Injury Jackson Thurlow - lacerated kidney

[Seeds]

I think Taylor said it best, Blicavs is a genuine modern day utility. He will pop up where he is needed most. At this stage I think that will be ruck but if Lonergan or Rivers go down, that could change.

What is interesting is that Blicavs is not suffering any major ill-effects of being moved around and he continues to thrive in different roles.

While that is the case, I am quite happy for him to play where he has to, to improve the balance of the team. If he starts to stagnate in his development we might need to settle him in one position. But for now, enjoy the flexibility he brings.

I'm not sure thrive is the best word to use for a player who got absolutely smashed by his opponent in his last game of football.

 

[Partridge]

I'm not sure thrive is the best word to use for a player who got absolutely smashed by his opponent in his last game of football.

Or the one before that. Apparently being mutilated by Brad Hill on the wing means he can now play there.

No point trying to add facts into this discussion.

 

[Seeds]

Or the one before that. Apparently being mutilated by Brad Hill on the wing means he can now play there.

No point trying to add facts into this discussion.

Has he ever had a game playing as a wingman that was at an acceptable AFL standard? He has had some good games as a backup ruckman and a couple of promising games in defence but that would be it. Apparently that makes him a utility.

 

[catempire]

Has he ever had a game playing as a wingman that was at an acceptable AFL standard? He has had some good games as a backup ruckman and a couple of promising games in defence but that would be it. Apparently that makes him a utility.

Yeah, what would Harry Taylor know anyway.

 

[Partridge]

Has he ever had a game playing as a wingman that was at an acceptable AFL standard? He has had some good games as a backup ruckman and a couple of promising games in defence but that would be it. Apparently that makes him a utility.

I'm just hoping they've woken up, and realised that just because he can outrun other ruckmen (which he absolutely can do), doesn't mean he can keep up with lightning fast wingers (which he absolutely cannot do).

 

[JUBJUB]

Yeah, what would Harry Taylor know anyway.

Never disagree with DQ1 & DQ2 - they're never wrong.
Just ask them.

 

[Partridge]

Yeah, what would Harry Taylor know anyway.

A hell of a lot about being a great key defender I'd say.

 

[catempire]

A hell of a lot about being a great key defender I'd say.

And more.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

To me it's either 2nd ruck, or if one of Lonergan, Rivers or Taylor aren't available (either injured or hopefully rested at times), as a third tall defender. He can't play anywhere else, and shouldn't either.

Taylor clearly disagrees with you and I'm willing to bet we'll see him on the wing at times.

 

[Partridge]

Taylor clearly disagrees with you and I'm willing to bet we'll see him on the wing at times.

Didn't realise I was in discussions with Taylor. How gratifying.

Who do you take off the wing, Motlop or Duncan?

 

[bulletproof]

Has he ever had a game playing as a wingman that was at an acceptable AFL standard? He has had some good games as a backup ruckman and a couple of promising games in defence but that would be it. Apparently that makes him a utility.

I don't think he is a great option on a wing either, but playing ruck, half back, full back and half forward would still qualify him as a utility.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Taylor clearly disagrees with you and I'm willing to bet we'll see him on the wing at times.

You don't understand. No player should ever again play in a given position once he has been badly beaten in that position by a very good player in one half of one game of football.
We are now looking for 46 replacement players.

 

[Partridge]

You don't understand. No player should ever again play in a given position once he has been badly beaten in that position by a very good player in one half of one game of football.
We are now looking for 46 replacement players.

Would you put him on the wing against Hawthorn in Round 1 Fred? If not, why not? Or will you invoke the 'well the match committee know better than you so I'll save myself the need to think for myself' clause?

I'd prefer to opt for where he's showed the best aptitude - 2nd ruck or tall defender if required. Crazy hey!

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Didn't realise I was in discussions with Taylor. How gratifying.

Who do you take off the wing, Motlop or Duncan?

I don't agree either. I have posted as such that it was unfair on Blitz to be expected to play on Hill. I have no ill feelings towards Blitz for that game, it's like playing Stokes in the ruck, you can't really then make him the scapegoat when he inevitably fails.

From watching the clip yesterday there seems to be clear, what's the word, signal maybe? that Blicavs is becoming in the eyes of those in the club Mr. Fix It.

As such I'm confident he will be used on the wing at some point. I prefer him to be groomed as the defender, vfl first with some afl games whilst our 3 first choice KPD's get rested. Do not share the same sentiments as Bobby with Stanley as a defender, think Blicavs is more suited.

You don't understand. No player should ever again play in a given position once he has been badly beaten in that position by a very good player in one half of one game of football.
We are now looking for 46 replacement players.

read above. My view is more about what I think the club will do

 

[catempire]

You don't understand. No player should ever again play in a given position once he has been badly beaten in that position by a very good player in one half of one game of football.
We are now looking for 46 replacement players.

Early contender for POTY!

 

[FredLeDeux]

Would you put him on the wing against Hawthorn in Round 1 Fred? If not, why not? Or will you invoke the 'well the match committee know better than you so I'll save myself the need to think for myself' clause?

I'd prefer to opt for where he's showed the best aptitude - 2nd ruck or tall defender if required. Crazy hey!

I wouldn't have him on the wing v Hawthorn, I'd have Duncan and Motlop.
I think it's pretty clear that this season he's going to be playing primarily in the back half, though not necessarily as a KPD.
As to the MC, they certainly have more information than me, but I think it should be pretty clear to most posters by now who is the better judge between the MC and me.

 

[Turbocat]

Can't see huge changes to the back six in 2015. Bews will be injected to take the opposition's most dangerous small forward. Then I can see Blicavs and Kolo playing games while the game time of Lonergan and Rivers is managed.

Do we give credence to the noise that Smedts will play down there? Unless there is a better alternative because of match ups Id have Bews pencilled in for BP for most weeks.

I see Blitz playing a lot of games where he is deep , as the loose tall or 3rd tall. Depending on Rivers and our rucks I guess. Be good if we can rotate the talls out in quieter weeks. The start of the years is when we play the hard team , and also thats when players peg their spot.

I'dd like to see Kolo and Thurlow get games this year , and I see them more likely down back but they may be hard pressed to get regular games there. I think a 60/40 split with Rivers for Kolo woud be ideal getting 5-10 into him , and for Thurlow Sub and perhaps Boris when need. If Boris is fit Id be tempted to pretty much just play him till he has his 300 , maybe a minor injury or something can mean resting but w e have had too many players JUST fall short. Get it done asap.

But If Smedts is down there , Id say that affects both Kolo and Thurlow for game time. Right now , I think the tackling drill would be rather brutal 10/12 guys going for 4 spots imo.

 

[David the Cat]

Taylor's black eye supports your thought on the tackling drills Turbo….

If Harry says Blitz is a utility, then I'm not going to argue. That means he will pop up in a variety of places throughout the year…forward, ruck back and maybe even the wing.

Cliche time………horses for courses….

 

[meto]

Taylor's black eye supports your thought on the tackling drills Turbo….

If Harry says Blitz is a utility, then I'm not going to argue. That means he will pop up in a variety of places throughout the year…forward, ruck back and maybe even the wing.

Cliche time………horses for courses….

He possibly caught some of Blitz coming in the other direction, 198/100kg is always going to hurt.
Didn't seem Harry was to objectionable about the idea of Blitz in defence.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Bobby_ the third point is unfair regarding Tippett. Both Lonergan and Enright were out that night. Against a side that had Franklin, Tippett, Reid and Goodes in the forward line

 

[thegerman]

He possibly caught some of Blitz coming in the other direction, 198/100kg is always going to hurt.
Didn't seem Harry was to objectionable about the idea of Blitz in defence.

Blitz in defence.....thought he did well in the opportunities he had last year as a stop gap. He's talented, more so athletically than any player on our list. He's smart and listens. I have no doubt, that given opportunity, he could be a very good KP defender.

The club is doing well in having him in Taylor's back pocket.

 

[catempire]

disagree sorry catempire. Blitz edges Mackie by a nose when it comes to agility. He's faster, more athletic, stronger and far better tackler which is what we'd need.
Mackie regressed last season and I'd suspect put on notice by the match committee. Time stands still for nobody and some of these guys are going on 31 this year.

As for very settled and successful back six . . . that was Scarlett, Wojcinski, Taylor, Milburn, Lonergan, Mackie of four years ago catempire. Today's back six has been as unsettled as it has for a good decade having seen the likes of Gillies, Brown, Bartel, Varcoe and now Kelly spend time down back all for little success.
Why is Gunston starting to get off the leash every time he now faces Geelong?
Why does Petrie now look so formidable against Geelong when he's always been well held in the past?
Why did Tippett do as he pleased against Taylor and Rivers last year?

I'd say they are all valid points and while our midfield is not as strong as it once was, neither are the likes of Enright, Mackie and Lonergan whom you are asking to remain in career-best form in order to go to the well just one last time.
Doesn't happen and it's why a change has been needed for a short period of time already.

A lot of knee jerk in this and I think you'll be initially disappointed but ultimately happy when you see only small and gradual change to the back six in 2015. It will serve us well.

 

[catempire]

it's not a knee jerk reaction though. If Blicavs is playing as one of our key defenders in round 1 will you admit you were wrong?
If he isn't it, I'm happy for my post to bumped and will apologize accordingly so how about we wait and see shall we?

It's knee jerk because you are putting too much weight on a small sample of games and ignoring the great successes of the settled combination for 90% of the season.

But sure, if the backline has all four of Taylor, Lonergan, Rivers and Blicavs, I will be wrong. Same goes if one of those first three is playing in the VFL. I'm very confident it won't happen.

That is not at all to say we won't see Blicavs back there at times throughout the season. Clearly they have him in mind for that role. But particularly early in the season with a tough run of games, if we have Taylor, Lonergan and Rivers available, Blicavs will be elsewhere.

 

[Cattery]

I'm looking at the overall picture, not just this 90% picture you speak off. I look at what has transpired in September when games slow down and I see big issues. Those same issues were evident a few years ago when Pavlich ripped us apart in the elimination final.
It happened again the following year, he may only booted 2 goals but he completely shanked two others in which he'd normally slot. Same thing happened in subsequent games against Port Adelaide and Hawthorn where Gunston, Westhoff, Schulz began imposing themselves on the games as they drew to a conclusion.
Of course, last year was what caused a lot of the change we (myself) are hoping to see.

Think you're off the mark Bobby if you reckon he'll suddenly slot in as a key defender in a side that has two of the best in the business already, or as a rebounding HBF ahead of another two of the best, all all this without even showing he can play either position successfully.

Think a lot of people are getting a bit carried away with this Mr Fix It business, and just because Harry comes out and sprouts the party line while blowing some smoke up a teammates backside doesn't mean it's suddenly gospel either.

Let's be honest, he's played 90% of his football as a ruckman, with moderate success, a handful of games as a winger with less success, and so little time as a defender it's hardly worth discussing.

My fading memory recalls a bloke who used to play in the blue and white hoops called Denis Marshall, was equally adept playing HBF, HFF and Ruck Rover, which made him a true utility, nowadays it seems that if the MC try somebody it more then one position he's suddenly a "genuine modern day utility" regardless of his ability to actually play those positions.

 

[catempire]

I'm looking at the overall picture, not just this 90% picture you speak off. I look at what has transpired in September when games slow down and I see big issues. Those same issues were evident a few years ago when Pavlich ripped us apart in the elimination final.
It happened again the following year, he may only booted 2 goals but he completely shanked two others in which he'd normally slot. Same thing happened in subsequent games against Port Adelaide and Hawthorn where Gunston, Westhoff, Schulz began imposing themselves on the games as they drew to a conclusion.
Of course, last year was what caused a lot of the change we (myself) are hoping to see.

It's absolutely necessary to look at the 10% and query what went wrong. The 10% over the past few years has generally been finals matches which of course matter most.

Where we differ is that I think it's a shallow analysis to look at who in the opposition team kicked goals and to conclude that their opponents were deficient and in need of replacing.

A few thoughts on what has gone wrong in finals in the past few years:

1. We are just not that good anymore. We have been spoilt by the era of dominance where we stepped up the pace and intensity in finals and crushed our opposition. We no longer have Ablett, Chapman, Corey, Milburn, Mooney, Ottens, Ling, Scarlett, Harley and Rooke who were a big part of executing that plan. We are now asking Duncan, Motlop, Caddy, GHS, Guthrie, Walker, Blicavs, Murdoch and Thurlow to step into the void and do the same thing. It's unrealistic at this stage of their development.

2. Our older players have carried us during the year but have been worn out and/or injured by September which has seen us stumble when too much has been left to the inexperienced players. Particularly a problem with our ruck division but also we've seen players like Enright and Kelly limp into finals campaigns. Hopefully the new fitness regime and a better approach to managing senior players game time and game load will help in 2015. However it also requires some luck with injuries so we can afford to rest players throughout the season.

3. Specifically as to which players have hurt us...

- 2014 QF - Mitchell, Lewis, Gunston and Roughead
- 2014 SF - Dal Santo, Gibson, Goldstein, Petrie and Thomas
- 2013 QF - Barlow, Fyfe, Pavlich, Sandilands and Hill
- 2013 SF - Westoff, Boak?? (Won the game anyway)
- 2013 PF - Mitchell, Burgoyne, Hale, Gunston
- 2012 EF - Barlow, Pavlich, Walters, Ballantyne, Sandilands

I see as much of a trend in the mids and rucks, if not more, than I do with key forwards. And that makes sense: a deficiency in our midfield has put added pressure on our backline in these finals as the ball has been pumped in with great regularity. That is the difference. It's not that Lonergan, Taylor, Rivers and Mackie all of a sudden become inferior players. These are players who have performed strongly in finals time after time. They are the envy of their peers and rivals.

Moreover though, can anyone seriously say that replacing any of Lonergan, Taylor or Rivers with Blicavs, Stanley or Kolo is going to help matter in the short term? No one is debating that these guys need to be transitioned into the side so that we can ultimately replace the older players. The debate is whether it is something that is done gradually or whether significant change is implemented straight away. I can't see the case for the latter at all.

If we get 10-15 games into Bews, 5-10 into Blicavs in defence, 5+ into Kolo, and 10 or so share between Smedts and Thurlow as the Mackie replacement, I think we will have done very very well. I should say that I think I'm at the more ambitious end of the scale on this and the reality is we will likely see less than what I hope for. But even if I got my wish it's going to still see 18+ games to all of Taylor, Lonergan, Rivers, Mackie and Enright as the core of the backline. Drastic change short term is very unlikely.