2015 retirements

[FredLeDeux]

I tend to agree. Whilst his finishing with a goal on the run never diminished, his ability to stay on his feet, decision of knowing when to cover off in the press, have definitely declined.

Much like Kelly though, whilst getting some possessions, the clangers and turnovers are at bad times. So is being exploited by the opposition.

It's a wait and see on both this year, if both have another year like the last, I'm unsure whether they would be in our best anymore.

Overall, Kelly had a much better year than Mackie.
Which is not to say that he'll last past next season. However, his problem is the probable deterioration with age, and Mackie's is that his performance has already deteriorated.

 

[you pick one]

Overall, Kelly had a much better year than Mackie.
Which is not to say that he'll last past next season. However, his problem is the probable deterioration with age, and Mackie's is that his performance has already deteriorated.

Mackies end to the season was interesting,4 tackles total in the last 7 games none at all in the last 4,I'd rule out age 29/30 and motivation as 2 were finals,so injury(the club didn't tell us about),fitness or combination of both.I'll back him to be best 22 again this year but at the same time I hope some one can can start to push him for his spot.

 

[catempire]

Overall, Kelly had a much better year than Mackie.
Which is not to say that he'll last past next season. However, his problem is the probable deterioration with age, and Mackie's is that his performance has already deteriorated.

I reckon it's premature to say Mackie's has deteriorated (in a career view sense). He has been up and down most of his career and was AA only a year ago. I reckon he will bounce back.

Conversely, Kelly has been ultra consistent his whole career. He came off that level at the end of the 2014 so I won't dump him on that basis. He's under pressure to bounce back but there's no reason he can't.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Mackies end to the season was interesting,4 tackles total in the last 7 games none at all in the last 4,I'd rule out age 29/30 and motivation as 2 were finals,so injury(the club didn't tell us about),fitness or combination of both.I'll back him to be best 22 again this year but at the same time I hope some one can can start to push him for his spot.

Tackles are a pointless stat for defenders. A perfect day for a defender would be one in which he didn't have an opportunity to make a tackle.

 

[you pick one]

I reckon it's premature to say Mackie's has deteriorated (in a career view sense). He has been up and down most of his career and was AA only a year ago. I reckon he will bounce back.

Conversely, Kelly has been ultra consistent his whole career. He came off that level at the end of the 2014 so I won't dump him on that basis. He's under pressure to bounce back but there's no reason he can't.

Agree.
There are some on this board that think wrongly that players of the calibre of Mackie and Kelly grow on trees and it's only a matter of dumping them and putting 30 or 40 games into a kid on the list and re load,I wish it was that easy, we may have to try that with a dozen kids or more before we find their equal ,meanwhile why they are still best 22 they play and the wouldbe's will just have to work harder.

 

[you pick one]

Tackles are a pointless stat for defenders. A perfect day for a defender would be one in which he didn't have an opportunity to make a tackle.

Trouble with that is they were far from perfect days for anyone we lost 3 of those last 4 games.If it had been the other way around your point would be more valid.

 

[Partridge]

Agree.
There are some on this board that think wrongly that players of the calibre of Mackie and Kelly grow on trees and it's only a matter of dumping them and putting 30 or 40 games into a kid on the list and re load,I wish it was that easy, we may have to try that with a dozen kids or more before we find their equal ,meanwhile why they are still best 22 they play and the wouldbe's will just have to work harder.

And by that rationale you'd never drop any veteran - and Cameron Mooney certainly would not have been dropped for Hawkins in 2011.

They can proceed down that path, but every game a veteran on his last legs gets is a game a young player is not getting. Plus they won't be developing as many players because free agency solves everything now. Watch what happens in 2-3 years with that philosophy.

 

[catempire]

And by that rationale you'd never drop any veteran - and Cameron Mooney certainly would not have been dropped for Hawkins in 2011.

They can proceed down that path, but every game a veteran on his last legs gets is a game a young player is not getting. Plus they won't be developing as many players because free agency solves everything now. Watch what happens in 2-3 years with that philosophy.

Clearly there is a balance to be found.

There is a major opportunity to kill two birds by managing the game load of our older players and at the same time providing opportunities for younger players.

But as you pick one points out, this is not to say you toss players like Kelly and Mackie on the scrap heap in the name of giving young players games.

 

[you pick one]

And by that rationale you'd never drop any veteran - and Cameron Mooney certainly would not have been dropped for Hawkins in 2011.

They can proceed down that path, but every game a veteran on his last legs gets is a game a young player is not getting. Plus they won't be developing as many players because free agency solves everything now. Watch what happens in 2-3 years with that philosophy.

Hawkins was good enough to push Mooney out,If anyone is good enough this year to push out Kelly or Mackie then great,as far as 2 or 3 years goes we have already paddled against the flow of the AFL draft and expansion it won't be because we didn't put games into average kids.

 

[Partridge]

Hawkins was good enough to push Mooney out,If anyone is good enough this year to push out Kelly or Mackie then great,as far as 2 or 3 years goes we have already paddled against the flow of the AFL draft and expansion it won't be because we didn't put games into average kids.

No he wasn't. Not on exposed form. Prior to the game at the Gabba in Round 17, Hawkins had played 9 games that year, for returns of 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, and 0 goals. He'd kicked 21 goals from 18 games in 2010, as compared to Mooney's 2010 return of 36 goals from 21 games.

It's also fair to point out that Mooney's first 5 games of 2011 (prior to the Melbourne destruction) yielded no goals. But, he was still getting more of the ball, and taking more marks than Hawkins was. So while it's reasonable to say Mooney wasn't the same player, there's little justification for claiming that Hawkins pushed him out; he didn't. The difference was, the coach and match committee did what many seem to believe is unthinkable; they picked a younger player, who wasn't hammering the door down, stuck him in one position, and left him there.

 

[Partridge]

Clearly there is a balance to be found.

There is a major opportunity to kill two birds by managing the game load of our older players and at the same time providing opportunities for younger players.

But as you pick one points out, this is not to say you toss players like Kelly and Mackie on the scrap heap in the name of giving young players games.

It depends on what position and how the team balance is affected.

I'll give you a hypothetical. Let's say for Round 1 there are two players vying for spot number 22 - Kelly and Bews. If that position is for someone to play in the midfield, I'd pick Kelly (with reluctance, as I think he's in big trouble). If that position is for a small defender, I'd pick Bews 10 times out of 10. If that means by Kelly playing VFL, that he's on the scrap heap, tough.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Trouble with that is they were far from perfect days for anyone we lost 3 of those last 4 games.If it had been the other way around your point would be more valid.

It depends entirely on who he was playing on and whether there were specific instances where he missed tackles that should have stuck. Tackling has never been a feature of any of our defenders' games.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

It depends upon a combination of desire, injury, form, and club rebuilding decisions, all of which are impossible to predict.
However, I'm surprised that people are pushing out Mackie so far ahead.
Surely if he has another season as poor as last year, that's it.

With Enight certainly gone at the end of the year and Lonergan also being a reasonable chance to finish up, I would suggest that depends almost entirely on whether we have enough quality young talent to replace 2-3 champions. Players like Kolodjashnij and Delaney would have to make significant strides.

His position even this year is not even secure, given that the club's doing pufficles on Bews, and that (according to Stanley's manager Scott Lucas, anyway) Blicavs is also slotted for defence.

I don't see why it's impossible to fit them all in, as long as there's some sensible rotation of our veteran defenders (Enright, Taylor, Lonergan, Rivers, Mackie). If those five are rested for 3-4 games each throughout the season, that's about 15-20 additional games that can be distributed to younger players that are currently outside our nominal best 22, beyond the usual opportunities that they would get, due to injuries and players losing form.

 

[catempire]

It depends on what position and how the team balance is affected.

I'll give you a hypothetical. Let's say for Round 1 there are two players vying for spot number 22 - Kelly and Bews. If that position is for someone to play in the midfield, I'd pick Kelly (with reluctance, as I think he's in big trouble). If that position is for a small defender, I'd pick Bews 10 times out of 10. If that means by Kelly playing VFL, that he's on the scrap heap, tough.

In that hypothetical, hasn't Kelly won the midfield position on merit and Bews the defender position on merit? If so, what's the big deal?

I think the harder cases are things like how are we going to expose the likes of Kolo, Jansen and Lang to senior football? They are going to be hard pressed to oust the incumbents on form but clearly they are talented enough to be given a go. My view is they should be given a go and the best way to do this is through managing the game load of the players they would replace.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

No he wasn't. Not on exposed form. Prior to the game at the Gabba in Round 17, Hawkins had played 9 games that year, for returns of 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, and 0 goals. He'd kicked 21 goals from 18 games in 2010, as compared to Mooney's 2010 return of 36 goals from 21 games.

It's also fair to point out that Mooney's first 5 games of 2011 (prior to the Melbourne destruction) yielded no goals. But, he was still getting more of the ball, and taking more marks than Hawkins was. So while it's reasonable to say Mooney wasn't the same player, there's little justification for claiming that Hawkins pushed him out; he didn't. The difference was, the coach and match committee did what many seem to believe is unthinkable; they picked a younger player, who wasn't hammering the door down, stuck him in one position, and left him there.

I think it was still a genuine point of contention in the lead-up to the finals, even as Mooney was publicly saying during the season that he wasn't sure he'd be able to make it back. The beginning of the end was when Mooney got himself suspended in the third last home and away game, but even then the final nail for Mooney didn't come until Hawkins started to consistently produce in the final month of the season. I'm sure after the Sydney loss in Round 22, there would have been plenty that would have preferred to roll the dice with Mooney over Hawkins in September.

Hawkins didn't push Mooney out; he just started to hit form when Mooney was out of the team, so Mooney couldn't get back in. Since Mooney had kicked eight goals in the two training drills Geelong had prior to the Adelaide game, I wonder if they would have gone with Mooney over Hawkins, if he hadn't been suspended.

 

[you pick one]

It depends entirely on who he was playing on and whether there were specific instances where he missed tackles that should have stuck. Tackling has never been a feature of any of our defenders' games.

All fair points but it doesn't change the fact that he failed to lay a single tackle in his last 4 consecutive games, it's at least odd,he has had 4 games in a season and never 5 that he didn't lay a tackle so not being a huge part of his game for sure it's in his game to tackle.

 

[catempire]

I think it was still a genuine point of contention in the lead-up to the finals, even as Mooney was publicly saying during the season that he wasn't sure he'd be able to make it back. The beginning of the end was when Mooney got himself suspended in the third last home and away game, but even then the final nail for Mooney didn't come until Hawkins started to consistently produce in the final month of the season. I'm sure after the Sydney loss in Round 22, there would have been plenty that would have preferred to roll the dice with Mooney over Hawkins in September.

Hawkins didn't push Mooney out; he just started to hit form when Mooney was out of the team, so Mooney couldn't get back in. Since Mooney had kicked eight goals in the two training drills Geelong had prior to the Adelaide game, I wonder if they would have gone with Mooney over Hawkins, if he hadn't been suspended.

This is pretty much my recollection of it. After the dust had settled I recall Scott also saying it was pretty line ball and their policy in that situation is to go for the young player.

 

[Partridge]

In that hypothetical, hasn't Kelly won the midfield position on merit and Bews the defender position on merit? If so, what's the big deal?

I think the harder cases are things like how are we going to expose the likes of Kolo, Jansen and Lang to senior football? They are going to be hard pressed to oust the incumbents on form but clearly they are talented enough to be given a go. My view is they should be given a go and the best way to do this is through managing the game load of the players they would replace.

Because unless there are injuries I'm not sure Kelly gets a game in our best side. We're too old and too slow as it is. To me Bews both gets a game, and deserves more opportunities in our best defence. His only competition for that spot (young, small defender) is Guthrie and it's extremely unlikely that he'll be returning there. Kelly doesn't get either in our best midfield.

The bottom line to me is that people find it hard to accept that players get old, and eventually aren't able to justify their spot. Especially when they've contributed to winning premierships, we don't want to face reality.

 

[catempire]

Because unless there are injuries I'm not sure Kelly gets a game in our best side. We're too old and too slow as it is. To me Bews both gets a game, and deserves more opportunities in our best defence. His only competition for that spot (young, small defender) is Guthrie and it's extremely unlikely that he'll be returning there. Kelly doesn't get either in our best midfield.

The bottom line to me is that people find it hard to accept that players get old, and eventually aren't able to justify their spot. Especially when they've contributed to winning premierships, we don't want to face reality.

Again, if it's based on merit, what's the big deal? If Kelly is forced out because better players are deserving then I find it hard to believe that anyone will "find it hard to accept".

Where people are disagreeing is the view that Kelly will be forced out on form. Some people simply think that Kelly will have more to offer than others. Just because it's a different view to yours it doesn't mean it's not "facing reality".

 

[Cattery]

Because unless there are injuries I'm not sure Kelly gets a game in our best side. We're too old and too slow as it is. To me Bews both gets a game, and deserves more opportunities in our best defence. His only competition for that spot (young, small defender) is Guthrie and it's extremely unlikely that he'll be returning there. Kelly doesn't get either in our best midfield.

This is a (very rough) stab at our best lineup, just wondering who the other two players are that deserve a spot in there ahead of Kelly in your opinion.

Bews Lonners Rivers
Mackie Taylor Enright
Murdoch Duncan Guthrie
SJ Clark Motlop
Stokes Hawk Bartel
McIntosh Caddy Sel
2nd ruck? GHS

 

[you pick one]

Last 5 minutes of the Geelong v North Semi last year,I'd have killed for Pods and Chapman instead of Brown and McCarthy when we were coming back hard.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

This is a (very rough) stab at our best lineup, just wondering who the other two players are that deserve a spot in there ahead of Kelly in your opinion.

Bews Lonners Rivers
Mackie Taylor Enright
Murdoch Duncan Guthrie
SJ Clark Motlop
Stokes Hawk Bartel
McIntosh Caddy Sel
2nd ruck? GHS

Blicavs has basically been a best 22 player since his debut and I see no reason why that would change now, whether he's playing as the second ruckman, or a key defender. Somehow, they should be trying to get Stanley in as well, as the pick we coughed up for him seems a hefty price for a guy in his mid-20s who isn't even in the best 22. I think another quick small forward that can genuinely crumb goals is needed in that lineup and I guess we'll see who (if anyone) emerges from Smedts, Blease and a few of the younger players that have played five or less senior games. I think Kersten should be gearing up for a big second year of senior football and Thurlow should be expecting to play in the AFL team on a weekly basis as well.

I'm not sure I'd have Kelly out of the senior team, having said all that (I think he'll provide some valuable toughness in the middle), but hopefully he (and everyone else) will have to play at a high level consistently to keep getting selected.

 

[Partridge]

Where people are disagreeing is the view that Kelly will be forced out on form. Some people simply think that Kelly will have more to offer than others. Just because it's a different view to yours it doesn't mean it's not "facing reality".

Never said it wasn't. Read what I wrote.

 

[Partridge]

This is a (very rough) stab at our best lineup, just wondering who the other two players are that deserve a spot in there ahead of Kelly in your opinion.

Bews Lonners Rivers
Mackie Taylor Enright
Murdoch Duncan Guthrie
SJ Clark Motlop
Stokes Hawk Bartel
McIntosh Caddy Sel
2nd ruck? GHS

Second ruck will almost certainly be Blicavs. That leaves two spots. Aside from Motlop the forward line to me needs more pace, so I'd be surprised if one of Blease or McCarthy aren't there. I'd have Smedts very close as well. So I'll go with McCarthy and Smedts.

 

[catempire]

Never said it wasn't. Read what I wrote.

That's what I read here:

Because unless there are injuries I'm not sure Kelly gets a game in our best side. We're too old and too slow as it is. To me Bews both gets a game, and deserves more opportunities in our best defence. His only competition for that spot (young, small defender) is Guthrie and it's extremely unlikely that he'll be returning there. Kelly doesn't get either in our best midfield.

The bottom line to me is that people find it hard to accept that players get old, and eventually aren't able to justify their spot. Especially when they've contributed to winning premierships, we don't want to face reality.