Blicavs to CHB.

[iameviljez]

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.

Completely agree, and if that was during the regular season it would have been goal of the year. Same goes with Daniel Wells scissor-kicking it out of the ruck for GOTY against WCE.

It's a stupid rule, it was written almost specifically around Blitz and takes some more of the randomness out of footy.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

RE: the AFL changing the third man up rule, it's not the first time the AFL has changed the rules just to stop Geelong in the last ten years. This is inherently what's wrong with AFL today. Too much interference from the AFL with knee jerk reactions to everything, and over umpiring the game to create some form of non-contact football.

Anyway, I don't get the Blitz hating to be honest. There's been far worse in our team in recent years than him, and he often produces a good game where he's made a contribution. He's a hard worker, and you need those in your team, not just stars. I can totally get why Scotty loves him, because he's a team player who gives his all. He does make the odd clanger here and there, but they all do, even Paddy Dangerfield.

 

[Partridge]

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

Yep. And magically, the more you say it, the more true it becomes.

 

[Partridge]

RE: the AFL changing the third man up rule, it's not the first time the AFL has changed the rules just to stop Geelong in the last ten years. This is inherently what's wrong with AFL today. Too much interference from the AFL with knee jerk reactions to everything, and over umpiring the game to create some form of non-contact football.

What are the other rule changes? What are any rule changes?

To stop Geelong? Utter garbage. It's been six years since we won a flag. Besides, what has been the net effect of this third man up rule?

2016 before rule change - reached a Prelim.
2017 after rule change - reached a Prelim.

Devastatingly effective.

Anyway, I don't get the Blitz hating to be honest. There's been far worse in our team in recent years than him, and he often produces a good game where he's made a contribution. He's a hard worker, and you need those in your team, not just stars. I can totally get why Scotty loves him, because he's a team player who gives his all. He does make the odd clanger here and there, but they all do, even Paddy Dangerfield.

Name one who has had the golden ticket at selection he's had over the last five years. Name anyone who has been more consistently appalling in finals.

 

[00VicWard001]

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.

That Hawthorn game last year (start of the year) was illuminating as to his ceiling. He was dangerous and attacking.

 

[iameviljez]

RE: the AFL changing the third man up rule, it's not the first time the AFL has changed the rules just to stop Geelong in the last ten years. This is inherently what's wrong with AFL today. Too much interference from the AFL with knee jerk reactions to everything, and over umpiring the game to create some form of non-contact football.

What was the other?

Anyway, I highly doubt they change the rules because it's Geelong. They change the rules because they don't like the style of play in question and want to promote one-on-one contests.

 

[Vdubs]

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.

'Have suggested this for 2 seasons. Agree with your points. Even more appropriate now with 'Lonergone'.

 

[you pick one]

Great story,wonderful commitment on and off the field,down side lacks foot brain,slow to react and thwarts forward momentum,not the answer down back.

 

[rapidfire7]

Has one more year to turn it around or will be delisted

 

[MarkCatsFan]

What was the other?

Anyway, I highly doubt they change the rules because it's Geelong. They change the rules because they don't like the style of play in question and want to promote one-on-one contests.

Which is hilarious because every rule change they make seems to make it worse, or at best makes no difference at all. The current climate of 36 players in one corner of the oval at all times is unparalleled in any other sport in the world, and I don't mean that as a compliment.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Don't think they'll play him at CHB. The status quo of defensive mid meets wingman meets 2nd ruck will continue.

2016 before rule change - reached a Prelim.
2017 after rule change - reached a Prelim.

Devastatingly effective.

Not for us but for Blicavs and to a lesser extent Stanley most definitely.
2015 Stanley is at the club and was rucking well in games, starred v Port but got injured and the Cats end 2015 with Blicavs in the ruck and we have the worst Hitout differential in the league.
2016 Smith comes in and we play 2 or 3 of Smith, Blicavs and Stanley. Utilising Smith's large frame in the ruck and Stanley and Blicavs athleticism around the ground. 3rd man up hitouts had aplenty and often by 4th quarters we'd worn out the opposition ruckman to our benefit (for last quarter scoring). Hitout differential was 6th in the league For reference:

Total third-man up hit-outs in 2016 (via Champion Data)
1. Mark Blicavs (Geelong) — 154 hit-outs
2. Ollie Wines (Port Adelaide) — 65
3. Marcus Bontempelli (Western Bulldogs) — 63
So yeah removing the 3rd man up has had a bad effect on both Stanley and Blicavs as much as you may wish to deny it. Blicavs can at least tag some types of midfielders, Stanley just looks completely lost as an AFL footballer right now

2017: Hitout differential slipped back to 11th (negative) So first season of no 3rd man up and despite having the same ruck group we regress back to lower mid table for that metric. Telling.

Name one who has had the golden ticket at selection he's had over the last five years.

Nonsense. First couple of seasons were development games. 3rd season was a B&F. 4th season he was 6th in the B&F and this season was 8th before he got injured.
Clearly there's an easy explanation for all this.

They just like what he offers. Simples.

 

[Vdubs]

Don't think they'll play him at CHB. The status quo of defensive mid meets wingman meets 2nd ruck will continue.


Not for us but for Blicavs and to a lesser extent Stanley most definitely.
2015 Stanley is at the club and was rucking well in games, starred v Port but got injured and the Cats end 2015 with Blicavs in the ruck and we have the worst Hitout differential in the league.
2016 Smith comes in and we play 2 or 3 of Smith, Blicavs and Stanley. Utilising Smith's large frame in the ruck and Stanley and Blicavs athleticism around the ground. 3rd man up hitouts had aplenty and often by 4th quarters we'd worn out the opposition ruckman to our benefit (for last quarter scoring). Hitout differential was 6th in the league For reference:

Total third-man up hit-outs in 2016 (via Champion Data)
1. Mark Blicavs (Geelong) — 154 hit-outs
2. Ollie Wines (Port Adelaide) — 65
3. Marcus Bontempelli (Western Bulldogs) — 63
So yeah removing the 3rd man up has had a bad effect on both Stanley and Blicavs as much as you may wish to deny it. Blicavs can at least tag some types of midfielders, Stanley just looks completely lost as an AFL footballer right now

2017: Hitout differential slipped back to 11th (negative) So first season of no 3rd man up and despite having the same ruck group we regress back to lower mid table for that metric. Telling.

Nonsense. First couple of seasons were development games. 3rd season was a B&F. 4th season he was 6th in the B&F and this season was 8th before he got injured.
Clearly there's an easy explanation for all this.

What a brilliantly constructed post.
You have backed up what I felt with actual useful information rather than


you know what I mean...

 

[CatRiot]

I wonder what his trade currency would be? I reckon it might be pretty decent.

 

[Warhorse]

Turns to custard in finals. No real position. Trade bait?

 

[Larry Donohue]

Not composed enough for CHB. FUMBLES AND AWKWARD WHEN TURNING. Either containing a key mid or not in the team for mine. Id prefer SS and CG performing tag duties.
Maybe to gold coast for ablett and pick 24

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

What are the other rule changes?

The father son rule for a start, changed twice because it was favoring Geelong too much. First because of Ablett, Scarlett etc, then later because of Hawkins.

 

[BotsMaster]

Completely agree, and if that was during the regular season it would have been goal of the year. Same goes with Daniel Wells scissor-kicking it out of the ruck for GOTY against WCE.

It's a stupid rule, it was written almost specifically around Blitz and takes some more of the randomness out of footy.

I remember Hodge and Lewis used to go third man up for the Hawks

 

[iameviljez]

Which is hilarious because every rule change they make seems to make it worse, or at best makes no difference at all. The current climate of 36 players in one corner of the oval at all times is unparalleled in any other sport in the world, and I don't mean that as a compliment.

Absolutely, but at least the congestion has nothing to do with rules, and everything to do with coaches waking up to the fact that their players are super-fit athletes.

As for the rule changes... third man up, I hate. The deliberate out of bounds interpretation is, I think, good, and I don't mind the arm-chop rule either.

 

[Spazz Cat]

I really liked C.Scotts idea of 16 on the ground ala VFA. I think it would help the game in a few good ways. Surprised more weren't for it.
What I really hate is when players don't go for the ball now and wait for the opposition player to pick it up to get a HTB decision.
Goes against the spirit of the game IMO.

 

[iameviljez]

I remember Hodge and Lewis used to go third man up for the Hawks

True that, but I think we were the masters of doing it to cover the fact that Stanley wasn't exactly the tallest ruckman on earth.

 

[iameviljez]

I really liked C.Scotts idea of 16 on the ground ala VFA. I think it would help the game in a few good ways. Surprised more weren't for it.
What I really hate is when players don't go for the ball now and wait for the opposition player to pick it up to get a HTB decision.
Goes against the spirit of the game IMO.

Oh, and the sliding rule, too.

Yeah, I think with the number of players we have on the field and on the bench, we're starting to see some real issues with congestion. I know that only having 2 on the bench does give you problems if two men go down, but the running capacity of modern players is giving the game serious problems.

 

[Willo_]

I'd like us to ban him from kicking on his right foot.

When he kicks on his left he is so much more decisive and moves it much quicker and longer. When he gets it on his right he hesitates and hurts our ball movement.

 

[MarkCatsFan]

Oh, and the sliding rule, too.

Yeah, I think with the number of players we have on the field and on the bench, we're starting to see some real issues with congestion. I know that only having 2 on the bench does give you problems if two men go down, but the running capacity of modern players is giving the game serious problems.

Makes you wonder what the game used to look like in the early days when it was 20 on-field.

 

[MarkCatsFan]

I really liked C.Scotts idea of 16 on the ground ala VFA. I think it would help the game in a few good ways. Surprised more weren't for it.
What I really hate is when players don't go for the ball now and wait for the opposition player to pick it up to get a HTB decision.
Goes against the spirit of the game IMO.

I'm not crazy on the idea but for the short term it could certainly help with the talent pool issue. Imagine, two less VFL standard footballers per team, per week diluting the quality of football.

This wouldn't have happened if they hadn't rushed arse-first into expansion without any thought but here we are.

 

[Spazz Cat]

Makes you wonder what the game used to look like in the early days when it was 20 on-field.

I think they played on a large paddock then not an oval.