Past Zach Tuohy

Remove this Banner Ad

Biggest negative his beard but I think that has been trimmed back, but seriously the pros a fantastic long kick especially heading towards the goals. Negative for me seems to get lost when playing one on one with the opposition. i can already see Tuohy and Bucks having a go at each other.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Arr0w said:
Touhy is generally underrated by many outside the club. He is very strong in he core, makes great decisions, has a lethal right foot, especially drifting forward and pinging at goal. At Carlton, he suffered from a lack of quality around him at times, which hampered his attacking nature. If his is given a licence to run and carry off HB, he will be very damaging.

Downside, at times he seemed disinterested, perhaps that was more through frustration, as he would from time to time be tagged by a negating forward. Don't think that would be the case, woith teh quality of players you have a Geelong
Click to expand...
Lace_Out said:
Lots of fair points above.
Biggest negative is his agility.
Click to expand...
F the Rest said:
Biggest negative is that he's no longer at Carlton :(
Click to expand...
JamisonRun40 said:
Biggest negative his beard but I think that has been trimmed back, but seriously the pros a fantastic long kick especially heading towards the goals. Negative for me seems to get lost when playing one on one with the opposition. i can already see Tuohy and Bucks having a go at each other.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response guys. :thumbsu:

Genuine run and kicking from defense was one of our major flaws this year so I'm very happy to have him.

Best of luck with Billie Smedts. The kid has had a tough run with injuries but definitely has talent. Don't believe what some of our fair-weather supporters may tell you. He just needs have a good run of games and to find a position and then I think you'll see something...
 
Windhover said:
Yeah right, are you thinking of Plato and his shadows in the cave? A grossly over-rated philosopher.
(Or is your "get-out" clause that no one could accuse Plato of "weak thinking" hence his "strong thinking" is well supported by his use of analogy and metaphor? If yes, perhaps you could explain the basis for your assumption that my post was evidence of "weak thinking". Otherwise, you know, your post isn't exactly exemplary of "strong thinking" - if it is evidence of thinking at all.)



I agree Fyfe is a significantly better footballer than Gibbs. Not Judd. How did recruiting Juddy go in providing meaningful support for a young Murph and Gibbs leading on to a successful period in the upper echelons of the ladder?

Cripps without Gibbs will not be a lone hand. He will have Murphy, Curnow, possibly C Curnow, Kerridge, as just some of his helpers. Sure, the midfield would go better with Fyfe but by the time we are ready to compete for a flag (with a mature SOJ, McKay, Weitering and others) Fyfe is at risk of being an overpaid anchor who will have cost us 2 quality developed draft picks.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside your asinine drivel in paragraph one ..

What exactly are we arguing about again? I forget because you wander all over the place in trying to make a single point.

Oh yes the idea that using two first rounders to secure Fyfe would be a good idea given Gibbs was gone - and one of the many benefits of having Fyfe (since Gibbs was gone) was that he was equally as good at winning contested ball when it matters, as Cripps is.

Now disagree with that premise all you like. Thankfully we still have Gibbs top help where it matters - and we dont have Fyfe or two spare first round draft picks either.
 
Hood007 said:
G'day guys,

Just wanted to ask about Tuohy, can anyone be bothered giving me some pros and cons for him as a player?
I've always rated him but I'd like the opinion of people that watch him week in, week out.

Also, congrats on getting Marchbank & Pickett. I liked both of them in their draft year.
Could be quality gets for you guys.
Cheers
:thumbsu:
Click to expand...
As a small/medium defender his pros are pretty much everything you can want for the position, with the only con is that he tends to play a little heavy compared to the competition average, which does hurt his agility and ability to recover slightly (he makes up for this with his anticipation), and pretty much puts him as a career defender.

If you could somehow convince him to lose 3-5 kgs and work on his aerobic fitness, you might actually make him into a mid, but he's an elite defender so why bother?
 
I wouldn't be suprised if he doesn't make the cut. Maybe some company for bunsen (who they rate highly) may be his saviour.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
JustaBattler said:
Leaving aside your asinine drivel in paragraph one ..

What exactly are we arguing about again? I forget because you wander all over the place in trying to make a single point.
Click to expand...
I suppose, if we're being selective, he was objecting to your assertion that metaphor and analogy are props for the weak minded (can't remember exactly what you said, but it was a sticking point for me.) I object too, but largely because language is one of my things, so I can see why someone who prefers straight talking might dislike both of those things. Each to their own.

JustaBattler said:
Oh yes the idea that using two first rounders to secure Fyfe would be a good idea given Gibbs was gone - and one of the many benefits of having Fyfe (since Gibbs was gone) was that he was equally as good at winning contested ball when it matters, as Cripps is.

Now disagree with that premise all you like. Thankfully we still have Gibbs top help where it matters - and we dont have Fyfe or two spare first round draft picks either.
Click to expand...
Exactly. All's well that ends well.

Don't particularly want Fyfe at the price we were likely to pay, and REALLY objected to the full-Melbourne we were doing by trading Gibbs. We can trade him when/if it suits us, and we need to match what he offers on field - versus others on the list, or if you want to try to moneyball his attributes across a group of players - before we can afford to lose him.

And I refuse to think that Freo would have accepted anything less than pick 5 plus another first, which is unacceptable for us at this stage.
 
Gethelred said:
...

Don't particularly want Fyfe at the price we were likely to pay, and REALLY objected to the full-Melbourne we were doing by trading Gibbs. We can trade him when/if it suits us, and we need to match what he offers on field - versus others on the list, or if you want to try to moneyball his attributes across a group of players - before we can afford to lose him.

And I refuse to think that Freo would have accepted anything less than pick 5 plus another first, which is unacceptable for us at this stage.
Click to expand...

Lets deconstruct your thoughts here

1. You don't want Fyfe at a price we were likely to pay - meaning two firsts +
2. You object to the loss of Gibbs- as in full time Melbourne analogy
3. Gibbs is better traded when it suits
4. Gibbs capabilities need to be replaced
5. or his value is spread 'money ball fashion in plugging other needs

My suggestion was ( IF Gibbs was gone, IF IF IF IF)

THEN

Fyfe is a better player than Gibbs
and the trade woudl have allowed for better money balling other gaps in list whilst at the same time helping Cripps and helping Carlton draw a better class of player in future trades.

Now it is a mater of opinion wether 2 hypothetical firsts is too much - everythign else I say is not subject to debate likely to see me change my mind based on information we know.

I can also add the following - Gibbs is now more likely than not to be a hindrance to Bolton's team development. He can no longer be relied on to be an off field leader by Carlton or his team mates - he has put up his hand to leave - the only reason he is still at Carlton is because Adelaide thought SOS and Co would take #13 - because Carlton had to in order to get Marchbank - and at the end of two long weeks - Adelaide decided that #13 was ALL that Gibbs was 'worth' to them.

Esesentially Adelaide were trying to take away a lot of the value and increase the price to Carlton - of getting Marchbank. Gibbs manager is Gibbs - that is how patron / agent relationships work.

A sad situaiton which will be resolved next year, where at the very least Port Adelaide will also be invited to indicate interest and it will be Carlton who chooses the terms of the deal - or rinse and repeat the following year- do you see where this is going?

Gibbs is now damaged goods- exactly what Adelaide intended and achieved.

A deal should have been done and SOS was perfectly entitled to look into the possibility of Fyfe to Carltonm - IF Asdelaide was going to pay for a swap of Gibbs for Fyfe - themselvfes- ie THAT is where the two first were coming from.

A costeless in terms of picks swap of Gibbs for Fyfe? I'd take that every day of the week - and so would Carlton.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Thanks 2E. Loved your work and passion, and that you didn't take a backward step when some opposition nong went the niggle with you or a teammate. You won't look as good in the hoops as the navy blue, but all the best.
 
Hood007 said:
Thanks for the response guys. :thumbsu:

Genuine run and kicking from defense was one of our major flaws this year so I'm very happy to have him.

Best of luck with Billie Smedts. The kid has had a tough run with injuries but definitely has talent. Don't believe what some of our fair-weather supporters may tell you. He just needs have a good run of games and to find a position and then I think you'll see something...
Click to expand...
Would love to see Tuohy win a flag so good luck. Just don't play Henderson in the ultimate game...
 
JustaBattler said:
Lets deconstruct your thoughts here

1. You don't want Fyfe at a price we were likely to pay - meaning two firsts +
2. You object to the loss of Gibbs- as in full time Melbourne analogy
3. Gibbs is better traded when it suits
4. Gibbs capabilities need to be replaced
5. or his value is spread 'money ball fashion in plugging other needs

My suggestion was ( IF Gibbs was gone, IF IF IF IF)

THEN

Fyfe is a better player than Gibbs
and the trade woudl have allowed for better money balling other gaps in list whilst at the same time helping Cripps and helping Carlton draw a better class of player in future trades.

Now it is a mater of opinion wether 2 hypothetical firsts is too much - everythign else I say is not subject to debate likely to see me change my mind based on information we know.

I can also add the following - Gibbs is now more likely than not to be a hindrance to Bolton's team development. He can no longer be relied on to be an off field leader by Carlton or his team mates - he has put up his hand to leave - the only reason he is still at Carlton is because Adelaide thought SOS and Co would take #13 - because Carlton had to in order to get Marchbank - and at the end of two long weeks - Adelaide decided that #13 was ALL that Gibbs was 'worth' to them.

Esesentially Adelaide were trying to take away a lot of the value and increase the price to Carlton - of getting Marchbank. Gibbs manager is Gibbs - that is how patron / agent relationships work.

A sad situaiton which will be resolved next year, where at the very least Port Adelaide will also be invited to indicate interest and it will be Carlton who chooses the terms of the deal - or rinse and repeat the following year- do you see where this is going?

Gibbs is now damaged goods- exactly what Adelaide intended and achieved.

A deal should have been done and SOS was perfectly entitled to look into the possibility of Fyfe to Carltonm - IF Asdelaide was going to pay for a swap of Gibbs for Fyfe - themselvfes- ie THAT is where the two first were coming from.

A costeless in terms of picks swap of Gibbs for Fyfe? I'd take that every day of the week - and so would Carlton.
Click to expand...
Your description of the agent/patron relationship is correct at law, but fundamentally misses the reality of professional sport, and it is there that I think your argument here re Gibbs falls apart (not entirely, but enough to be worth mentioning).

You have stated in your post that Gibbs will most likely be a hindrance to Bolton's team building. Is this because a) Bolton can no longer trust Gibbs to do his utmost for the club, b) Bolton is livid at Gibbs to the extent that he cannot work with him, or c) you expect Gibbs to behave completely unprofessionally and to play for either the Northern Blues or to sit out the year. You have seemingly based this off hypotheticals and rumours that have floated about this board since Adelaide announced the Gibbs trade, which have implied any of the three scenarios played out above, which are rumour and conjecture. So too there are rumours stating that Gibbs is perfectly happy to stay, nor has his credit with the playing group been lost if he's holidaying with them.

In the modern age of AFL, players change clubs without malice or true betrayal. Sure, it hurts us, the diehard fans, but from a strictly internal perspective it's a reality that clubs will lose players to other clubs for better prospects, both in terms of cash and in terms of potential success. I'm leaving aside Gibb's reasons as publicly disclosed, because they aren't relevant beyond spin from Adelaide; positioning in order to get the best deal.

In a professional environment, coaches and players need to be able to put their feelings aside to achieve results, and that is what Bolton and Gibbs will do here. This is where your agent/player relationship description misses the situation; there is Gibbs the person, who can be trusted to play for Carlton, who is capable of playing to an extremely high standard (maybe not as high as Fyfe, but in the situation you've outlined we're effectively exchanging Gibbs and pick 5 for Fyfe) and providing leadership both on and off the field; then there is Gibbs, the role of player which he occupies who has requested the trade, the role which his player agent has told us - through Adelaide - that he wants to leave. If we were to attempt to combine the reality of list management - which involves dealing with the latter 'role' more than the former - with the day to day running of a side, then you would absolutely be correct that Gibbs, with the likelihood - or not - of leaving in the next few years, would indeed have a significantly fractured relationship within the club, and couldn't be trusted with the development of the younger players. But professional institutions are capable of separating, both in the short and the long term, the person from the role they occupy, and therefore is more than capable of the business action necessary for doing the duty of the role - assisting us in our rebuild, providing leadership both on and off the field - whilst still perhaps wanting to leave.

And if we were trading Gibbs for Fyfe of course I'd do that in a heartbeat! But one thing I would consider is the opportunity cost of having done so.

Say we went full Melbourne; we traded Tuohy for Smedts and Geelong's 2017 first, and Gibbs to Adelaide for pick 13 and their 2017 second. In this draft, we then have picks 5, 13 and 25; in 2017, we'd have picks 1-4 (due to losing Gibbs, we'd suffer in the short-medium term) Geelong's first (picks 10-18) and pick 19-23. Tell me, what has more long term value in this scenario, after 5 years? Fyfe is 24, so he'd be 29 then; we'd have lost picks 5 and 13 (or 5 and the Geelong first, unless you think Fremantle would be willing to accept a potential pick 1 for him in 2017, should they be willing to bet on us coming last). Does picks 5 and 13, after 5 years development, outvalue Fyfe? Probably.

Because there is zero chance that, were we to trade for Fyfe this year, we would have gotten out with pick 5. To my mind, whilst Fyfe is a better player, retaining Gibbs and pick 5 is a vastly superior deal, due to a combination of the fact that we can get Fyfe through free agency next year, the fact that Adelaide still want him, and have had a year of potential negotiation with us to bring about a trade - knowing that we've played hard this year, and will only accept what he's worth to us while contracted. Next year, we've another season of development into Boekhurst, Cuningham, and we've obtained - hopefully - an AFL quality midfield talent with pick 5 who's playing ones well enough that we can wear the loss of Gibbs onfield without falling too far.

I've probably gone on a bit long here, so I'll finish up with this. You seem to be of the impression that there is something irreparably broken between Gibbs and Bolton or Gibbs and Carlton. I don't think this is the case at all, for reasons I outline above, so of course Gibbs should be trusted to continue our development as a side. Not to do it would be incredibly unprofessional, and an immense discredit to Bolton, and is something I think is rather useless worrying.
 
My name geoff said:
Like when you lose a pet and your sadness instantly wants to replace it with another one to fill the void...
View attachment 303274

Welcome to the halfback line gussy
Click to expand...

Please let this be true.
Did a serious hammy before end of season. Hopefully it is all right now.
The guy is doing it tough though.
He must not be on big money and been out here awhile.
Tough gig being on rookie list so long.
Will look with much interest in coming weeks if he is still staying.
Fingers and toes crossed.
 
Last edited:
ShanDog said:
Would love to see Tuohy win a flag so good luck. Just don't play Henderson in the ultimate game...
Click to expand...

Speaking of.. Who was the last player we traded/ left the club that played in a premiership? I'm really struggling to think of the last. Was happy Laidler didn't get a medal last year, Kennedy missed out with the Eagles.. Anyone know?
 
Gethelred said:
Your description of the agent/patron relationship is correct at law, but fundamentally misses the reality of professional sport, and it is there that I think your argument here re Gibbs falls apart (not entirely, but enough to be worth mentioning).

You have stated in your post that Gibbs will most likely be a hindrance to Bolton's team building. Is this because a) Bolton can no longer trust Gibbs to do his utmost for the club, b) Bolton is livid at Gibbs to the extent that he cannot work with him, or c) you expect Gibbs to behave completely unprofessionally and to play for either the Northern Blues or to sit out the year. You have seemingly based this off hypotheticals and rumours that have floated about this board since Adelaide announced the Gibbs trade, which have implied any of the three scenarios played out above, which are rumour and conjecture. So too there are rumours stating that Gibbs is perfectly happy to stay, nor has his credit with the playing group been lost if he's holidaying with them.

In the modern age of AFL, players change clubs without malice or true betrayal. Sure, it hurts us, the diehard fans, but from a strictly internal perspective it's a reality that clubs will lose players to other clubs for better prospects, both in terms of cash and in terms of potential success. I'm leaving aside Gibb's reasons as publicly disclosed, because they aren't relevant beyond spin from Adelaide; positioning in order to get the best deal.

In a professional environment, coaches and players need to be able to put their feelings aside to achieve results, and that is what Bolton and Gibbs will do here. This is where your agent/player relationship description misses the situation; there is Gibbs the person, who can be trusted to play for Carlton, who is capable of playing to an extremely high standard (maybe not as high as Fyfe, but in the situation you've outlined we're effectively exchanging Gibbs and pick 5 for Fyfe) and providing leadership both on and off the field; then there is Gibbs, the role of player which he occupies who has requested the trade, the role which his player agent has told us - through Adelaide - that he wants to leave. If we were to attempt to combine the reality of list management - which involves dealing with the latter 'role' more than the former - with the day to day running of a side, then you would absolutely be correct that Gibbs, with the likelihood - or not - of leaving in the next few years, would indeed have a significantly fractured relationship within the club, and couldn't be trusted with the development of the younger players. But professional institutions are capable of separating, both in the short and the long term, the person from the role they occupy, and therefore is more than capable of the business action necessary for doing the duty of the role - assisting us in our rebuild, providing leadership both on and off the field - whilst still perhaps wanting to leave.

And if we were trading Gibbs for Fyfe of course I'd do that in a heartbeat! But one thing I would consider is the opportunity cost of having done so.

Say we went full Melbourne; we traded Tuohy for Smedts and Geelong's 2017 first, and Gibbs to Adelaide for pick 13 and their 2017 second. In this draft, we then have picks 5, 13 and 25; in 2017, we'd have picks 1-4 (due to losing Gibbs, we'd suffer in the short-medium term) Geelong's first (picks 10-18) and pick 19-23. Tell me, what has more long term value in this scenario, after 5 years? Fyfe is 24, so he'd be 29 then; we'd have lost picks 5 and 13 (or 5 and the Geelong first, unless you think Fremantle would be willing to accept a potential pick 1 for him in 2017, should they be willing to bet on us coming last). Does picks 5 and 13, after 5 years development, outvalue Fyfe? Probably.

Because there is zero chance that, were we to trade for Fyfe this year, we would have gotten out with pick 5. To my mind, whilst Fyfe is a better player, retaining Gibbs and pick 5 is a vastly superior deal, due to a combination of the fact that we can get Fyfe through free agency next year, the fact that Adelaide still want him, and have had a year of potential negotiation with us to bring about a trade - knowing that we've played hard this year, and will only accept what he's worth to us while contracted. Next year, we've another season of development into Boekhurst, Cuningham, and we've obtained - hopefully - an AFL quality midfield talent with pick 5 who's playing ones well enough that we can wear the loss of Gibbs onfield without falling too far.

I've probably gone on a bit long here, so I'll finish up with this. You seem to be of the impression that there is something irreparably broken between Gibbs and Bolton or Gibbs and Carlton. I don't think this is the case at all, for reasons I outline above, so of course Gibbs should be trusted to continue our development as a side. Not to do it would be incredibly unprofessional, and an immense discredit to Bolton, and is something I think is rather useless worrying.
Click to expand...

Gibb's manager IS his agent - what Gibbs manager says by DEFINITION is what Gibbs is allowing him to say, authorising him to say and in fact WANTS him to say. That is the purpose of having an agent - an intermediary charged with getting a result. It so happens that Gibbs is being paid to play for Carlton, in fact the terms of his payment are set out in a contract. His agent is aware of the contractual basis upon which his patron Gibbs is employed at Carlton.

To say that because it is a sport - weakens the patron/agent relationship or meaning is nonsense. The bloke is either his agent or he is not - in situaitons like this one can't be 'half engaged'.

Now all that is largely an aside you chose to make a some point about - a point which is not only wrong but also not particularly interesting - except to the extent that it points to yet another example of Gibbs' behaviour - which I find irritating and that is the notion that because HE himself did nto say anything - THEN he himself can't be asked to take responsibility for what was said and when it was said and how it was said.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Gibbs and his agent and Adelaide expected a deal to be done.
I have also no doubt that Carlton were fully prepared to do a deal.

The problem is that Adelaide reached too far in not offering an acceptable deal.'

In not offering fair value or acceptable deal to carlton - they relied on their perception of circumstance as presented by Gibbs' agent and their perception on GWS's expectations regarding the Marchbank trade - to try and get Gibbs for way undervalue - by imagining they enjoyed a leverage suffiucient to force caerlton to accept unders.

They were wrong to try this type of strategy - as was Gibbs wrong in accepting to be part of thsi strategy.
 
JustaBattler said:
Gibb's manager IS his agent - what Gibbs manager says by DEFINITION is what Gibbs is allowing him to say, authorising him to say and in fact WANTS him to say. That is the purpose of having an agent - an intermediary charged with getting a result. It so happens that Gibbs is being paid to play for Carlton, in fact the terms of his payment are set out in a contract. His agent is aware of the contractual basis upon which his patron Gibbs is employed at Carlton.
Click to expand...

A manager isn't always solely guided by what the player says.
A manager will present notions, he'll afford advice for what may be good for that player from his personal position, in life as a footballer and some advice for life, post football career. etc etc.

A manager does also like to make money and Gibbs's manager may have just made himself some extra dollars had have the Gibbs trade gone through.
Not saying that was his sole purpose in wanting a deal to be done.........but you know......human nature and all....
 
HARKER said:
A manager isn't always solely guided by what the player says.
A manager will present notions, he'll afford advice for what may be good for that player from his personal position, in life as a footballer and some advice for life, post football career. etc etc.

A manager does also like to make money and Gibbs's manager may have just made himself some extra dollars had have the Gibbs trade gone through.
Not saying that was his sole purpose in wanting a deal to be done.........but you know......human nature and all....
Click to expand...

Different 'conversation' Harks...

and IF any agent acts as you suggest - they are on shaky legal and ethical grounds.
yes it is 'temting' to lay the responsibility and blame on the agent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top