Delisted #28: Mitch Brown - Retired - 20/9/22

[BrunoV]

My thoughts too. He is nowhere near as bad as some people are making out. He has played some really good footy for us this year at different stages which is being overlooked. He is a very handy player to have waiting in the wings because he can come in and do a job.

It's not being overlooked, not at all. That's the whole point.

Sure, I am describing his game in hash terms but the reality is the performances Red Black and Blue has identified as being the ones which we are likely to see in a final (given what has happened against side of this quality) - it really seems to be the terminology that posters are arguing about.

We will be much better served against Collingwood having Ambrose play as a key forward (regardless of whether Stinger plays. In fact, you could play Ambrose and Brown forward together if Brown had shown any inclination towards the defensive side of the game.

We can pick Ham to provide the overlap forward option because you certainly don't need to be 196cm to offer that option.

 

[yodellinhank]

He didn’t kick a goal. What is this competency based on?

He ran to the right spots, competed and applied great pressure. He has bricks for hands which is the main trouble playing him forward. My point is that these guys are professional footballers, our structures didn't fall apart because Ambrose was played up front.

 

[DERO]

It's not being overlooked, not at all. That's the whole point.

Sure, I am describing his game in hash terms but the reality is the performances Red Black and Blue has identified as being the ones which we are likely to see in a final (given what has happened against side of this quality) - it really seems to be the terminology that posters are arguing about.

We will be much better served against Collingwood having Ambrose play as a key forward (regardless of whether Stinger plays. In fact, you could play Ambrose and Brown forward together if Brown had shown any inclination towards the defensive side of the game.

We can pick Ham to provide the overlap forward option because you certainly don't need to be 196cm to offer that option.

Yeah/ Nah.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

It's not being overlooked, not at all. That's the whole point.

Sure, I am describing his game in hash terms but the reality is the performances Red Black and Blue has identified as being the ones which we are likely to see in a final (given what has happened against side of this quality) - it really seems to be the terminology that posters are arguing about.

We will be much better served against Collingwood having Ambrose play as a key forward (regardless of whether Stinger plays. In fact, you could play Ambrose and Brown forward together if Brown had shown any inclination towards the defensive side of the game.

We can pick Ham to provide the overlap forward option because you certainly don't need to be 196cm to offer that option.

Agreed, the crux of my argument isn't that Mitch Brown is a bad footballer, it's that his style doesn't suit us and that we actually get a net loss over the likes of Laverde and Ambrose despite them not offering as much in regards to scores due to that stylistic mismatch.

 

[The Donners]

It's not being overlooked, not at all. That's the whole point.

Sure, I am describing his game in hash terms but the reality is the performances Red Black and Blue has identified as being the ones which we are likely to see in a final (given what has happened against side of this quality) - it really seems to be the terminology that posters are arguing about.

We will be much better served against Collingwood having Ambrose play as a key forward (regardless of whether Stinger plays. In fact, you could play Ambrose and Brown forward together if Brown had shown any inclination towards the defensive side of the game.

We can pick Ham to provide the overlap forward option because you certainly don't need to be 196cm to offer that option.

I don’t think you want a bloke who can’t mark or kick play as a key forward in a final? We need Ambrose on Kennedy.

Smack, Stringer, Brown, Fantasia, Walla and Laverde should be the forward line.

Ham will get carved up in a final (pun intended).

 

[The Donners]

Agreed, the crux of my argument isn't that Mitch Brown is a bad footballer, it's that his style doesn't suit us and that we actually get a net loss over the likes of Laverde and Ambrose despite them not offering as much in regards to scores due to that stylistic mismatch.

Neither Laverde (I’d have Langford who is a great kick for goal) nor Ambrose are reliable in front of goal.

With Stringer deep in the forward line, we’ll want Brown making space and he does it better than anyone on our list. He also kicks from outside 50m as good as the best in the league.

Of our forwards, Brown has the most marks, possessions and is 3rd on our goal kicking. Excellent return from a role-player.

 

[BrunoV]

I don’t think you want a bloke who can’t mark or kick play as a key forward in a final? We need Ambrose on Kennedy.

Smack, Stringer, Brown, Fantasia, Walla and Laverde should be the forward line.

Ham will get carved up in a final (pun intended).

The structural function is essentially keeping McGovern and Barrass accountable at the 50m arc and then providing a contested marking outlet on the wing.

The difficulty that Red Black and Blue and I are having is that we have no way of measuring the net impact of being a marking target short.

So the best we can do is say that Brown is more likely than any other player on the list to convert 2 shots but we're still probably worse off because we'll get stuck in the Eagles press, unable to transition out of defence unless there is space (conceding scores) and also unable to transition forward and/or take advantage of forward territory because a McGovern or Barass does not have an opponent to go with him in the air.

Without cutting up a whole game into Brown related moments there is no empirical way of making the point (at least none I can currently think of).

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Neither Laverde (I’d have Langford who is a great kick for goal) nor Ambrose are reliable in front of goal.

With Stringer deep in the forward line, we’ll want Brown making space and he does it better than anyone on our list. He also kicks from outside 50m as good as the best in the league.

Of our forwards, Brown has the most marks, possessions and is 3rd on our goal kicking. Excellent return from a role-player.

Laverde has kicked 7 goals from 4 games against top eight teams. To Browns 6 from 7 games. Being a reliable shot for goal doesn’t mean much if you can’t generate chances.

 

[DapperJong]

He kicks the goals yay kick so straight

 

[The Donners]

The structural function is essentially keeping McGovern and Barrass accountable at the 50m arc and then providing a contested marking outlet on the wing.

The difficulty that Red Black and Blue and I are having is that we have no way of measuring the net impact of being a marking target short.

So the best we can do is say that Brown is more likely than any other player on the list to convert 2 shots but we're still probably worse off because we'll get stuck in the Eagles press, unable to transition out of defence unless there is space (conceding scores) and also unable to transition forward and/or take advantage of forward territory because a McGovern or Barass does not have an opponent to go with him in the air.

Without cutting up a whole game into Brown related moments there is no empirical way of making the point (at least none I can currently think of).

We have a better record with Brown in the side than when he’s not. Is that good enough?

 

[The Donners]

Laverde has kicked 7 goals from 4 games against top eight teams. To Browns 6 from 7 games. Being a reliable shot for goal doesn’t mean much if you can’t generate chances.

10.13 from Laverde in 9 games vs 21.13 from Brown in 15 games.

 

[BrunoV]

We have a better record with Brown in the side than when he’s not. Is that good enough?

FMD

 

[Red Black and Blue]

10.13 from Laverde in 9 games vs 21.13 from Brown in 15 games.

Brown filling his bag against poor teams only strengthens my argument.

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

We have a better record with Brown in the side than when he’s not. Is that good enough?

We are 8-7 with Brown in the side this year, 4-3 without. Wouldn't call that a better record at this stage.

Difference between a win and a loss against Collingwood could boil down to a few contests he was in. If he could win them and get us some advantage we could have had a decent break on them and possibly held on.

With Daniher back next year I can only see spots for Daniher, McKernan and Stringer as our forwards. Brown can stay on the list for another year as a break glass but doubt we win anything with him in the side.

 

[The Donners]

Ok Laverde’s better than Brown.

We are 8-7 with Brown in the side this year, 4-3 without. Wouldn't call that a better record at this stage.

My bad, I excluded ANZAC Day.

Difference between a win and a loss against Collingwood could boil down to a few contests he was in. If he could win them and get us some advantage we could have had a decent break on them and possibly held on.

With Daniher back next year I can only see spots for Daniher, McKernan and Stringer as our forwards. Brown can stay on the list for another year as a break glass but doubt we win anything with him in the side.

Brown has flaws.

When Daniher returns, Laverde may be the one to go. Daniher, Stringer, McKernan and Brown could all be playing together. A number one ruckman with McKernan and Daniher pitching in.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

You don’t beat Eagles by kicking long to McGovern, you make him chase. Aside from Smack and Stringer who’s a better marking third option to replace Brown? Laverde?

 

[quotemokc]

Useless

 

[MightyDons4]

Useless

Did you expect anything different?

 

[quotemokc]

Did you expect anything different?

Nope, hence why I was beating the drum for him to be dropped after his insipid display against Collingwood

 

[BrunoV]

That's the same game he plays every single week.

Some days you play an utterly incompetent opposition and it makes him look good because the lack of pressure and structure allow space for him to get the ball. Constrict the space and he doesn't compete except for that accidental contest he takes as a chest mark (like he isn't even aware contact is coming).

The rest of the time he watches the ball he should be attacking, if he's not literally running or jogging away from it into space. Funny how he always manages to take the option that involves not displaying any physical intensity.

From what I head of Cameron Ling this evening, literally the first time anyone has picked up 1 of the 200 non-efforts he has put in this year makes me think that it's a throw back to the Geelong days.

He's the talisman of a side that spends its off-seasons perfecting the circle work no decent opposition will let us play.

If there was no physical contest in the sport Brown would be the best player of all time.

Made for bruise free football and has no place on the list of a serious team.

 

[TheFrenchCut]

His gut running can be useful if he ends up with the ball in the F50 as we saw against the Crows.

But my biggest gripe with him* is that he often neutralises it with his staggeringly conservative use of the ball on what could (and given our playing style, should) be fast breaks.

He'll often run hard to be the option well up the ground, leading to our back flanks. But if he gets the ball up the ground he takes forever to dispose of it, regularly overlooking guys asking for handball receives or options that will open play up before usually deciding to bomb long down the line or chip sideways.

*Chest mark obsession aside

 

[Towno78]

Given the number of games he played this year, obviously he'll get another contract. But I'd be completely non-fussed if he didn't.

 

[Mikevk123]

Put him on the Rookie list free up some cash same with mckernan.

 

[Knox Harrington]

Tough call with brown.
He's been ok, but he's more a tall flanker than a genuine tall.
If it came down to him v Hartley in the list isprefer Hartley.

 

[Duckworth]

Tough call with brown.
He's been ok, but he's more a tall flanker than a genuine tall.
If it came down to him v Hartley in the list isprefer Hartley.

Whilst I agree with you, as long as Worsefold is still around Brown clearly ranks above Hartley.