted in anI50). Thats why I struggle with that rating system.

 

[AFC979810]

Except that McAndrew may have still been developing as a ruckman. I accept that the new rules favour McA, but maybe there's more to it than that.

And there were the whispers in pre season last year that McAndrew was having a good preseason against ROB.

The usual boomers were complaining about how bad our rucks were because McAndrew was playing well against Rob in the preseason last year but then the regular season happened. (ROB was 10th in our B&F for a team that won 18 games and shut up the ones with half a brain).

Another year of development for McAndrew and he doesn't look too bad. The price is right and as long as he can break even in the ruck we are way ahead with our style of footy.

 

[Velvet George]

These are all true.



Explain our matchups against Collingwood with regards to clearances.

Answer this George please - You have not answered it directly.

In the last 4 games vs Collingwood- we lose the two games we win the clearances.

We win the 2 games we don't win the clearances. Yet you argue that in the final we would have lost by more if we if we didnt win the clearances...

And yes - for the millionth time. We should play TT for a very small amount of time in the ruck because the risk of injury is minimal and we dont waste playing a potato like Tmurray. Seems very logical.

All are true according to one angry man. Very interested in your last one though, so you reckon old people suck, that’s not very nice.

Clearances are one part of the game, I never said they were the only factor which determined the game. The game that we won last year for example, despite losing clearances our defence held up against a barrage of inside 50s, that’s not sustainable, everyone knows that.

In the final we won clearances by a paltry 2, that’s basically breaking even. We lost because we couldn’t move the ball and when we did, we kicked it to Moore.

Only a simpleton would define wins and losses were dependent on one stat in a game of football.

Why you ignoring Worrells comments this week about clearances?

It’s not just a choice between TT and Murray, for the millionth time, if clearances weren’t important, it doesn’t matter who we put in there for a very small amount of time.

 

[FR0GGY]

These are all true.



Explain our matchups against Collingwood with regards to clearances.

Answer this George please - You have not answered it directly.

In the last 4 games vs Collingwood- we lose the two games we win the clearances.

We win the 2 games we don't win the clearances. Yet you argue that in the final we would have lost by more if we if we didnt win the clearances...

You don’t think any team would have a better chance of scoring with a direct clearance each time rather than risking it being cleared by the opposition?
Theres obviously clearances and there’s clearances but give me winning the clearance each time than losing it.

 

[Golumless]

I guess my issue is who was worse?

Toby Murray or Lynch?

Lynch at least contributed over 25% of his teams points. Murray sat on his ass hurting his back for 68% of the game. When he got on he had a 5 meter kick and a handball to Pendlebury that cost us an I50. He also dropped an easy mark that the turnover cost us a goal.

Lynch still kicked 2 goals. Murray had 2 possessions (and one was a direct handball to the opposition that resulted in anI50). Thats why I struggle with that rating system.

Problem is, Lynch wasted the equivalent of 16.5 points that game compared to what he was expected to score from the opportunities he generated. In a game as defined by momentum (and one where there are only a finite amount of chances), that is back breaking. This type of poor skill-execution costs game, as it did on the weekend.

Murray just wasn't there and those ratings reflect that. One or two poor bits of skill execution (and the rating system wouldn't punished the dropped mark too heavily as it is in the forward 50, i.e. Adelaide should have been able to defend that), a couple of hitouts/tackles to counteract it and that's about it. Can't be that much of negative if you don't get involved because reality is, if it's not you, someone else will pick up that slack (and worth noting, Adelaide had the 4th highest disposal count in the round and beat Collingwood by 20).

 

[AFC979810]

All are true according to one angry man. Very interested in your last one though, so you reckon old people suck, that’s not very nice.

I dont think ever claimed to be nice...

Clearances are one part of the game, I never said they were the only factor which determined the game. The game that we won last year for example, despite losing clearances our defence held up against a barrage of inside 50s, that’s not sustainable, everyone knows that.

In the final we won clearances by a paltry 2, that’s basically breaking even. We lost because we couldn’t move the ball and when we did, we kicked it to Moore.

Only a simpleton would define wins and losses were dependent on one stat in a game of football.

Nah - look at the big picture. Clearance stats are a relic.

Why you ignoring Worrells comments this week about clearances?

I ignore a lot of spin from players / coaches. You should do the same.

Remember your thoughts on Matty Wrights comments, Rory Sloane's comments? Do I need to go on?

Best you stop trying to apply what bullshit players say in press conferences to actual reality.

It’s not just a choice between TT and Murray, for the millionth time, if clearances weren’t important, it doesn’t matter who we put in there for a very small amount of time.

It does.

If I put your old ass in there vs TT it would matter a great deal. If we had McAndrew in there compared to Rankine it would matter.

Got to at least be competitive (for the millionth time - you simpleton).