Ebert To Tear Us A New One According To Rucci

Remove this Banner Ad

Yes, he kicked it to McLeod. According to the stats he had 7 clangers. The ones I remember were the kick to McLeod, he kicked it out of bounds on the full in the second, got caught holding the ball by Doughty in the last. Can't remember the others but 7 clangers is a high number in anyones language.
Gee whizz his inclusion really tested the depth of our midfield then, as Rucci stated it would.....:rolleyes:
 
I thought he was decent, definitely has the body of an AFL footballer, he will be a good player no doubt, unfortunately today he came against a side that was applying finals like pressure that would have been 200% on anything hes experienced before and in his first game to expect him to deal with it is just unfair. Having said that, that pin point pass to Mcleod on the lead was, well, Burtonesque, I'm not sure whether Mcleod has ever had such good delivery.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I thought young Ebert played well in his first game. If one of ours had as much of the ball in game 1 we would all be wetting ourselves. Looks like a good prospect.:thumbsu:
 
I know you'll be reading this Rucci, how about printing an apology in your roast this week to the Ebert finally for your absolute trash journalism that heaped unnecessary pressure to a young kid making his debut.
They were the only ones his story really insulted. The AFC expects this crap from him.
 
Yes, he kicked it to McLeod. According to the stats he had 7 clangers. The ones I remember were the kick to McLeod, he kicked it out of bounds on the full in the second, got caught holding the ball by Doughty in the last. Can't remember the others but 7 clangers is a high number in anyones language.

Not that he'll get it for this game, given the competition this week, but the selectors don't seem to take much notice of stats like that.
Houli won last week for a 24 touch game. I believe he had 10 errors to his name.
The overall quality of the youngsters game doesn't count for much - they're just looking at who has the biggest disposal count.
 
Not that he'll get it for this game, given the competition this week, but the selectors don't seem to take much notice of stats like that.
Houli won last week for a 24 touch game. I believe he had 10 errors to his name.
The overall quality of the youngsters game doesn't count for much - they're just looking for stats.

That's ludicrous really. Quality of stats is what counts rather than heaps of bad ones.

Ebert was okay in getting the ball but he did only have a 50% efficiency rate and an 50% clanger rate.

While that's understandable for a first-upper he doesn't have great pace which also put him under a little bit of pressure, hence his poor disposal - apart from the McLeod one which was sheer incompetence.

He will be a good solid player in time, but IMO I think the AFC have done exactly the right thing.

If Ebert's name was Smith or Jones etc, we would never be talking about him.
 
Agree Macca - I thought Ebert and Masten were no where near where they had been hyped. Ebert actually for all the talk about his body being ready to play AFL I thought looked small.

Ebert will be a good honest midfielder, we already have those.

Well, they were in a team which got flogged by 12 goals. I though Ebert did pretty good for his first game. Masten played forward mostly, even though he's an inside midfielder, so I'll wait and see how he goes in the middle before commenting.
 
That's ludicrous really. Quality of stats is what counts rather than heaps of bad ones.

Ebert was okay in getting the ball but he did only have a 50% efficiency rate and an 50% clanger rate.

While that's understandable for a first-upper he doesn't have great pace which also put him under a little bit of pressure, hence his poor disposal - apart from the McLeod one which was sheer incompetence.

He will be a good solid player in time, but IMO I think the AFC have done exactly the right thing.

If Ebert's name was Smith or Jones etc, we would never be talking about him.

What will Rucci write this week:p
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Well, they were in a team which got flogged by 12 goals. I though Ebert did pretty good for his first game. Masten played forward mostly, even though he's an inside midfielder, so I'll wait and see how he goes in the middle before commenting.

I agree in that young Ebert had a fair start to his AFL career & did not look out of place at all.

Did not see enough of Masten to make a judgment.
 
I agree in that young Ebert had a fair start to his AFL career & did not look out of place at all.
Did not see enough of Masten to make a judgment.
:thumbsu: it was only Ebert's first game, so didn't expect him to star - plus, he's only 17 - pretty good i reckon. he did well to be involved and obviously has alot to improve on, but showed promise of becoming a star.
Mackay also had a very good first game; though compared to Ebert, he's had the extra 1 year in the system.
All i can remember from Masten was his run into the 50 and banging it out on the full. i'm thinking he may have come off injured or something, because i really don't remember seeing him at all in the second half.
 
Well, they were in a team which got flogged by 12 goals. I though Ebert did pretty good for his first game. Masten played forward mostly, even though he's an inside midfielder, so I'll wait and see how he goes in the middle before commenting.

Look I agree that it is hard for youngsters to debut well when their is that score line, but you guys actually won the clearances and had a similar amount of forward entries, it was the superior reading of the play by our backmen and the pressure that was put on your midfielders when they were delivering the ball that helped us. But taking that into account....

Masten had two shots on goal from memory that were absolute shockers and one of them he had very limited pressure on him for the kick. Midfielders these days need to be able to play forward and especially in your team as your game plan over the past years relies pretty heavily on your midfielders being 'extended forwards'. I had heard that he was an inside mid with very good goal sense. There were enough ball ups in your forward area when he was done there for him to show some of that skills and I just didn't see it. I'm not gong to judge him on this one game, but for those to say he played well I beg to differ from what I saw.

Ebert needs to bulk up in his arms, for someone that was hyped about his ready made body for AFL (cue 5aa etc) I was surprised at his size. A 50% clanger rate is not what I would call a good debut.
 
Masten did have a few shocking kicks at goal. I don't think we drafted him to be a goal kicker though, we look at him as a purely inside midfielder. If we wanted to go for a goal kicking midfielder we would have gone with Palmer.

Ebert is only 17 and Masten is 18, no surprise they had a few clangers and missed shots on goals in their first game. I'm sure it was mostly down to nerves than anything else. They'll only improve from here.

Agreed with your point about Ebert's size. I thought he was going to be a bit bigger, but after hearing he's only 17, I'm not worried at all.
 
There were a couple of question marks over Ebert's disposal by foot, so I'm not surprised to see him make a few clangers. Not a bad debut though.

Also, just on the Rising Star discussion, I loved Jaryn Geary's game for St.Kilda. Our boys are a long way back in the queue for a nom.
 
Agree Macca - I thought Ebert and Masten were no where near where they had been hyped. Ebert actually for all the talk about his body being ready to play AFL I thought looked small.

Ebert will be a good honest midfielder, we already have those.


Make no mistake, they will both be guns. However still happy to pick up Dangerfield.
 
Masten did have a few shocking kicks at goal. I don't think we drafted him to be a goal kicker though, we look at him as a purely inside midfielder. If we wanted to go for a goal kicking midfielder we would have gone with Palmer.

Ebert is only 17 and Masten is 18, no surprise they had a few clangers and missed shots on goals in their first game. I'm sure it was mostly down to nerves than anything else. They'll only improve from here.

Agreed with your point about Ebert's size. I thought he was going to be a bit bigger, but after hearing he's only 17, I'm not worried at all.

I still believe it was arrogance on your selectors to pick them for this game.
Either you have heaps of injuries or your depth is no where near what we believe it is.
 
STill no one has told me what Rucci said in that article that was wrong? Surely we expected this to come up? I agree if he brings it up every time we play its over the top but for the kids first game it was a legitimate article to write.

Great pass he did to McLeod on the outer wing by the way, god bless him.:D
 
STill no one has told me what Rucci said in that article that was wrong? Surely we expected this to come up? I agree if he brings it up every time we play its over the top but for the kids first game it was a legitimate article to write.

Great pass he did to McLeod on the outer wing by the way, god bless him.:D

Lol, & i also noticed Macca after the game having a few quiet words with him with a friendly arm around the shoulder. :thumbsu:
 
Interesting accusation. I guess we should all tar Adelaide with the same drug brush.... especially now that your player Wayne Carey has come out and admitted he is a cocaine addict. God knows how many games he played for Adelaide whilst under the influence right? :rolleyes: Glass houses and all.

As for Ebert he is a gun... his form in the pre-season has been nothing short of excellent and he is a born leader. As for Dangerfield well who knows... he has proven nothing at senior SANFL level yet unlike Ebert has.... anyway where did you pick him up from? Kindergarden? :eek:

Dangerfield(246x316).jpg
Your intelligence matches your spelling mate!!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top