Player Watch Charlie Dixon Part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Are you really asking that?

Yes.

I know the popular answer is 'Sutcliffe' but given both were in the team last week, it really doesn't work, does it?

EDIT: Forgot Ryder. Yes, Dixon would have improved the result, even though Macca tells us Ryder is a better forward.
 
Yes.

I know the popular answer is 'Sutcliffe' but given both were in the team last week, it really doesn't work, does it?

Ok, how about Ryder then? Universally agreed upon that he's a poor forward and had an average game.

Last week is last week anyway. We were beaten all over the park in that game. This week was decided by a point and two defenders took 23 marks between them. If you can't see that Dixon missing was the difference then I can't help you.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sure, because we've never seen any games exactly like that one when Dixon was in the team.

Agree totally, but I think Dixon was probably worth 2 extra points tonight over Ryder or Howard.

It's really more the attitude. As I've said repeatedly, Butcher being dropped for Sam Gray more than 5 years ago was the canary in the coal mine. Ken Hinkley does not understand or value the Key Forward role. It's meaningless to him and he thinks we should be able to win regardless of the mix of players we have up there.
 
Sure, because we've never seen any games exactly like that one when Dixon was in the team.

Defenders don't run riot they way they did last night with Dixon in the side.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but anyone defending that selection is part of the problem. You don't have to like Charlie Dixon but it was the wrong call to drop him period.
 
I would love for Charlie to spend the off season with someone like Treaders just learning how to lead and push off opponents... oh and goal kicking practise wouldn't hurt. Time is running out for this much loved big man.
 
I would love for Charlie to spend the off season with someone like Treaders just learning how to lead and push off opponents... oh and goal kicking practise wouldn't hurt. Time is running out for this much loved big man.

Doesn't matter. Ken would pull him up and scold him for running all over the place like a chicken with it's head cut off, then lambast him about being too deep.

Also, Tredders wasn't always Mr. Reliable set shot.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Defenders don't run riot they way they did last night with Dixon in the side.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but anyone defending that selection is part of the problem. You don't have to like Charlie Dixon but it was the wrong call to drop him period.

Without question. If Dixon is playing at least half of those intercept marks come to ground giving our smalls a chance and stopping GWS rebounding.

Even if Dixon has zero impact outside of that, we win.
 
Doesn't matter. Ken would pull him up and scold him for running all over the place like a chicken with it's head cut off, then lambast him about being too deep.

Also, Tredders wasn't always Mr. Reliable set shot.
Interestingly Tredders went from about 55% from 07-02 and then 63% thereafter. Was with no change to an ugly set shot action that most thought beyond redemption. Shows how much of it is between the ears.
 
Get Tredrea & Schulz to work with Dixon, Marshall, Frampton as a tall forward unit.

Leading & reading the play
Out-bodying defenders
Kicking technique
Set shot routines
 
I'm still giggling at a post from a couple of weeks ago about Dixon moonlighting as a basketball backboard. Can't remember who posted it but thanks again for the giggle.

A basketball backboard would be more use than the traffic cone named Cameron Sutcliffe we're currently playing up there.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top