Remove this Banner Ad

Knobel

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Bentleigh said:
I thought he was average.

His abilty to tap to his mids is better than I thought.
Click to expand...

The law of relative expectations! Mine were originally pretty low as I was expecting another Ben Marsh!

I thought he did OK on the night. One of our better players. He is a crap mark but always made a contest and wasn't outmarked.
 
I was happy with wot i saw, gave a hard contest at the bounce and his taps were surprisingly good, havent seen that many taps go down our players throats for many a long year
 
tigerT said:
I was happy with wot i saw, gave a hard contest at the bounce and his taps were surprisingly good, havent seen that many taps go down our players throats for many a long year
Click to expand...

I Agree, his ruck work was good but he seemed totally lost when he went forward. I thought his lack of nous in this arear resulted in a few rebounds for Collingwood purely because he didn't know where to lead. However I guess that's why we have practice matches and hopefully he can continue to improve his game in this area.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Knobel is pretty athletic. He has a good leap and gets his hands to the ball. He has a long kick too. For some reason he doesn't go for many marks. He has no confidence/courage in the air. Wallace should be forcing Knobel to go for marks. He usually jumps with one arm in the air, but he doesn't attack the ball in the air. It's a confidence or courage issue, because Knobel will get first hands to the ball in a pack. He has the height, the size and athletism to take alot of pack marks. I think Wallace should get someone to kick to a pack of players in training so Knobel can work on this. He's either afraid of being kneed in the head or just worried he will drop a mark. If Knobel can fix this problem, I think he will be very good.
 
I didnt really expect too much from Knobel to start with. Hes a handy player. Nothing more, nothing less.

Agree with CJH, I didnt really think much of him at St.Kilda.
 
I also had very low expectations of Knobel. Good points. - Very good in ruck contests - Looks a bit more astute and positive than Ottens in directing his hit outs - On the assumption that Coughlan recovers and plays as the No 1 midfielder - Knobel could perform a vital role. It needs to be remembered however that Collingwood do not have a ruckman that worth a pinch of shyte.

Bad points - When not rucking we are playing with 17 men - hopeless beneath his knees. Cant mark, cant run - in a word 'useless' as a ground player.

Which brings me to Simmonds - competed well enough but it was obvious that when he rucked we felll off in the clearances. Also poor below his knees. Both Knobel and Simmonds were basically invisible dropping back and ineffectual. Furthermore I can only remember the two of them taking about one mark between them.

Simmonds competed well up forward but save for some frees would have had a quiet return.

All in all on last night's outing , I would have preferred we had the Donut and Fiona than these two, but time will tell and seeing we've got Simmonds for five years, I'm hoping like hell he convinces me.

Still very happy with the gameplan and enjoyed the work of Tambling and Deledio. Sadly they expose so many of our senior players. The downside of the attacking game was always going to be the running back bit rather than the running forward bit, and for all their faults you knew Collingwood would be organised and physically up to running a game out. I still prefer the Wallett or Sheeds, or Blight approach to footy over the Malthouse (good coach that he is) defensive way. I was actually surpised we were able at least early to implement it as effectively as we did. We lost because we started to take safer and wider options later in the game (and because we didn't nail a couple of sealers) and we have FA in terms of good tall defenders. As Wallace said after the game his game plan needs superor fitness and also a tough mindset. You need the courage to keep running, to back your skills and take the harder option down the middle. We all need to accept many turnovers and rebounds while the players perfect the gameplan. Have patience comrades and also hope a couple of KPP's develop or fall out of the sky.

BTW other good signs - Rodan, Hyde, Hartigan (except for his finishing), Jackson's competitiveness (even when pantsed), Newman.

Other Bad signs - Chaffey, Kellaway and Graham.

In the end its only a practice game and the longest journey also begins with a single step
 
silence ofthe Robert said:
I also had very low expectations of Knobel. Good points. - Very good in ruck contests - Looks a bit more astute and positive than Ottens in directing his hit outs - On the assumption that Coughlan recovers and plays as the No 1 midfielder - Knobel could perform a vital role. It needs to be remembered however that Collingwood do not have a ruckman that worth a pinch of shyte.

Bad points - When not rucking we are playing with 17 men - hopeless beneath his knees. Cant mark, cant run - in a word 'useless' as a ground player.

Which brings me to Simmonds - competed well enough but it was obvious that when he rucked we felll off in the clearances. Also poor below his knees. Both Knobel and Simmonds were basically invisible dropping back and ineffectual. Furthermore I can only remember the two of them taking about one mark between them.

Simmonds competed well up forward but save for some frees would have had a quiet return.

All in all on last night's outing , I would have preferred we had the Donut and Fiona than these two, but time will tell and seeing we've got Simmonds for five years, I'm hoping like hell he convinces me.

Still very happy with the gameplan and enjoyed the work of Tambling and Deledio. Sadly they expose so many of our senior players. The downside of the attacking game was always going to be the running back bit rather than the running forward bit, and for all their faults you knew Collingwood would be organised and physically up to running a game out. I still prefer the Wallett or Sheeds, or Blight approach to footy over the Malthouse (good coach that he is) defensive way. I was actually surpised we were able at least early to implement it as effectively as we did. We lost because we started to take safer and wider options later in the game (and because we didn't nail a couple of sealers) and we have FA in terms of good tall defenders. As Wallace said after the game his game plan needs superor fitness and also a tough mindset. You need the courage to keep running, to back your skills and take the harder option down the middle. We all need to accept many turnovers and rebounds while the players perfect the gameplan. Have patience comrades and also hope a couple of KPP's develop or fall out of the sky.

BTW other good signs - Rodan, Hyde, Hartigan (except for his finishing), Jackson's competitiveness (even when pantsed), Newman.

Other Bad signs - Chaffey, Kellaway and Graham.

In the end its only a practice game and the longest journey also begins with a single step
Click to expand...



great post silence of the robert, we just need to be patient, there will be many turnovers this season that will cost us games, but we have to be patient it wont happen over nite but we showed enough in our 1st hitout under wallace that theres a new exciting brand of footy around the corner.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Did Knobel even get a disposal that didn't result from a centre ruck infringement by Fraser?

Handy with the tap outs but that's about it.

Like Knobel, Simmonds is a bit of an unco, but unlike Knobel, he isn't scared to get amongst it and use his body to unsettle the opposition. He will adequately replace Ottens.
 
Bentleigh said:
@ silence ofthe Robert

I thought Chaffey was decent.

Quite happy for Plough to give him first bash at the tagger role.
Click to expand...

Chaff did a good negating job on Woewoedin, but he has no idea of what to do with the ball when he gets it. Whether in the middle of the pack or in space he makes the wrong choice 9 times out of ten. When the game is there to be won you can count on him losing it for us. We cannot afford his type of player anymore. After coming home form the Dome, I watched a bit of the game I had taped. It was surprising in close how many times Chaffey (bravely) through himself on the loose ball. Unfortunately he had no idea what to do with it after that. Collingwood players stood over him. He usually meekly coughed it up and they got an easy clearance. Better to groom a good young type as the tagger now as Chaffey will not be a part of our successful teams.
 
Knobel rucked well but as others have said, struggled around the ground. Quite slow moving and not clean hands below the waist. Will probably be used as a ruckman and then rested on the bench, rather than forward or back. Was better in the second half, hopefully there is still a bit more improvement in him.
 
interesting that royal stated that he has not been properly coached in the art work of rucking, bad indictment on those 2 other clubs he has been at really....royal also he feels there is a lot to work with in the coming years...age is on his side .....
 
Knobel will be a liability if he stays as our first ruck. There is no doubt in my mind that he is our back up ruckman to Stafford and Simmonds. If Knobel stays as our first ruck, be prepared for a long season.

As for Chaffey, I thought he was good. He stuck to Woewodin all night and negated him right out of the game. Wallance's teams have all had a negater and looks like Chaffey has been given first crack. Good game in that role...keep it up.

Back line was exposed. We're one tall down and heaven help us if we also lose Gasper. That will effectively leave us with no talls down back. And no, Ray Hall is not our answer down back. Jay Shulz is also not the answer at CHB. Seems to be an ok mark but shown nothing when the ball is on the ground. Also has very few footy smarts. Notice how all the gun CHB's (past and present) may not have had the greatest of skills (if they did they would have been CHF) but they were all smart footballers. Fingers and legs crossed our talls remain on the park through the season.
 
From an outsiders view I thought he had a poor game. He dropped a few sitters and didn't really get involved in the game. I think for his standards that was about his average game what you will see most weeks. All I can say is I'm glad the Tigers took Trent allowing us to take Betts.
Sorry if that sounded like a troll but it is my honest opinion of the guy.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Knobel

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top