Player Watch Charlie Dixon Part 2

[agmsy]

I'll never understand how people can watch Dixon spend the whole game presenting as high as half back to make and impact contests, and provide a target for us coming out of defence, and then say the problem is workrate or effort or intent.

He works ******* hard.

Comparisons to Franklin are stupid. Franklin is a once in a generation (historically, once in a lifetime) player. If every player worse than peak Franklin is a bad player then there are no good forwards in the league.

Comparisons to Nick Riewoldt are barking up the wrong tree, too. One of Riewoldt's greatest strengths was his incredible aerobic capacity. I guess it's technically possible that Dixon has the same tank and nobody's ever bothered to develop it, but it seems unlikely. You have to play (and be coached to play) to your strengths.

We cannot question if he's working hard. We can, and absolutely should, question if he's working smart. Some of that is on Dixon, some of it is on the coaches. Concrete hands is him. Not seeing the ball is him (though maybe his vision problem is as good as it's ever going to get). But the wrestling and the not leading? There's not often space for him to lead into - our structure still seems to rely on using Dixon to create space and opportunities for smalls and crumbers instead. Pushing up to half back, or stints in the ruck? He's doing what he's told to by the coaches.

 

[sobrave]

This is the kicker for me. GC managed to play him to his strengths better than we ever could. I think its coaching. Whoever instructs him to wrestle with his opponents and wait for the ball to come to him is the problem.

Someone should have told him to watch Tommy porkins last year. Stand behind your defender and push him under the ball.

 

[Zakk Wylde]

I'll never understand how people can watch Dixon spend the whole game presenting as high as half back to make and impact contests, and provide a target for us coming out of defence, and then say the problem is workrate or effort or intent.

He works ******* hard.

Comparisons to Franklin are stupid. Franklin is a once in a generation (historically, once in a lifetime) player. If every player worse than peak Franklin is a bad player then there are no good forwards in the league.

Comparisons to Nick Riewoldt are barking up the wrong tree, too. One of Riewoldt's greatest strengths was his incredible aerobic capacity. I guess it's technically possible that Dixon has the same tank and nobody's ever bothered to develop it, but it seems unlikely. You have to play (and be coached to play) to your strengths.

We cannot question if he's working hard. We can, and absolutely should, question if he's working smart. Some of that is on Dixon, some of it is on the coaches. Concrete hands is him. Not seeing the ball is him (though maybe his vision problem is as good as it's ever going to get). But the wrestling and the not leading? There's not often space for him to lead into - our structure still seems to rely on using Dixon to create space and opportunities for smalls and crumbers instead. Pushing up to half back, or stints in the ruck? He's doing what he's told to by the coaches.

This is it in a nutshell. He doesn't draw/demand the footy through movement and leading... It's just not him. Maybe it's not being a natural footballer from an underage level ??

Georgiades has presented more and taken more marks in front since he's been in. Again, this comes naturally to him.

But Chuck busts his ass for us, and we are a better side with him in it.

 

[edgie]

Tredders worked to the HB line all the time. Schulz too.

Charlies problem isn't working hard up the ground, he doesn't work in the 50 and double back, lead again, dummy lead, etc. It's a combination of timing and also wanting to stand and wrestle. It's probably coaching too.

We just can't get any of our forwards anywhere on the ground to find enough seperation to make it look like they work hard. Why is it the defenders are always so close to our players they'd be inside them if any closer?

 

[PowerBaz]

This is it in a nutshell. He doesn't draw/demand the footy through movement and leading... It's just not him. Maybe it's not being a natural footballer from an underage level ??

Georgiades has presented more and taken more marks in front since he's been in. Again, this comes naturally to him.

But Chuck busts his ass for us, and we are a better side with him in it.

I get the feeling he is told to stay and take on 2-3 defenders and bring the ball to ground - not lead?

 

[Imhotep]

Tredders worked to the HB line all the time. Schulz too.

Charlies problem isn't working hard up the ground, he doesn't work in the 50 and double back, lead again, dummy lead, etc. It's a combination of timing and also wanting to stand and wrestle. It's probably coaching too.

We just can't get any of our forwards anywhere on the ground to find enough seperation to make it look like they work hard. Why is it the defenders are always so close to our players they'd be inside them if any closer?

Yep nail meet head i have a fair idea why and it's Dixon not having a natural forwards bone in his body. If your key forward doesn't know how to work a forward line you are crippling yourself.

 

[Frank Hansen II]

I'm reaching the point where I'd not be playing Dixon at all if it's a night game, he seemed to misread it in the air more often than not: not just dropping them.

 

[GremioPower]

Geez, folks...

When a team plays well, average players look like superstars; when a team plays badly, good players look like sh*t.

Saturday was the latter. The entire forward line was a joke. The midfield was lost. The back line got exposed. With the ball, we couldn’t execute basic stuff. Without the ball, our pressure was non-existent. Pinpointing Charlie is ridiculously unfair.

Just like anyone else, he has strengths and weaknesses. Our job as a team is to use his strengths to our advantage. Our opponents will try to exploit his weaknesses. At the Gabba, we failed.

Specially at night, Charlie cannot be used as a marking tall. That’s on Todd and Mitch. When we bomb to Dixon, we are playing for a contest. Only if they kept intercepting the ball, even if they are winning the contests, using Charlie isn’t working. Otherwise, he is doing his job.

Let’s say he wasn’t doing his job on Saturday. Regardless of the reason for such a failure, whenever it happens we need to change the strategy. If we don’t, we are going to keep failing throughout the game.

Is this failure on Charlie, the coaches, the forwards, the mids?! I don’t know. Each game is different. It could be on Charlie. But when it’s on him, the others have the responsibility to change the way we play. If they don’t, then it’s on them as well.

Finally, we may change, but the alternatives also fail. Again, the blame cannot fall on Charlie’s shoulders alone. Sometimes, we simply get beaten.

I believe that was the case in Perth. The Eagles played like a Premiership side, and we couldn’t lift our game to their level.

Last Saturday, it was different. We played like a wooden-spoon side, and the Lions didn’t need to lift their game to win.

We can complain about Dixon for that. But we would need to do similar complaints to almost all players and coaches, if not all of them.

 

[Us against the rest]

Dixon in a different team with different coaches would be a very good player, just not in a Hinkley game plan.

 

[JimmyBC]

Dixon in a different team with different coaches would be a very good player, just not in a Hinkley game plan.

He's effective for us if you don't hold some ridiculous view that he's a star, his flaws would still exist under any coach.

 

[PAFC66]

Sick of this big Dix s**t.
The two other kids up there have been better than him all year. Stop running under the ******* ball.
He's mentally shot as well. You can tell when the goal kicking goes to s**t , go for a ride on your Harley down York Peninsula with chadwick and zone out for the week.

 

[edgie]

He's effective for us if you don't hold some ridiculous view that he's a star, his flaws would still exist under any coach.

He's got the tools to be a star if he/the team uses them better, he's not Damon White ffs.

Mark. Kick. Goal. Outbody. Extract. That's what he can do well in theory.

No one is expecting him to take 20 marks a game Nick Riewoldt style, be able to hit up deep forwards with spearing kicks both sides of the body Tredders style, or kick extraordinary running goals like Buddy, but gee, you reckon he could bring his forward focused averages a bit closer to someone like Tex bloody Walker.

 

[Imhotep]

One question for this thread, what games over the last 5 and a half seasons would you say Charlie Dixon has won because of the individual work he has delivered?

Geez, folks...

When a team plays well, average players look like superstars; when a team plays badly, good players look like sh*t.

Saturday was the latter. The entire forward line was a joke. The midfield was lost. The back line got exposed. With the ball, we couldn’t execute basic stuff. Without the ball, our pressure was non-existent. Pinpointing Charlie is ridiculously unfair.

Just like anyone else, he has strengths and weaknesses. Our job as a team is to use his strengths to our advantage. Our opponents will try to exploit his weaknesses. At the Gabba, we failed.

Specially at night, Charlie cannot be used as a marking tall. That’s on Todd and Mitch. When we bomb to Dixon, we are playing for a contest. Only if they kept intercepting the ball, even if they are winning the contests, using Charlie isn’t working. Otherwise, he is doing his job.

Let’s say he wasn’t doing his job on Saturday. Regardless of the reason for such a failure, whenever it happens we need to change the strategy. If we don’t, we are going to keep failing throughout the game.

Is this failure on Charlie, the coaches, the forwards, the mids?! I don’t know. Each game is different. It could be on Charlie. But when it’s on him, the others have the responsibility to change the way we play. If they don’t, then it’s on them as well.

Finally, we may change, but the alternatives also fail. Again, the blame cannot fall on Charlie’s shoulders alone. Sometimes, we simply get beaten.

I believe that was the case in Perth. The Eagles played like a Premiership side, and we couldn’t lift our game to their level.

Last Saturday, it was different. We played like a wooden-spoon side, and the Lions didn’t need to lift their game to win.

We can complain about Dixon for that. But we would need to do similar complaints to almost all players and coaches, if not all of them.

So in your mind Charlie Dixon should be held to account when? Most of the piece's of the puzzle that can be influenced by the coaches work most of the time we know this it's why we are considered a premiership contender. Do you know what area has consistently failed in big games over the last 6 years it's our forward line. In our most important games over this time we have had more inside fifties than our opponents 85% of the time yet we lose why? Well most of this board will convince you that it's selection, coaching not enough talls to support Charlie. Well I have a different take i think Charlie has failed to fire no matter who's besides him, the second he has to deal with a well organised defence he capitulates. If the best you can do against the worst defences in the league is bring the ball to ground the best will swallow that ball up time and time again.

 

[Us against the rest]

He's effective for us if you don't hold some ridiculous view that he's a star, his flaws would still exist under any coach.

May be but the way he is used under Hinkley is questionable.

 

[wayb2912]

Someone needs to help Charlie with the mental side of his game. When he loses his cool he can no longer play. His problem is not ability or confidence it is actually his anger that gets the better of him

On EVR-L29 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Imhotep]

Someone needs to help Charlie with the mental side of his game. When he loses his cool he can no longer play. His problem is not ability or confidence it is actually his anger that gets the better of him

On EVR-L29 using BigFooty.com mobile app

Someone needs to help Charlie with the tactical side of the game. When he engages in wrestling he can no longer play. His problem is ability and confidence if he could actually beat his man he wouldn't get so angry.

 

[Us against the rest]

Sick of this big Dix sh*t.
The two other kids up there have been better than him all year. Stop running under the ******* ball.
He's mentally shot as well. You can tell when the goal kicking goes to sh*t , go for a ride on your Harley down York Peninsula with chadwick and zone out for the week.

Try watching his YouTube channel, he's very focused on his favourite hobby. Sometimes i wonder if he plays footy for love of the game, or he plays footy to finance his love of cars. I don't mean this in a bad way, AFL has become more of a job than a passion theses days.

 

[TeeKray]

Try watching his YouTube channel, he's very focused on his favourite hobby. Sometimes i wonder if he plays footy for love of the game, or he plays footy to finance his love of cars. I don't mean this in a bad way, AFL has become more of a job than a passion theses days.

Carn. For all of his faults, you couldn't possibly question how much Charlie cares.

 

[GremioPower]

One question for this thread, what games over the last 5 and a half seasons would you say Charlie Dixon has won because of the individual work he has delivered?

So in your mind Charlie Dixon should be held to account when? Most of the piece's of the puzzle that can be influenced by the coaches work most of the time we know this it's why we are considered a premiership contender. Do you know what area has consistently failed in big games over the last 6 years it's our forward line. In our most important games over this time we have had more inside fifties than our opponents 85% of the time yet we lose why? Well most of this board will convince you that it's selection, coaching not enough talls to support Charlie. Well I have a different take i think Charlie has failed to fire no matter who's besides him, the second he has to deal with a well organised defence he capitulates. If the best you can do against the worst defences in the league is bring the ball to ground the best will swallow that ball up time and time again.

When he is not doing his job, which I pretty much described there.

 

[Imhotep]

When he is not doing his job, which I pretty much described there.

When does he do his job? Was it in the finals last year? What about in the 2017 finals where he kicked double the amount of behinds to goals? How many times has he done his job against top 4 sides during the home and away? You literally said pinpointing Charlie when the rest of the team plays poorly is out of line, well once again we had more inside fifties and took * all marks inside fifty who's that on? Because in my mind that probably means the rest of the team were at least trying to do their job.

 

[Marmozet]

How many other forwards have 3 blokes holding onto him every time the ball goes near him?

 

[Us against the rest]

Carn. For all of his faults, you couldn't possibly question how much Charlie cares.

I'm sure he does, it could be the way he's coached but I expect a little more from a guy his size.

 

[Imhotep]

How many other forwards have 3 blokes holding onto him every time the ball goes near him?

This a furphy please port supporters you are better than this. He has 3 blokes holding him because he refuses to lead and chooses to engage in a wrestle.

 

[Us against the rest]

How many other forwards have 3 blokes holding onto him every time the ball goes near him?

Well that should leave two spare Port forwards, how many goals did we kick.

May be charles needs to be taught to lead to the ball and not run under the ball. I suppose that's what you get when our forwards coach played as a defender.

 

[FishingRick04]

This a furphy please port supporters you are better than this. He has 3 blokes holding him because he refuses to lead and chooses to engage in a wrestle.

if he’s being held why doesn’t he get a free?

whilst he stood there waiting his opponent led to the ball and took 9 intercept marks. Imagine if he led also and they split it. Could have had 4 goals