Luke Rounds and Josh Thomas..

[TheGreatGrundy]

Guys like O'Bree were never that good around the ground either, but were good at extrating the ball. It's not the be-all and end-all, especially if they can play their role and do it well.

O'Bree was constantly criticised on BF for his short kicks and we all collectively breathed easier when Luke Ball was recruited. Another O'Bree is not going to win us a premiership. If Thomas is going to be Shane all over again, then I might have to consider eating him, as another thread suggests we do more than most to our players.

 

[Ed D]

O'Bree was constantly criticised on BF for his short kicks and we all collectively breathed easier when Luke Ball was recruited. Another O'Bree is not going to win us a premiership. If Thomas is going to be Shane all over again, then I might have to consider eating him, as another thread suggests we do more than most to our players.

I'm not comparing Thomas to O'Bree, just pointing out that players with so called limited skills or inability to play multiple roles can make it as AFL players. And in saying that I'm not even suggesting Thomas is like that either.

 

[rand corp]

Josh Thomas is a goer alright, injuries have severely cruel-ed his development and opportunity. This year will indeed be a critical one for him and we can only hope he is free from any more injury setbacks or he might never get the chance to make it.

Also a make or break year for Rounds who needs to really step up this year, looks a bit Vanilla at this stage.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

There was absolutely nothing wrong with Shane O'Bree. He could gather the contested ball and clearances as well as anybody in the game at the peak of his powers, and from memory regularly led the stats in the AFL for one of them. He went unrecognised because players who do the grunt work often go unrecognised. I'd add Paul Licuria to that camp as well.

The only reason we breathed a sigh of relief when Ball was recruited is because at that stage OBree was at the end of his career whilst Ball was 5 or 6 years younger, so it was a perfect time for transition.

 

[Bianconerri]

There was absolutely nothing wrong with Shane O'Bree. He could gather the contested ball and clearances as well as anybody in the game at the peak of his powers, and from memory regularly led the stats in the AFL for one of them. He went unrecognised because players who do the grunt work often go unrecognised. I'd add Paul Licuria to that camp as well.

The only reason we breathed a sigh of relief when Ball was recruited is because at that stage OBree was at the end of his career whilst Ball was 5 or 6 years younger, so it was a perfect time for transition.

O`bree was a great extractor,make no mistake about that, but his disposal was so ineffective he is used his non preferred left foot on most occasions to hide those dinky 45 metre high,25 metre long right foot hospital pills.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

O`bree was a great extractor,make no mistake about that, but his disposal was so ineffective he is used his non preferred left foot on most occasions to hide those dinky 45 metre high,25 metre long right foot hospital pills.

Ball's only fractionally better and he was probably worse when he was at StKilda. Difference is Ball has some better midfielders around him and as a result probably has an extra fraction of a second to find a target.

Whilst I will never defend O'Brees kicking (although rumours of him being terrible were greatly exaggerated) , many of them were clearing from out of tight contests and he really had no time to nail his kicks.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

O'Bree was hardly powerful, strong and fearless in the contest like Ball. O'Bree extracted in a less body-crunching way, then often as not popped up one of those dinky little kicks for his teammate to be crippled under. Ball's strength allows him to break through where O'Bree could not, which allows better use to be made of the ball.

 

[MarkT2]

Colingwood supporters over rated O'Bree and that is given plenty still criticiseed him. We were never going to win a flag with reliance on a bloke that runs a semi circle due to a lack of pace and kicks an ordinary floater to a 2nd or 3rd lead.

He wasn't a dud just not the player premiership sides use in important roles. Ditto Lockyer and Fraser. We had too many and when a few real quality players replaced them we improved 20% and won the flag. If we can improve on Leigh Brown and not get injuries this year we'll go very close again. Then we'll have to improve on one or two other the following year to keep winning them.

We can win a few over the next 6 years but it will take new players replacing the bottom of the 22 so we don't get passed.

Back to the actual topic - Rounds aint one of 'em.

 

[blaze036]

Both of these guys will be replaced in the superdraft... watch this space

 

[TradeDraft]

Both of these guys will be replaced in the superdraft... watch this space

Very Early Call but it's Definitely a Possibility

 

[Dundalis]

His also very one dimensional and imo lacks the general skills to be a great afl player. Im sure others will disagree though, this forum is full of JT lovers

I'd say he's no more one dimensional than Luke Ball or Selwood. You don't HAVE to be versatile, you just have to be very very good at the things you do well in order to make up for lack of versatility. Else Ball would not be playing for us. If he can do that he will play.

It absolutely shits me to tears doing this (because he's never seen Thomas play), but what blaze said is correct. We all realise he's a little one dimensional, he also said he lacks the general skills to be a great player and TBH on that front he's probably correct. If we say his handballing is up there and his kicking is adequate that IMO means he isn't skillful enough to become a great player.

I think a comparison of the sort of player we'd all be hoping JT could be is Daniel Cross or Jobe Watson (pre 2011). They were/ are good to very good players, but not great players. What stands out is their skill by hand and their ability to read the play, which are both key attributes of Josh's.

As it is all the hyperbole over injuries, is just that! At this point in 2011 how many of you could genuinely say that Luke Shuey would have the season he had? He was injured for the 3rd pre-season in a row (much the same as JT is now) and look at his 2011. IMO the players aren't all that far apart talent wise (obviously Shuey is ahead though) its athletic ability that Shuey really shines.

Buckley will give him a shot if he manages to get fit (which is more likely than not), because he's previously said that he wants to give the young kids a chance. So its probably best to back him and Rounds in for now.

Except that Thomas has burst speed, and shown the ability to run away from packs which the players you mentioned cannot do. Thomas has always been compared more to Nathan Foley than anyone else. Though he obviously seems to share his propensity for getting injured.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I wont write Rounds off on the basis of a handful of games for the top of the ladder team. It must be hard enough settling in to senior footy as it is, and to settle in immediately to the gameplan of a team in top flight is even harder still. And lets not forget 2011 saw the introduction of the sub rule, making it even harder for young players to get their names in lights.

For what its worth I reckon his build is ideal for footy. He has pretty big shoulders and a strong girth and wont be easily knocked off the ball. I think hes a chance to surprise, as was Brett Maccaffer (with a similar build) in 2010.

As for Thomas, havent seen enough, but going on hearsay hes an exciting prospect.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Colingwood supporters over rated O'Bree and that is given plenty still criticiseed him. We were never going to win a flag with reliance on a bloke that runs a semi circle due to a lack of pace and kicks an ordinary floater to a 2nd or 3rd lead..

O'Bree himself wasnt the problem, it was the fact we had four of them.....O'Bree, Lockyer, Licuria, Woewodin. Our problem in the midfield was in the mix of who we had (too many inside plodders and not enough outside jets) rather than a lack of ability of any individual in that mix.

 

[Ed D]

O'Bree himself wasnt the problem, it was the fact we had four of them.....O'Bree, Lockyer, Licuria, Woewodin. Our problem in the midfield was in the mix of who we had (too many inside plodders and not enough outside jets) rather than a lack of ability of any individual in that mix.

Yep, and we didn't have enough skill in other areas. 2002/03 he were ranked 16th in hitouts and 1st in clearances. O'Bree was only a problem when he got older and started picking up injuries. Then Ball was in the team and our current midfiled had taken over.

 

[Scodog10]

Except that Thomas has burst speed, and shown the ability to run away from packs which the players you mentioned cannot do. Thomas has always been compared more to Nathan Foley than anyone else. Though he obviously seems to share his propensity for getting injured.

The player you're actually describing there is Luke Ball circa 2004-2005, but that's splitting hairs really because we both rate JT as a prospect.

 

[Mansons Haircut]

The player you're actually describing there is Luke Ball circa 2004-2005, but that's splitting hairs really because we both rate JT as a prospect.

Quoted for accuracy. As mentioned JT's ability to burst from packs pushes him into the elite clearance class. Any clearance is good in modern footy but his ability to read the ball off hands, take possession while moving and then get a quality disposal away is what sets him apart. Not saying he will make it but he has an elite level of skill in a vital area of modern contested footy. If he can start getting the "cheap" possessions to go with this he is a very exciting prospect. Time will tell but he is a great punt at pick 70-80ish.

 

[TradeDraft]

Quoted for accuracy. As mentioned JT's ability to burst from packs pushes him into the elite clearance class. Any clearance is good in modern footy but his ability to read the ball off hands, take possession while moving and then get a quality disposal away is what sets him apart. Not saying he will make it but he has an elite level of skill in a vital area of modern contested footy. If he can start getting the "cheap" possessions to go with this he is a very exciting prospect. Time will tell but he is a great punt at pick 70-80ish.

Just needs to stay out on the Field and not get Injured.

As you say for Pick 75?(I Think) it was worth the Pick

 

[MarkT2]

O'Bree himself wasnt the problem, it was the fact we had four of them.....O'Bree, Lockyer, Licuria, Woewodin. Our problem in the midfield was in the mix of who we had (too many inside plodders and not enough outside jets) rather than a lack of ability of any individual in that mix.

Agree to a point but we didn't win it until we replaced ALL of them with better (less deficient) players. In fact we've had these types my whole life and fallen short so often.

O'Bree had his good points but the package wasn't good enough IMO. As you pointed out, it is more damaging as the numbers increase. You can get away with one or maybe two O'Brees if the rest are good enough but having to get away with them is a big part of the problem we have often had IMO.

We snagged one in 1990 with a few in the side but we couldn't back it up even though a lot of the 1990 list had plenty of footy left in them. Relpace Turner, Kerrison, Gayfer with Williams, Buckley and Clement (they came a bit too late) and we probably win a few in the early 90s.

Don't know if Thomas is good enough to replace the bottom of the current 22/25 but IMO Rounds isn't. Always happy to be wrong with these sort of calls because it means we end up with a player but right now I think he (and Sinclair for that matter) will be list cloggers. You can add Buckley to that list. That said, they serve a depth purpose at present so happy to give them their chance.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Agree to a point but we didn't win it until we replaced ALL of them with better (less deficient) players. In fact we've had these types my whole life and fallen short so often..

The same could be said for our key position players. Does that mean Presti Wakes Ant and Taz were also no good?

Or our rucks. That story is well documented.

We could have won a flag in 2010 with a 25 year old O"Bree, Licuria or Lockyer in the team. They (but only one of them) could easily have won a spot in the team ahead of Beams Johnson Blair or Sidebottom. But they were all too old by the time the team was ready as a whole to win. Personally i think Tarks was a bit hardly done by in 2010 and could easily be a premiership player. I dont think any of Beams Blair or Sidebottom are any better footballers than O'Bree or a few of his mates from the mid 00's.

There was generational change at Collingwood because the 02/03 players all were about the same age as each other and retired more or less together, not because they were no good.

 

[Bianconerri]

Beams and Sidebottom are both better than O`bree. Sidebottom was pipped for the Norm Smith medal by the great Pendlebury as a 19 yo. and Blair will surpass him as well

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Beams and Sidebottom are both better than O`bree. Sidebottom was pipped for the Norm Smith medal by the great Pendlebury as a 19 yo. and Blair will surpass him as well

I am not so convinced that Blair will be a better player than O'Bree.

 

[Bianconerri]

Agree MMD, jury is still out on Blair, but he is making all the right moves. Top 10 in the Copeland last year

 

[MarkT2]

The same could be said for our key position players. Does that mean Presti Wakes Ant and Taz were also no good?

As forwards (which both Presti & Tarrant started as) yes. As backs no. Different requirements and Presti in particular filled the bill. Wakelin was a better back than O'Bree was a midfielder IMO.

Or our rucks. That story is well documented.

If you mean the pre 2010 version then yes that is a big part of what cost us a flag IMO. Fraser was one I mentioned along with O'Bree.

We could have won a flag in 2010 with a 25 year old O"Bree, Licuria or Lockyer in the team.

I agree. As I said - if the rest are good enough. The problem is we had too many years where the rest had to be better than they were to mkae up for the "plodders".

They (but only one of them) could easily have won a spot in the team ahead of Beams Johnson Blair or Sidebottom. But they were all too old by the time the team was ready as a whole to win.

Not to old at all. In fact the Geelong equivilents were older. They won because they were better. Put O'Bree into the first GF and I wonder if we'd have escaped with the draw.