Review Good, Bad and Ugly vs Lions

[BrissyCrow]

Worrell looked anything but an AFL player from day 1: he got nearly zero disposals and was banished. After dealing with a few issues, he was good when he returned much later. You picked a poor analogy.

Curtin should go back and "work on a few things" in the SANFL. We are in the business of trying to win games now. Wherever he plays on the ground, he must be able to defend. The AFL is not the place to learn that. It's a hard life!

Agree about Curtin. He came to us with a huge wrap. West Coast and North were fighting over him. We were ecstatic when we got him. He had one good game in the SANFL and hasn't shown us anything since being elevated to the AFL. He needs more time in the SANFL and the club needs to play him in the position that best suits him and not so much trying to make him something he isn't. I think he will have a good career but he needs to find where his position is in the team. And if we dont manage him correctly he will go back to WA.

We always seem to select players that aren't ready made and it takes 2-3 years to benefit from the selection.

 

[GameofSloanes]

That is the worry. Would rather him up on a wing and use his height to assist our outlet kicks. An area we have struggled with all year


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

*all 26 years since 1998

 

[OccamsRazorRay]

There seems to be a lot of posts alluding to (or outright saying) that Curtin played a key defensive role against the Lions

He played on a mix of their lesser lights - at no point was he asked to be a KPD standing either Hipwood or Daniher, nor was he sacrificed on a super small like Charlie

He was just completely out of sorts and outclassed on the night - and that’s okay for a two game player


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Yeah i wasn't saying he was playing a KPD role against Bris, just that he has been given that role in SANFL and is only developing those skills there. He won't end up there long term

 

[DJ75]

Agree about Curtin. He came to us with a huge wrap. West Coast and North were fighting over him. We were ecstatic when we got him. He had one good game in the SANFL and hasn't shown us anything since being elevated to the AFL. He needs more time in the SANFL and the club needs to play him in the position that best suits him and not so much trying to make him something he isn't. I think he will have a good career but he needs to find where his position is in the team. And if we dont manage him correctly he will go back to WA.

We always seem to select players that aren't ready made and it takes 2-3 years to benefit from the selection.

I don't think that's it.
I think it's more what happens after we select them.
Most teams draft a high end talent, then pick them in their AFL side and place them in a position they can be successful in. Normally a similar role to what they were doing that got them drafted.

We don't do that.
We draft a high end talent, and then push them into unfamiliar roles, because our team is too stacked and too successful to change.

 

[skam85]

The Fox commentators also commented that they thought ROB had a good game deep into the 4th. His ruck work is always decent, but he actually started taking some marks yesterday which was promising. Ruck is still the least important position on the ground imo and I think we can get away with ROB for another 1-2 years and wait for someone like Tyler Goad to develop at North and bring him back home.

The Fox commentators were Dwayne and Kelli.

Kelli probably got ROB and Izak Rankine confused.

 

[OccamsRazorRay]

Yeah i just watched the replay and he was unfortunately SO SO out of his depth. We have a very slim chance against the Pies and the MCG just isn't the place to find form. Worrell is a KPD, Curtin is not even close to cementing those skills at SANFL level. He performed quite well off HB and that's what got him a senior game.

At this stage he's quite far behind in terms of the pace of the game, and there are better games to give him that exposure beyond the Pies game.

He's 197cm, we all know big lads take a while to get going, we should be stoked he's getting a look in already. Everyone on this board freaking out he was the only Top 10 that was yet to play again whilst forgetting he's a tall defender, and likely playing sore. We need some patience

Another player who looked very out of sorts, after watching the replay, was Nankervis. I've been a huge fan of his, but his contested defensive 1-1 work, particularly in our D50, leaves a bit to be desired. He had a great start to the year on the wing, but has been asked to fill in the HB position on occasion, and opposition teams are making him a little more accountable. Just goes to show that our team is still very young, and is still building size/experience. He, along with several other younger players such as Cook (who was poor in the last Q), are still working out their positioning as well.

On review as well, for as bad as McHenry is, I do wish some players had his manic defensive energy. There were a few times he was running between 3 x Brissy players, trying to apply pressure, whilst Crouch/laird were literally jogging...

One player i was really impressed with on review was Sholl.

Is really turning it on against quality opposition this year, and is finding some consistency. I remember in the last Q he was in the F50 giving an assist for a shot on goal, and then literally 30 seconds later he was in our D50 applying pressure

 

[jenny61_99]

If we drop Curtin he needs to be played in SANFL as a floating HB, wing or midfield absolutely NOT as a KPD.

Who cares if we lose

If there's no SANFL game this weekend, he needs to play AFL.

 

[BrissyCrow]

I don't think that's it.
I think it's more what happens after we select them.
Most teams draft a high end talent, then pick them in their AFL side and place them in a position they can be successful in. Normally a similar role to what they were doing that got them drafted.

We don't do that.
We draft a high end talent, and then push them into unfamiliar roles, because our team is too stacked and too successful to change.

I think we are both saying the same thing.

From my post "He needs more time in the SANFL and the club needs to play him in the position that best suits him and not so much trying to make him something he isn't."

 

[BACCS]

I feel dirty even saying this, but watching the replay and McHenry and Brodie were fairly decent, certainly not close to drop worthy on that form.

I need a shower now.

 

[BACCS]

Himmelberg actually did very well in a number of contests with Andrews and killed Andrews offensively when the ball hit the ground, easily his best AFL game. A lot of the Andrews intercept marks were just class from an elite player, not necessarily much any player could do really.

 

[BucketsNj]

Late in the game last Thursday night when Melbourne were fighting back against Carlton, Max Gawn took a strong contested mark close to the F50 arc, no angle, and potted the goal.
At the time, I thought (rather sadly):
--- ROB would not have taken that mark.
--- ROB would not have kicked that goal, nowhere near it.
Yes, he's fit and tall.
Yes, he attends a lot of ball-ups. That's it.

Apparently, both ROB and Nicks think that's enough .

So ROB is not as good as one of the best ruckmen ever to play the game?
Well colour me disgusted.

 

[CrowBloke]

So ROB is not as good as one of the best ruckmen ever to play the game?
Well colour me disgusted.

Before I posted I anticipated some might object to the comparison, because ROB is ROB and Gawn is the best ruckman in the Comp. It would be unfair to make a blanket comparison between the two, I agree. I'm not annoyed or disappointed that he's not as good as Gawn.
But what I said was that ROB would not have taken that contested mark, under that pressure, in that position, because he rarely does. I'd venture to say never, in fact. He's a man-mountain, averaging 2 marks/game this year, I think. It's not good enough.
A fair head-to-head comparison would be from Round 3 this year where they both had 39 hitouts (I dunno about "to advantage", sorry) and 3 tackles but, tellingly, Max took 6 marks to ROB's ZERO. NIL. NADA.
Max also had 9K/6H/15D to ROB's 6K/4H/10D.

I said also he would not have kicked that goal. OK, that's a bit rough, so let's bring him in 10 metres, fair enough?
Goal? Unlikely.
He can barely kick the ball 35-40 metres and his kicking style which is gangly/ungainly to say the least means any one of his kicks could go anywhere, anytime, under pressure or not. The only person I have seen kick worse than ROB this year was Smith, once only, with that howler ootf from the NW back pocket (bookies would pay out now on that being Worst Kick Under No Pressure of 2024).

What's not unfair is to want a ruckman who takes more marks, kicks better and is an asset in ruck contests and has positive impact around the ground.
Don't you want that, too?
ROB is, and has been for some time now a liability, a lumbering log of a ruckman --- about which you should be 'disgusted'.
P.S. Edit: Eh, maybe not disgusted, but disappointed.

 

[Dirty Bird]

I feel dirty even saying this, but watching the replay and McHenry and Brodie were fairly decent, certainly not close to drop worthy on that form.

I need a shower now.

Would be nice if more people watch the game with the emotion taken out of it.

 

[Sanders]

Would be nice if more people watch the game with the emotion taken out of it.

Would you stop trying to turn the conversation back onto you?

 

[skam85]

Would be nice if more people watch the game with the emotion taken out of it.

Extremely odd take. Supporting your team and watching sport is inherently passionate and emotional.

If you want raw boring data open up a spreadsheet

 

[Dirty Bird]

Extremely odd take. Supporting your team and watching sport is inherently passionate and emotional.

If you want raw boring data open up a spreadsheet

my point is watch the replay without being blinded by the passion live.

This board hates Smith/Jones/McHenry/ROB so much, they could be fighting for coaches votes and people here wouldn't notice live because they're blinded by their hate.

So it's good watching the replay after the fact. Case in point with BACCS.

 

[FR0GGY]

my point is watch the replay without being blinded by the passion live.

This board hates Smith/Jones/McHenry/ROB so much, they could be fighting for coaches votes and people here wouldn't notice live because they're blinded by their hate.

So it's good watching the replay after the fact. Case in point with BACCS.

They have a combined 3 votes for the year (Rob against the worst side in a long long time)

 

[Sanders]

my point is watch the replay without being blinded by the passion live.

This board hates Smith/Jones/McHenry/ROB so much, they could be fighting for coaches votes and people here wouldn't notice live because they're blinded by their hate.

So it's good watching the replay after the fact. Case in point with BACCS.

They’re not smart like you, is that it?

 

[skam85]

my point is watch the replay without being blinded by the passion live.

This board hates Smith/Jones/McHenry/ROB so much, they could be fighting for coaches votes and people here wouldn't notice live because they're blinded by their hate.

So it's good watching the replay after the fact. Case in point with BACCS.

Using BACCS as an example of emotionless unbias? Bold strategy Cotton.

 

[Twist_of_Lemon]

Using BACCS as an example of emotionless unbias? Bold strategy Cotton.

BACCS and Riggy have a complicated history.

 

[BACCS]

Using BACCS as an example of emotionless unbias? Bold strategy Cotton.

Yep, you sure are a beacon of rational and unbiased thoughts on this board

 

[skam85]

Yep, you sure are a beacon of rational and unbiased thoughts on this board

Sure am. Show me where I'm not?

 

[Slippery Pete]

BACCS and Riggy have a complicated history.

This cartel audition you’re doing is becoming highly entertaining.

However, 2400 posts since 2008. I am afraid you might love us and leave us.

 

[BACCS]

Sure am. Show me where I'm not?

I really don't have to explain this, do I? You are just the pessimistic version of what you claim I am. You think that I believe anything the club says and their shit doesn't stink vs you think they can't do anything right and their shit stinks. Given you are wearing this 'Cartel' thing like a badge of honour, I didn't think this would require an explanation...

 

[skam85]

I really don't have to explain this, do I? You are just the pessimistic version of what you claim I am. You think that I believe anything the club says and their s**t doesn't stink vs you think they can't do anything right and their s**t stinks. Given you are wearing this 'Cartel' thing like a badge of honour, I didn't think this would require an explanation...

So no evidence then, carry on.