Analysis Lin Jong 2017

[Mutt]

14 tackles, he stays in the side, wasn't his best game but as others have said the entire midfield were down, reckon he goes again especially against Sydney

I'd put money on Jong playing next week against Sydney.

 

[Big Wilbur]

Jong is and will always be a depth player.

Smith or Dunkley would have provided more than Jong last night, especially in winning the ball in the midfield where we were dominated.

Jong is ahead of the other mid/forwards but not the 2 he was picked in front of so his 11 possession game for an inside mid is hardly surprising.

I am sure there are posters who genuinely like Jong, but really to many seem to just want to fire up MD which ruins other threads

I don't always agree with BRWB but I do on this topic.

Watching the game last night there were too many times Jong was a spectator as he has not developed nor may never fully develop football instincts. Against very good midfielders from the opposition with those instincts he was exposed.

Does that means he never plays? Off course not. He is a good depth player when we have an injury run. Right now we don't have one in his position

Smith and Dunkley have performed when played forward. I can rarely recall them playing well as midfielders......and they are slow.

 

[stefcep]

If you're going to single out a player as below par and not worthy of a spot on game day, you need:

1. say why him and not anyone else, and
2. who will you bring in who will do better?

I'm not convinced any of the midfielders were any better. I

I don't see Smith and Dunkley in the same role doing better against a quality midfield opposition.

Jong is the fan's new Eagleton

 

[Aldo]

To me, Jong is almost like the opposite to Suckling. When he is under the pump and in tough spots, he generally does ok because he doesn't have time to think about things and just does it, but when he has space, he somehow just psyches himself out and does dumb things. The worst kicks I've seen him do are the ones where he is kicking after taking a mark or free kick.

I think this is part of the reason he is normally pretty good in games where the pressure is high and things are chaotic, like in finals.

Even though he is definitely not as bad as some people want him to be, I don't think he'll ever be able to be the dynamic and consistent inside mid that he is otherwise capable of being. Will always be at least good depth player though.

 

[DognBones]

Will The Real Lin Jong Please Stand Up!
Stating the obvious that the gulf between VFL and AFL level is great indeed, I am still bemused by the difference in game style between the VFL version of Lin and the AFL version.
In the VFL, Lin is a bullocking dynamo who can influence the game around packs and in the forward half. In fact, he assumes the role of the 'main man' who generates much of the movement of the ball. Obviously again, the pace and intensity of the game is much less, but to me, there is enough there in his performance to suggest that he should be able to transfer his style of play if not the skills to the next level.

At AFL level he seems reluctant to attack the ball with the same intensity and as others have suggested, seems to second guess what his opponents are doing. This would account for the high number of tackles that he amasses in games.
I'm not sure if Jongy will ever get near the role of one of 'the main men' in the midfield, perhaps he will always be the sort of player we see now - an almost but not quite there player.
The future for him lies in transferring more of his VFL style of play to the higher level or he will simply remain a depth player as many have stated.
I'm for giving him more opportunities but I think he needs a kick up the butt (encouragement!) to take the game on more.

 

[stefcep]

Will The Real Lin Jong Please Stand Up!
Stating the obvious that the gulf between VFL and AFL level is great indeed, I am still bemused by the difference in game style between the VFL version of Lin and the AFL version.
In the VFL, Lin is a bullocking dynamo who can influence the game around packs and in the forward half. In fact, he assumes the role of the 'main man' who generates much of the movement of the ball. Obviously again, the pace and intensity of the game is much less, but to me, there is enough there in his performance to suggest that he should be able to transfer his style of play if not the skills to the next level.

At AFL level he seems reluctant to attack the ball with the same intensity and as others have suggested, seems to second guess what his opponents are doing. This would account for the high number of tackles that he amasses in games.
I'm not sure if Jongy will ever get near the role of one of 'the main men' in the midfield, perhaps he will always be the sort of player we see now - an almost but not quite there player.
The future for him lies in transferring more of his VFL style of play to the higher level or he will simply remain a depth player as many have stated.
I'm for giving him more opportunities but I think he needs a kick up the butt (encouragement!) to take the game on more.

Could it be that at VFL level his role is less rigidly-defined by the MC and he has more free reign to play on instinct?

 

[Next Waiting]

Could it be that at VFL level his role is less rigidly-defined by the MC and he has more free reign to play on instinct?

I wonder this too. At VFL level he is the best inside mid extractor, the best ball winner, most damaging clearance player with his burst etc as evidenced by his finals performances. At AFL level he is not the best inside mid in our team. All of Bont, Libba, macrae and dahl are better and they are better than most in the competition so he is not going to displace those players. I think there is an element of sacrifice in the role he plays at AFL level. That is he does a lot of blocking and runs interference at stoppages on opposition players (often key ones like Pendelbury) to allow the likes of Libba and Bont a fraction more time and space to work their magic as their clearance magic is better. He has the physical presence and endurance to play that role better than most in the squad and is committed enough to do it. No doubt a lot his tackles are around stoppages and clearances which is hardly a negative in a game where the opposition tap ruckman is delivering a large volume of quality taps and first use opportunities to their better players. If he tackles them and stops/disrupts the use how can that be a bad thing.
Basically I think his role is to sacrifice his clearance game for Libba et al and to release players like macrae and hunter to wider spaces. In a game like yesterday's game the dominance of their ruckmen and no third man up for us ensured a significantly greater volume of clearance possession opportunities to the opposition and yet that wasn't enough for them to win. That volume of possession might have been enough to win if not in part for Libba and Jongs combined 28 tackles stopping a lot of it from hurting us more.
He may be afforded the opportunity (by MC) a period of continuous selection and in that time he may add some of the burst clearance aspect that he possesses to the team. But his opportunities for attacking clearances, like the others, is significantly influenced by the tap work of the ruckman on duty, and we were belted in that department with no 3rd man up option to negate it (I'm sure they'll be working very hard to address that part of things).
In the longer term, Wallis is the most likely threat to Jong's place as he is equally physical but a better and more experienced clearance player (at this point). Dunkley eventually too but that role is a heavy workload and he may not have enough preseasons to cope . Clay in my view is better and far far more dangerous in the forward line.
I guess we'll get an idea at this weeks selection.

 

[lachy]

Smith and Dunkley have performed when played forward. I can rarely recall them playing well as midfielders......and they are slow.

And when has Jong played well in the AFL midfield against a top team again?

 

[lachy]

Will The Real Lin Jong Please Stand Up!
Stating the obvious that the gulf between VFL and AFL level is great indeed, I am still bemused by the difference in game style between the VFL version of Lin and the AFL version.
In the VFL, Lin is a bullocking dynamo who can influence the game around packs and in the forward half. In fact, he assumes the role of the 'main man' who generates much of the movement of the ball. Obviously again, the pace and intensity of the game is much less, but to me, there is enough there in his performance to suggest that he should be able to transfer his style of play if not the skills to the next level.

At AFL level he seems reluctant to attack the ball with the same intensity and as others have suggested, seems to second guess what his opponents are doing. This would account for the high number of tackles that he amasses in games.
I'm not sure if Jongy will ever get near the role of one of 'the main men' in the midfield, perhaps he will always be the sort of player we see now - an almost but not quite there player.
The future for him lies in transferring more of his VFL style of play to the higher level or he will simply remain a depth player as many have stated.
I'm for giving him more opportunities but I think he needs a kick up the butt (encouragement!) to take the game on more.

This is a good summary. Reality is there are players who dominate lower levels that cannot take the next step.

I have seen nothing yet that says Jong is not one of these players

 

[Wetdog]

Jong was poor. His output was down, and not damaging enough. He needs to get more involved, and make better decisions with ball in hand.

He did do some nice things, a couple of score involvements, contested mark and unlucky to hit the post. His tackling was first rate. He applied some pressure where others didn't.

This was in the context of our whole midfield being poor and soundly beaten. They will all need to lift next week if we are to beat the Swans.

No doubt Jong's spot will be in question next week, and he might find himself out of the side if the likes of a Dunkley plays well in the VFL. But I wouldn't be surprised if the MC backed him in again next week.

 

[DelRe]

Will The Real Lin Jong Please Stand Up!
Stating the obvious that the gulf between VFL and AFL level is great indeed, I am still bemused by the difference in game style between the VFL version of Lin and the AFL version.
In the VFL, Lin is a bullocking dynamo who can influence the game around packs and in the forward half. In fact, he assumes the role of the 'main man' who generates much of the movement of the ball. Obviously again, the pace and intensity of the game is much less, but to me, there is enough there in his performance to suggest that he should be able to transfer his style of play if not the skills to the next level.

At AFL level he seems reluctant to attack the ball with the same intensity and as others have suggested, seems to second guess what his opponents are doing. This would account for the high number of tackles that he amasses in games.
I'm not sure if Jongy will ever get near the role of one of 'the main men' in the midfield, perhaps he will always be the sort of player we see now - an almost but not quite there player.
The future for him lies in transferring more of his VFL style of play to the higher level or he will simply remain a depth player as many have stated.
I'm for giving him more opportunities but I think he needs a kick up the butt (encouragement!) to take the game on more.

The first player I thought of reading this was Brett Goodes. Agree he's seems lacking confidence / suffering a bit of intimidation knowing he's with better players in the team.

I wonder this too. At VFL level he is the best inside mid extractor, the best ball winner, most damaging clearance player with his burst etc as evidenced by his finals performances. At AFL level he is not the best inside mid in our team. All of Bont, Libba, macrae and dahl are better and they are better than most in the competition so he is not going to displace those players. I think there is an element of sacrifice in the role he plays at AFL level. That is he does a lot of blocking and runs interference at stoppages on opposition players (often key ones like Pendelbury) to allow the likes of Libba and Bont a fraction more time and space to work their magic as their clearance magic is better. He has the physical presence and endurance to play that role better than most in the squad and is committed enough to do it. No doubt a lot his tackles are around stoppages and clearances which is hardly a negative in a game where the opposition tap ruckman is delivering a large volume of quality taps and first use opportunities to their better players. If he tackles them and stops/disrupts the use how can that be a bad thing.
Basically I think his role is to sacrifice his clearance game for Libba et al and to release players like macrae and hunter to wider spaces. In a game like yesterday's game the dominance of their ruckmen and no third man up for us ensured a significantly greater volume of clearance possession opportunities to the opposition and yet that wasn't enough for them to win. That volume of possession might have been enough to win if not in part for Libba and Jongs combined 28 tackles stopping a lot of it from hurting us more.
He may be afforded the opportunity (by MC) a period of continuous selection and in that time he may add some of the burst clearance aspect that he possesses to the team. But his opportunities for attacking clearances, like the others, is significantly influenced by the tap work of the ruckman on duty, and we were belted in that department with no 3rd man up option to negate it (I'm sure they'll be working very hard to address that part of things).
In the longer term, Wallis is the most likely threat to Jong's place as he is equally physical but a better and more experienced clearance player (at this point). Dunkley eventually too but that role is a heavy workload and he may not have enough preseasons to cope . Clay in my view is better and far far more dangerous in the forward line.
I guess we'll get an idea at this weeks selection.

Great summary. I wonder too whether his instructions were to play a more sacrificial role and also that the effect of the ruck contest is understated for its impact on the midfield (and is the bigger issue). Agree also I don't really get the comparison with Dunkley and Smith at the moment - I don't think they're going for the same spot.

 

[The Original Swooper]

Rumour has it Lin Jong has approached Bevo regarding recruiting Liam Jones, Jason Tutt and Jarryd Grant back to the club. They will be known as the BDSM CLUB, otherwise known as the "Whipping Boys".

 

[Next Waiting]

The first player I thought of reading this was Brett Goodes. Agree he's seems lacking confidence / suffering a bit of intimidation knowing he's with better players in the team.

Great summary. I wonder too whether his instructions were to play a more sacrificial role and also that the effect of the ruck contest is understated for its impact on the midfield (and is the bigger issue). Agree also I don't really get the comparison with Dunkley and Smith at the moment - I don't think they're going for the same spot.

Further to this, the cumulative effect of being constantly reactive to a dominant opposition ruckman or ruck combination warrants further consideration. The capacity to be effective in disrupting or stopping the opposition on ballers may very well take on greater significance where that is the case as would the capacity to endure it for a significant period of the game. I can see it being very problematic for us under the current rules and if, through injury, we have only Tom Boyd to rely upon. A player like Caleb Daniel is likely to suffer under such a scenario because that scenario necessitates a higher degree of heavy, reactive and defensive lifting by our clearance players against quality opposition and that will inevitably fatigue our clearance players. The season is a war of attrition as it is, the cumulative effect of this scenario over the course of the season could be high and adverse.
I'm in agreement and would say that the ruckman/ruck situation is the biggest issue to address out of the Round 1 game. A conventional or unconventional solution is needed as a matter of urgency.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

I too find the negativity towards Jong totally bewildering. It's not even as though he is an outside seagull who could be chipped for not committing his body. The guy is a battering ram who tries his heart out each game and who loves the club and his team mates. What the actual feck is going on that I don't get?

I mostly agree Mutt, but with respect, I don't think this is all about Jong. I'm going to tread carefully here because I understand a lot won't agree (and bear no ill will towards those who do), but nevertheless, my two cents.

Something about negative posts regarding Jong tend to elicit spirited and at times aggressive defence even when it's not really called for. We see the attribution of sinister motives to the "against" crew by the "for" group more than we do with any other player. Even in response to very minor, fleeting criticisms, the replies quickly become disproportionate - both in quantity and quality. On the flip side, if somebody were to offer criticism of premiership full back Fletcher Roberts, for example, it would be taken as par for the course and most would move on very quickly.

In my opinion - and perhaps only my opinion - the aggressive negativity is somewhat of a blowback against the incessant and often unnecessary defence of him. There is frustration from the "against" side because it feels as though any comment on Jong's weaknesses must be qualified six times and is suddenly made the focus of the thread, while people can say whatever they want about a chunk of other fringe players. Perhaps my perception is warped but I see countless threads derailed not because a Jong naysayer drags it off track, but because a passing mention of Jong has been replied to seven times with some minor name calling or comments like, "You clearly don't know anything," thrown in (in fact, there's a very, very recent example of this in the Preview thread...).

Over time, this has led to the negative crew intensifying their arguments and growing more disenchanted with the whole argument; and with that has come the frustration from the positive group. Overall we get repetitive arguments that gradually escalate in animosity and encourage more and more people to jump on. Neither side has covered themselves in glory (and yes, the negative group has their fair share of antagonists as well) and I want to stress that I'm not intending this post to be in support of the "against" group, but simply an alternative perspective.

I think this board would be a much better place - and indeed, much more conducive of quality discussion - if both sides could simply occasionally admit that people disagree re: Jong and not jump at alternative viewpoints every time they see them. It seems as though one passing comment about Jong is all it takes for the opposing side to get their backs up - and instead of continuing to scroll, they have to reply. Rarely are these replies good-natured; instead they quickly turn personal because of the topic's history.

At this point we know the arguments for and against Jong. We can continue to discuss the merits of both sides, but it doesn't need to happen every time somebody gently whispers his name.

 

[Mutt]

I mostly agree Mutt, but with respect, I don't think this is all about Jong. I'm going to tread carefully here because I understand a lot won't agree (and bear no ill will towards those who do), but nevertheless, my two cents.

Something about negative posts regarding Jong tend to elicit spirited and at times aggressive defence even when it's not really called for. We see the attribution of sinister motives to the "against" crew by the "for" group more than we do with any other player. Even in response to very minor, fleeting criticisms, the replies quickly become disproportionate - both in quantity and quality. On the flip side, if somebody were to offer criticism of premiership full back Fletcher Roberts, for example, it would be taken as par for the course and most would move on very quickly.

In my opinion - and perhaps only my opinion - the aggressive negativity is somewhat of a blowback against the incessant and often unnecessary defence of him. There is frustration from the "against" side because it feels as though any comment on Jong's weaknesses must be qualified six times and is suddenly made the focus of the thread, while people can say whatever they want about a chunk of other fringe players. Perhaps my perception is warped but I see countless threads derailed not because a Jong naysayer drags it off track, but because a passing mention of Jong has been replied to seven times with some minor name calling or comments like, "You clearly don't know anything," thrown in (in fact, there's a very, very recent example of this in the Preview thread...).

Over time, this has led to the negative crew intensifying their arguments and growing more disenchanted with the whole argument; and with that has come the frustration from the positive group. Overall we get repetitive arguments that gradually escalate in animosity and encourage more and more people to jump on. Neither side has covered themselves in glory (and yes, the negative group has their fair share of antagonists as well) and I want to stress that I'm not intending this post to be in support of the "against" group, but simply an alternative perspective.

I think this board would be a much better place - and indeed, much more conducive of quality discussion - if both sides could simply occasionally admit that people disagree re: Jong and not jump at alternative viewpoints every time they see them. It seems as though one passing comment about Jong is all it takes for the opposing side to get their backs up - and instead of continuing to scroll, they have to reply. Rarely are these replies good-natured; instead they quickly turn personal because of the topic's history.

At this point we know the arguments for and against Jong. We can continue to discuss the merits of both sides, but it doesn't need to happen every time somebody gently whispers his name.

I think that there is more than a little truth in what you've posted here Dan10. I for one think the posturing on both sides adds nothing good to this board and I wish everyone would just let it go. I hate to see us sniping each other and respected posters buying into a never ending shit fight.

 

[bresker]

I'm in agreement and would say that the ruckman/ruck situation is the biggest issue to address out of the Round 1 game. A conventional or unconventional solution is needed as a matter of urgency.

Grundy's taps to Treloar and Pendlebury were fantastic at the weekend when the Pies were on top. Sometimes you've just got to sit back and admire and admit you were beaten by something special. Grundy will be close to best ruck in the system over the next few years. I hope we're not going to encounter that every week. They made it look very easy.

 

[Sharkey66]

I mostly agree Mutt, but with respect, I don't think this is all about Jong. I'm going to tread carefully here because I understand a lot won't agree (and bear no ill will towards those who do), but nevertheless, my two cents.

Something about negative posts regarding Jong tend to elicit spirited and at times aggressive defence even when it's not really called for. We see the attribution of sinister motives to the "against" crew by the "for" group more than we do with any other player. Even in response to very minor, fleeting criticisms, the replies quickly become disproportionate - both in quantity and quality. On the flip side, if somebody were to offer criticism of premiership full back Fletcher Roberts, for example, it would be taken as par for the course and most would move on very quickly.

In my opinion - and perhaps only my opinion - the aggressive negativity is somewhat of a blowback against the incessant and often unnecessary defence of him. There is frustration from the "against" side because it feels as though any comment on Jong's weaknesses must be qualified six times and is suddenly made the focus of the thread, while people can say whatever they want about a chunk of other fringe players. Perhaps my perception is warped but I see countless threads derailed not because a Jong naysayer drags it off track, but because a passing mention of Jong has been replied to seven times with some minor name calling or comments like, "You clearly don't know anything," thrown in (in fact, there's a very, very recent example of this in the Preview thread...).

Over time, this has led to the negative crew intensifying their arguments and growing more disenchanted with the whole argument; and with that has come the frustration from the positive group. Overall we get repetitive arguments that gradually escalate in animosity and encourage more and more people to jump on. Neither side has covered themselves in glory (and yes, the negative group has their fair share of antagonists as well) and I want to stress that I'm not intending this post to be in support of the "against" group, but simply an alternative perspective.

I think this board would be a much better place - and indeed, much more conducive of quality discussion - if both sides could simply occasionally admit that people disagree re: Jong and not jump at alternative viewpoints every time they see them. It seems as though one passing comment about Jong is all it takes for the opposing side to get their backs up - and instead of continuing to scroll, they have to reply. Rarely are these replies good-natured; instead they quickly turn personal because of the topic's history.

At this point we know the arguments for and against Jong. We can continue to discuss the merits of both sides, but it doesn't need to happen every time somebody gently whispers his name.

thanks Dannnnnnn. you've nailed it here.

 

[yebiga]

Let's look at the positives here. One of the biggest threats to a young list like ours is complacency.

Having a guy like Jong forces Dunkly McLean Smith honeychurch to find another level. Im sure Dunkley and smith are disappointed in themselves not being in the 22.

They will all get their chances as they have in previous years. And let's not forget about injuries we need the depth and know that they can deliver to a standard at crunch time.

Whatever Jong is he is at least good depth

Rather than bitching about him being in the team

I am fascinated to see which of the fringe 22 step up and stamp themselves as automatic selections

Dunkley has huge upside
Smith second year back from a knee will he progress
McLean can he find the next level or can Jong deliver his VFL form into the AFL level?

 

[House_of_Dahl]

Let's look at the positives here. One of the biggest threats to a young list like ours is complacency.

Having a guy like Jong forces Dunkly McLean Smith honeychurch to find another level. Im sure Dunkley and smith are disappointed in themselves not being in the 22.

They will all get their chances as they have in previous years. And let's not forget about injuries we need the depth and know that they can deliver to a standard at crunch time.

Whatever Jong is he is at least good depth

Rather than bitching about him being in the team

I am fascinated to see which of the fringe 22 step up and stamp themselves as automatic selections

Dunkley has huge upside
Smith second year back from a knee will he progress
McLean can he find the next level or can Jong deliver his VFL form into the AFL level?

All this and more in the next exciting instalment of doggies 2017.

 

[perro_loco]

Spot on. Many on here are forgetting that Jong was considered best 22 for the first final against West Coast even when we had Wood and Macrae returning after injury. Jong has had a run of injuries at unfortunate times in his career but whenever he is fit he is in the mix for selection. For mine he is on the fringe of the best 22 and certainly not placed in the 30 to 44 bracket, which some seem to feel is his ranking. The match committee keep on selecting him whenever he has had a reasonable run at it injury wise.

People have short and convenient memories

 

[perro_loco]

Let's look at the positives here. One of the biggest threats to a young list like ours is complacency.

Having a guy like Jong forces Dunkly McLean Smith honeychurch to find another level. Im sure Dunkley and smith are disappointed in themselves not being in the 22.

They will all get their chances as they have in previous years. And let's not forget about injuries we need the depth and know that they can deliver to a standard at crunch time.

Whatever Jong is he is at least good depth

Rather than bitching about him being in the team

I am fascinated to see which of the fringe 22 step up and stamp themselves as automatic selections

Dunkley has huge upside
Smith second year back from a knee will he progress
McLean can he find the next level or can Jong deliver his VFL form into the AFL level?

I think that Jong still has a lot of upside. Confidence is the key and I think Bevo and the MC know this. If they did not have the confidence and feeling of improvement he would not be around. He, I believe, may develop into a really serviceable player but not a star. as far as depth, we need a fair bit of it. the curse of injuries has began, I hope Yebiga's witch can do some magic to stop it. YEBIGA I WILL START WITH THE MACUMBA, PLEASE GET IN TOUCH WITH THE BEARDED WITCHES.

 

[Super Hans]

I mostly agree Mutt, but with respect, I don't think this is all about Jong. I'm going to tread carefully here because I understand a lot won't agree (and bear no ill will towards those who do), but nevertheless, my two cents.

Something about negative posts regarding Jong tend to elicit spirited and at times aggressive defence even when it's not really called for. We see the attribution of sinister motives to the "against" crew by the "for" group more than we do with any other player. Even in response to very minor, fleeting criticisms, the replies quickly become disproportionate - both in quantity and quality. On the flip side, if somebody were to offer criticism of premiership full back Fletcher Roberts, for example, it would be taken as par for the course and most would move on very quickly.

In my opinion - and perhaps only my opinion - the aggressive negativity is somewhat of a blowback against the incessant and often unnecessary defence of him. There is frustration from the "against" side because it feels as though any comment on Jong's weaknesses must be qualified six times and is suddenly made the focus of the thread, while people can say whatever they want about a chunk of other fringe players. Perhaps my perception is warped but I see countless threads derailed not because a Jong naysayer drags it off track, but because a passing mention of Jong has been replied to seven times with some minor name calling or comments like, "You clearly don't know anything," thrown in (in fact, there's a very, very recent example of this in the Preview thread...).

Over time, this has led to the negative crew intensifying their arguments and growing more disenchanted with the whole argument; and with that has come the frustration from the positive group. Overall we get repetitive arguments that gradually escalate in animosity and encourage more and more people to jump on. Neither side has covered themselves in glory (and yes, the negative group has their fair share of antagonists as well) and I want to stress that I'm not intending this post to be in support of the "against" group, but simply an alternative perspective.

I think this board would be a much better place - and indeed, much more conducive of quality discussion - if both sides could simply occasionally admit that people disagree re: Jong and not jump at alternative viewpoints every time they see them. It seems as though one passing comment about Jong is all it takes for the opposing side to get their backs up - and instead of continuing to scroll, they have to reply. Rarely are these replies good-natured; instead they quickly turn personal because of the topic's history.

At this point we know the arguments for and against Jong. We can continue to discuss the merits of both sides, but it doesn't need to happen every time somebody gently whispers his name.

You've nailed it.

As someone who isn't a Jong fan it's so frustrating that whenever he has a bad game people complain about it being brought up in a changes thread or will trot out the line "we won't drop him from a winning team" but as soon as he plays a decent game majority of his defenders come on here and gloat. And that gloating is normally directed at one poster in particular.

I have no doubt some people also think there's racist undertones for the posters who want him dropped, but that's a different story..

 

[DelRe]

Grundy's taps to Treloar and Pendlebury were fantastic at the weekend when the Pies were on top. Sometimes you've just got to sit back and admire and admit you were beaten by something special. Grundy will be close to best ruck in the system over the next few years. I hope we're not going to encounter that every week. They made it look very easy.

Didn't see the game but interesting that Cats withdrew Smith before the start and went on to lose the hitouts 63-18. While they said it was soreness I wonder whether there's already an emerging tactic of not responding to the new rules by adding conventional ruckman and instead basing a strategy on the assumption you lose the hitouts. Relating it back to Jong perhaps Bev would prefer more run than win a few extra hitouts (admittedly perhaps hands were tied with respect to Campbell anyway).

I can only assume Dunkley doesn't yet have the fitness for that and perhaps Smith is not fit/injured otherwise, while it's not his most used role, he'd be worth a try? I think other posters e.g. Yebiga have pointed out too that there's not enough pressure coming from the other fringe. Webb should really be pushing harder for that type of spot as well.

 

[the dog's kennel]

I mostly agree Mutt, but with respect, I don't think this is all about Jong. I'm going to tread carefully here because I understand a lot won't agree (and bear no ill will towards those who do), but nevertheless, my two cents.

Something about negative posts regarding Jong tend to elicit spirited and at times aggressive defence even when it's not really called for. We see the attribution of sinister motives to the "against" crew by the "for" group more than we do with any other player. Even in response to very minor, fleeting criticisms, the replies quickly become disproportionate - both in quantity and quality. On the flip side, if somebody were to offer criticism of premiership full back Fletcher Roberts, for example, it would be taken as par for the course and most would move on very quickly.

In my opinion - and perhaps only my opinion - the aggressive negativity is somewhat of a blowback against the incessant and often unnecessary defence of him. There is frustration from the "against" side because it feels as though any comment on Jong's weaknesses must be qualified six times and is suddenly made the focus of the thread, while people can say whatever they want about a chunk of other fringe players. Perhaps my perception is warped but I see countless threads derailed not because a Jong naysayer drags it off track, but because a passing mention of Jong has been replied to seven times with some minor name calling or comments like, "You clearly don't know anything," thrown in (in fact, there's a very, very recent example of this in the Preview thread...).

Over time, this has led to the negative crew intensifying their arguments and growing more disenchanted with the whole argument; and with that has come the frustration from the positive group. Overall we get repetitive arguments that gradually escalate in animosity and encourage more and more people to jump on. Neither side has covered themselves in glory (and yes, the negative group has their fair share of antagonists as well) and I want to stress that I'm not intending this post to be in support of the "against" group, but simply an alternative perspective.

I think this board would be a much better place - and indeed, much more conducive of quality discussion - if both sides could simply occasionally admit that people disagree re: Jong and not jump at alternative viewpoints every time they see them. It seems as though one passing comment about Jong is all it takes for the opposing side to get their backs up - and instead of continuing to scroll, they have to reply. Rarely are these replies good-natured; instead they quickly turn personal because of the topic's history.

At this point we know the arguments for and against Jong. We can continue to discuss the merits of both sides, but it doesn't need to happen every time somebody gently whispers his name.

I agree with you, Dannnnnn. But with respect, the "Lin Jong 2017" thread is probably the wrong place to lament about people obsessively debating Lin Jong

 

[bresker]

The discussion about Lin Jong in the Lin Jong thread is going along nicely.

It hasn't evolved into a meta-discussion about the nature of the debate and the behaviour of its participants

Not yet anyway....