Changes versus Richmond

[simmo_bc]

That's what I'm saying about the Hoff. He stays in the side because he is versatile. But like Waugh he didnt reach the heights he should have in his main , the Hoff isnt reaching expectations in his main job of kicking goals. Play him at CHB if he is such a good back man or on the wing as a tall wing man if he is such a good mid fielder.

one of the great things about being arm chair critics!

I'm with you REH, Hoff gets a game if not only for the matchup problems he creates for the other team.

If he fires, what a headache it would be for the opposition coach.

 

[Andre]

But low 40's is not great. Plenty of his contemporaries ie 1990-2003 period averaged 45-49 that he was considered a lot better player than and then there were plenty of players who were great, and averaged 50+. After he almost got the nickname Olympics ie 5 0's he got 4 in a row in the Sri Lanka tour in 1992-93, he only after 3 tests of the next 114 had a career average of 44. Yet Dean Jones who scored the most test runs on that tour, took his average to 46.5 and was never picked to play Test cricket again.

Selectors favour players because they look good and they show them more faith. Waugh was saved, unlike Jones, Martyn because he extra strings to his bow. But that doesnt mean he didnt live up to expectations on his main job, making runs. That's what I'm saying about the Hoff. He stays in the side because he is versatile. But like Waugh he didnt reach the heights he should have in his main , the Hoff isnt reaching expectations in his main job of kicking goals. Play him at CHB if he is such a good back man or on the wing as a tall wing man if he is such a good mid fielder.

Waugh did get picked though, as better batsman minus his better fielding and bowling < Mark Waugh. Similarly Hoff as a forward not firing as we wish + Hoff able to drift back into defense or link up > any of our KPFs who can't do much else OR another small. That doesn't mean we don't all want to see him kick more goals, but it's also an unfair comparison as at least Mark Waugh's batting lived or died 100% off his work. As a forward Hoff lives or dies to a large degree from upfield. And anyone saying upfield of our forward line hasn't been serving up heaping plates of shit has missed our season so far.

 

[JimmyBeerCans]

But low 40's is not great. Plenty of his contemporaries ie 1990-2003 period averaged 45-49 that he was considered a lot better player than and then there were plenty of players who were great, and averaged 50+. After he almost got the nickname Olympics ie 5 0's he got 4 in a row in the Sri Lanka tour in 1992-93, he only after 3 tests of the next 114 had a career average of 44. Yet Dean Jones who scored the most test runs on that tour, took his average to 46.5 and was never picked to play Test cricket again.

Selectors favour players because they look good and they show them more faith. Waugh was saved, unlike Jones, Martyn because he extra strings to his bow. But that doesnt mean he didnt live up to expectations on his main job, making runs. That's what I'm saying about the Hoff. He stays in the side because he is versatile. But like Waugh he didnt reach the heights he should have in his main job, the Hoff isnt reaching expectations in his main job of kicking goals. Play him at CHB if he is such a good back man or on the wing as a tall wing man if he is such a good mid fielder.

I'm not sure Hoff plays that well in a set position though, He's one of those guys you take the good with the bad to a degree because he is versatile.. He's such a perplexing player because of it and when we play poorly he looks like a chicken without a head running around in daze.

Anyone averaging 50 or over in test cricket post 2000 deserves one of these *

 

[Chokito]

No Broady = bit harsh to be made an example of. Are we not doing loose man in defence or? As much as I love Jonas, he should have been omitted, not Broady.

 

[Papa G]

Agree about the smell, disagree about it being a bad thing for Carlton.

Remember how they've just been buying flags for 100 years and pissing all over the smaller clubs. They deserve this spell as a club. They'll eventually snap out of it, but the smaller clubs deserve to catch up, and if that means a generation of Carlton shitness, good news.

Yep. Their situation is much like ours was except they have 6 or 7 home games where their abysmal crowds are padded by away supporters, they have the AFL and Ch 7 trying everything in their power to boost their profile rather than the SANFL doing nothing of the complete opposite and they don't have a spiteful media calling for their licence to be sold to Tasmania.

 

[PA88]

No Broady = bit harsh to be made an example of. Are we not doing loose man in defence or? As much as I love Jonas, he should have been omitted, not Broady.

Interesting point. Jonas has been poorer than Broadbent. Perhaps Broadbent is the example for the rest to kick into gear?

 

[ozph1870]

No Broady = bit harsh to be made an example of. Are we not doing loose man in defence or? As much as I love Jonas, he should have been omitted, not Broady.

completely different roles, jonas plays his best as a shut down defender, besides the horrible match up on betts i cant remember if jonas has had a bag kicked on him his year. broady has been playng bruise free wide reciever soft footy all year, hasnt had the impact on games someone in that role should. he is a gun player and a week or two in the maggies side wont hurt him. its about time ken made a stance with some higher profiled players, hopefully it shakes the whole side up. we will be better off for it.

 

[Byrons Firen]

Harsh on Mark Waugh - one of Australia's best batsmen of all time - much better bat than Steve.

great slipper too
did he bowl a bit?......oh yeah
Military mediums weren't they?, nude balls (nothing on 'em-no cut no swing)
got wickets but

What I don't want to see is Broadbent back unless one of Krak, Pittard or Impey goes out of the team or gets shifted into a different role.

Is Broady gunna become a Maggies mainstay
eventually joined by Gus, jackeled by Karlos, to join Chad
DNA front n back, exciting and brilliant.
Arch in the middle
Paddy up front
Jakey in and about
All under Harold Thomas
12/7/71


thanks Paul Vandenbergh
you are magnificent

Signed
Enoch Powell

joke joyce
if anybody is thinking of laughing
I'm happy to tickle 'em

Oh is that the door ?
I'll get my coat

 

[finbarr]

So......how 'bout those changes, eh?

 

[StuMan]

So......how 'bout those changes, eh?

I thought this was the cricket thread?

 

[Spadge]

off topic. Mark better than Steve? i would ask for some of what your on but i reckon its all gone

on topic. Surprised about Broady but not disappointed. Not overly fussed with our omissions except im surprised Whitey wasnt rested for a week. Great to see Mitchell banished but still cant work out what Stewart needs to do to get a game. I would have had him in over Gray

 

[Jonts]

Hoping now Broadbent isnt the easy in now for Kane

Unless he moves into a midfield role, and i'd rather have one of Ah Chee, Moore or Young given that opportunity

Is it true now that S gray has taken Polec's spot on the list, so Krak won't be able to "take" Kanes spot on the list either? and won't be able to play once Frampton is back

S Gray will see some midfield time, i'll predict 3 centre bounces

 

[Schulzenfest]

Josh Carr's interview seemed to hint Broady will be strongly considered next week even without a run in the SANFL

Well then what's the ****ing point?

Matthew Broadbent is best 22. If he's dropped to send a message that you must be in form to get AFL games and to consequently put a rocket up the team, I'm fine with his omission. But if we're bringing him back without making him force his way back in, that doesn't send a message. It just means we're missing one of our best 22 players against Richmond for no reason.

 

[JimmyBeerCans]

Well then what's the ******* point?

Matthew Broadbent is best 22. If he's dropped to send a message that you must be in form to get AFL games and to consequently put a rocket up the team, I'm fine with his omission. But if we're bringing him back without making him force his way back in, that doesn't send a message. It just means we're missing one of our best 22 players against Richmond for no reason.

If they feel Broady is the right fit next week they'll pick him regardless that's what I gleamed from the interview, not saying I agree with it but don't be surprised.. is there any chance we can ever get the SANFL to work out their fixtures/Byes/State game weekends blah blah in line with the SA AFL clubs draws pffft it's fuggin' stupid.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Unless both of Impey and Krak make themselves undroppable, Broadbent will be back in.

Surely.

 

[Forzaport]

Broadbent getting dropped is scapegoating at it's finest. We played 5 running half backs and our midfield was smashed. No wonder his production was down.

Hi Broady you've been playing well in at half back, but we've decided to pick 5 running half backs for some reason, so we're going to have to push you up the ground and if you don't perform there we're going to drop you instead of putting you back in your more natural position in some sort of reverse Salopek manoeuvre

Or he's fallen behind Krakouer in the pecking order. Same thing happened to O'Shea with Hombsch settling in. Broadbent's form has been indifferent almost all year.

 

[Forzaport]

Well then what's the ******* point?

Matthew Broadbent is best 22. If he's dropped to send a message that you must be in form to get AFL games and to consequently put a rocket up the team, I'm fine with his omission. But if we're bringing him back without making him force his way back in, that doesn't send a message. It just means we're missing one of our best 22 players against Richmond for no reason.

Dropping him sends a strong message in itself. Sometimes it's enough to snap a player back into action.

 

[Power Girl]

How is Wingard even in the "drop him" conversation? Honestly, some people must expect him to be gathering 35 touches, 4 goals, 10 clearances and a cure for Ebola every time he goes out there.

but he does .. doesn't he

 

[ZingerB]

Struggling with OP, had surgery last year and groin still giving him issues.

Is it the OP though? He has been worse since his ankle got trodden on against North Melbourne.

 

[raptalia]

Look at his test record, not his ODI record. I used his test analogy as it doesnt matter how good he was or pretty he looked his average was just less than 42, because he didnt produce enough when it counted. If he was great he would have averaged 50+ like Ponting, Hayden, Border, Clarke and co. The others produced better results and better average who didnt look as good or have his talent, his brother, Langer, Martyn, Taylor, Kaitch, Boon etc.

Same with Westhoff. He looks good, but his main role is to kick goals or create opportunites for his small forwards to get goals as a result of his play. It aint happening.

Not sure how many AFL games Mark Waugh played but you are right he was good to watch but enigmatic at times and just short of being a great cricketer. Mind you like brother Steve he was a great close in fieldsman and would walk into the current Australian test line up.

You are also right about Westhoff, his big attribute is his ability to take a big mark in defence then a few minutes later take a mark in attack when we need it. The problem is that knack has deserted Westhoff so far this season. Now that we have Paddy Ryder he is not needed as the second tall in ruck so he has to earn his keep taking defensive and occasional attacking marks. I wonder if the role that Ryder is now playing has meant Westhoff has to do things differently?

 

[ZingerB]

Hartlett's form this year doesn't even warrant him being dropped, despite what some would have us believe. He's been short of his best but he's been ok.
As for Westhoff, even during a stretch of poor form he's only ever one game from taking 12 marks and kicking 4. And who on our list gives us what Justin can give us anyway?

He has been better than okay to be honest. He has laid a ton of tackles this year and really is having a similar year to Brad Ebert's 2014. People were calling for Ebert to be dropped last year because he was only averaging 20 odd disposals. Much like Boak, you can say they are down all you like but if they are getting 20+ possessions and 6-10 tackles every week, they are having a crack.

 

[Dalphonso]

But low 40's is not great. Plenty of his contemporaries ie 1990-2003 period averaged 45-49 that he was considered a lot better player than and then there were plenty of players who were great, and averaged 50+. After he almost got the nickname Olympics ie 5 0's he got 4 in a row in the Sri Lanka tour in 1992-93, he only after 3 tests of the next 114 had a career average of 44. Yet Dean Jones who scored the most test runs on that tour, took his average to 46.5 and was never picked to play Test cricket again.

Selectors favour players because they look good and they show them more faith. Waugh was saved, unlike Jones, Martyn because he extra strings to his bow. But that doesnt mean he didnt live up to expectations on his main job, making runs. That's what I'm saying about the Hoff. He stays in the side because he is versatile. But like Waugh he didnt reach the heights he should have in his main job, the Hoff isnt reaching expectations in his main job of kicking goals. Play him at CHB if he is such a good back man or on the wing as a tall wing man if he is such a good mid fielder.

Mark Waugh got many tests because he was a great one day batsman and the selectors didn't see much difference in those days unlike today.

• Dean Jones' biggest problem was Dean Jones's mouth.He didn't know when to shut it when it came to criticising selectors.I think Hookesy and Lehmann had similar problems?
• There was the rumour also he was having relations with Bobby Simpsons Daughter who was I think on with Geoff Marsh? Don't quote me on that one but that was the type of rumour.