Blicavs to CHB.

[longtimecat]

After winning our B&F a couple of years ago Mark has looked lost, no third man up has affected him more than anyone in the AFL. He has attributes and skills and IMO needs a permanent position. I would play him at CHB while Harry is there to coach him. He has the running ability to stay with any of the roaming CHF's , he is a great tackler, can mark overhead and has the strength to play one on one. He is also capable of playing on a smaller opponent is needed. You do not trade players of his size and agitity so come on Geelong , make it happen.

 

[catempire]

Take cover friend.

 

[OzeSparky]

CHB-= centre half bench

 

[Seeds]

he looked lost in his b and f year as well.

 

[Armo7]

After winning our B&F a couple of years ago Mark has looked lost, no third man up has affected him more than anyone in the AFL. He has attributes and skills and IMO needs a permanent position. I would play him at CHB while Harry is there to coach him. He has the running ability to stay with any of the roaming CHF's , he is a great tackler, can mark overhead and has the strength to play one on one. He is also capable of playing on a smaller opponent is needed. You do not trade players of his size and agitity so come on Geelong , make it happen.

Sounds perfectly suited to the midfield.

 

[Tony Barber]

This is the exact problem we have. We're just trying to find a position for him.

 

[Hamingja]

I think he would be a decent enough option to pinch hit if Henderson and/or Taylor were injured.

Issues with being a permanent key back would be pace off the mark and below average overhead ability.

 

[catempire]

This is the exact problem we have. We're just trying to find a position for him.

If you mean "we" the punters on this board that might be right but do you think the club is similarly struggling? They've consistently played him on a wing and as a defensive mid all season. I get the impression they're quite comfortable with that.

 

[scottydeewah]

For as long as football has been played with 2 rucks, third man up was an option. It went in and out of fashion over the years as players and strategies came and went. 3 years ago, I stood with my (Hawthorn - yuck right) mate in the bowls of the MCG and said, "I promise you, that by the end of this season, third man up will be outlawed" - it was no later than round 5, 20 weeks later it was done.

The third man up ban should be called the Mark Blicavs rule. He had come into the sport and trained to be a hard running winger, third man up, temporary ruck and tagger. Just the notion that he might go third-man, brought attention to him and allowed us to setup differently at our stoppages. The AFL though hates nothing more than the thought that a team might be trying to coach their way to an advantage and put a stop to it - having no clue about or sense of the history of the game. It left Blitz a little lost.

We have trialled him at CHB, in both preseason training and also Micky mouse matches. To be honest though, with his performance against Sydney, I would like to see him get better as a midfielder/run with player, occasional swingman. I actually thought he looked better in the back half of this year. I am not sure players need a "permanent home" - in fact, I love versatile players who can do multiple jobs. (As does Bill Belichick, possibly the greatest team coach currently coaching right now!).

But yeah, I also don't hate the idea. He is supposedly very coachable.

One other thing that people forget is that playing the everywhere "big/medium-big" man takes a long time to learn. Guys that have been very successful at it - think Goddard - took a long time to learn that role (and he was a #1 draft pick). I'd like to see him have the ability and coaching to play CHB, but I think that if he can get back to being a dangerous, two way, defence, goal kicking, mark taking mid he is such a dangerous weapon.

 

[Frappe]

One issue with Blicavs as a run with player is the opposition can instruct his opponent to take him to spots or situations he’s unfamiliar with and he becomes a litttle lost.

Provided his opponent plays for what Blicavs is expecting he is very good.

 

[longtimecat]

I believe S Selwood is a better "run with" player and IF we get Ablett we have plenty of midfielders. Blicavs is a quick learner and with specialist on and off field coaching from Harry, I'm sure could hold down CHB allowing Harry to zone off for another two years, thus saving us trying to trade in a key back when Harry retires.

 

[Jeff76]

Blicavs CBF

 

[Boxhead_31]

If he were to learn the role, prefer him to do it at the FL level for awhile as Henderson is a good quality CHB and moving him to allow Blitz to learn is cutting our nose off to spite our face.

I like the idea of Blitz in the backline where he can get taken to the ball and only has to worry about beating his man but don't want him to learn the position in the AFL

 

[Spazz Cat]

Why? Taylor, Henderson, Kolo, Gardner not good enough.

 

[Partridge]

Why? Taylor, Henderson, Kolo, Gardner not good enough.

Because people can't handle the thought of him playing VFL.

 

[Willo_]

Pass

 

[Whit3y]

is blivacs a "quick learner" one of those throw away lines like horlin smith has "great leadership skills" and cowan has "great potential"?

 

[RegHickeyStand]

If Blicavs could just make his decisions to pass the pill off with taking so much time and looking so confused about. There is a player upfield. Looks like he is a good chance to get it. Kick it to him in a way it will help him. Should take half a second to figure that since you already kinda know where your team-mates are. Not, "I'll kick it to him. No! I'll handpass to him. No wait on, maybe I'll pass it top him. No! Wait! I'll..."

 

[Tony Barber]

If you mean "we" the punters on this board that might be right but do you think the club is similarly struggling? They've consistently played him on a wing and as a defensive mid all season. I get the impression they're quite comfortable with that.

Both. I don't think we missed him at all when he was injured. Because the club just put people into specific roles.
Blicavs is starting to feel like the blender you go and buy. And rather than just get a great blender you compromise and get one that blends pretty well, but also juices pretty well, and can make coffee on occassion. And I think that's how the coaches use him.

Without him they engage their brain and actually strategise and use specific players.

I'd honestly trade him. Won't happen. But I'd like the 'break glass in case of emergency' option taken out of the coaches hands.

Note: I don't dislike Blicavs. And I don't think he's anywhere near a dud. I just think he unbalances team selection that's all.

 

[Cronin]

If he's going to play, I'd play him on the wing, 2nd ruck and bench but that's it.

 

[Seeds]

Sounds perfectly suited to the midfield.

If you exclude the fact he cant find enough of the ball, hesitates when he does get it and has poor disposal once he finally gets round to figuring out what he wants to do with the pill.

 

[MarkCatsFan]

For as long as football has been played with 2 rucks, third man up was an option. It went in and out of fashion over the years as players and strategies came and went. 3 years ago, I stood with my (Hawthorn - yuck right) mate in the bowls of the MCG and said, "I promise you, that by the end of this season, third man up will be outlawed" - it was no later than round 5, 20 weeks later it was done.

The third man up ban should be called the Mark Blicavs rule. He had come into the sport and trained to be a hard running winger, third man up, temporary ruck and tagger. Just the notion that he might go third-man, brought attention to him and allowed us to setup differently at our stoppages. The AFL though hates nothing more than the thought that a team might be trying to coach their way to an advantage and put a stop to it - having no clue about or sense of the history of the game. It left Blitz a little lost.

We have trialled him at CHB, in both preseason training and also Micky mouse matches. To be honest though, with his performance against Sydney, I would like to see him get better as a midfielder/run with player, occasional swingman. I actually thought he looked better in the back half of this year. I am not sure players need a "permanent home" - in fact, I love versatile players who can do multiple jobs. (As does Bill Belichick, possibly the greatest team coach currently coaching right now!).

But yeah, I also don't hate the idea. He is supposedly very coachable.

One other thing that people forget is that playing the everywhere "big/medium-big" man takes a long time to learn. Guys that have been very successful at it - think Goddard - took a long time to learn that role (and he was a #1 draft pick). I'd like to see him have the ability and coaching to play CHB, but I think that if he can get back to being a dangerous, two way, defence, goal kicking, mark taking mid he is such a dangerous weapon.

Gary Ablett hit a ruck contest 3rd man up in the 89 grand final and kicked the goal of the match. If this administration was in charge then they'd have banned it at half time. Idiots.

 

[catempire]

Both. I don't think we missed him at all when he was injured. Because the club just put people into specific roles.
Blicavs is starting to feel like the blender you go and buy. And rather than just get a great blender you compromise and get one that blends pretty well, but also juices pretty well, and can make coffee on occassion. And I think that's how the coaches use him.

Without him they engage their brain and actually strategise and use specific players.

I'd honestly trade him. Won't happen. But I'd like the 'break glass in case of emergency' option taken out of the coaches hands.

Note: I don't dislike Blicavs. And I don't think he's anywhere near a dud. I just think he unbalances team selection that's all.

When we are in the realms of you seeing it unbalanced the side but a match committee of experts can’t, I’m afraid I’m sceptical.

They just like what he offers. Simples.

 

[Pollywaffle]

Both. I don't think we missed him at all when he was injured. Because the club just put people into specific roles.
Blicavs is starting to feel like the blender you go and buy. And rather than just get a great blender you compromise and get one that blends pretty well, but also juices pretty well, and can make coffee on occassion. And I think that's how the coaches use him.

Without him they engage their brain and actually strategise and use specific players.

I'd honestly trade him. Won't happen. But I'd like the 'break glass in case of emergency' option taken out of the coaches hands.

Note: I don't dislike Blicavs. And I don't think he's anywhere near a dud. I just think he unbalances team selection that's all.

Great post which highlights the 'Blicavs Dilemma'
I think even when third man up was a thing, it was still debatable whether that strategy really worked that well for us.
Anyway we should henceforth refer to him as 'Blender'

 

[iameviljez]

After winning our B&F a couple of years ago Mark has looked lost, no third man up has affected him more than anyone in the AFL. He has attributes and skills and IMO needs a permanent position. I would play him at CHB while Harry is there to coach him. He has the running ability to stay with any of the roaming CHF's , he is a great tackler, can mark overhead and has the strength to play one on one. He is also capable of playing on a smaller opponent is needed. You do not trade players of his size and agitity so come on Geelong , make it happen.

I think that Blicav's best position is at half-back, BUT the problem is that defensive tall players are in strong supply at Geelong. Henderson, Taylor and Kolodjashnij are all CHBs, while Gardner has to play in 2018 if he's going to make the grade at AFL level.