Mackie to South Australia?

[cynical]

Mackie's a frustrating player.

People think of him as a good kick because he can deliver the odd perfect 40 metre pass.

But in 2010 Mackie had the worst disposal effectiveness (73.5% compared to average 77%) of any of our defenders, despite the fact that he had the highest percentage of uncontested possessions (79.3% compared to average 67.7%).

i.e. less pressure, yet lower effectiveness.

Yet I still wouldn't consider trading him, because stats (as usual) are only half the story. It seems to me that it's not that he can't do it, it's just that he doesn't try hard enough, often enough. A change of attitude and/or position is required.

effectiveness is a rubbish stat

he probably has lower effectiveness because his kicks are higher risk, while other guys are chipping it around the backline

he just needs to be put in a spot that allow him to use his good kicking more than his weak defensive pressure (wing or HFF)

 

[krisholio14]

Guys with skill and a bit of confidence will always try a few things out of the ordinary - Mackie tends to do that a bit, when it comes off it is great and we all cheer it, when it doesn't we hang our heads because doing it in the back 50 is so dangerous.

Mackie and Lake have similiar mentalities I think.

I've got no problem with blokes who are prepared to back themselves. You only have to look at what happened on Saturday to see what happens when you have a team full of players who aren't prepared to take the game on.

By the same token, you also have to know when to go for it, and when to pull back. Too many times Mackie goes for it when it just isn't on, and that's something he needs to get a handle on.

effectiveness is a rubbish stat

he probably has lower effectiveness because his kicks are higher risk, while other guys are chipping it around the backline

he just needs to be put in a spot that allow him to use his good kicking more than his weak defensive pressure (wing or HFF)

Again, I don't mind him having an attacking mindset. You look at our premiership sides, and Collingwood this year, and they are all teams that looked to hurt the opposition with every possession.

There just has to be a bit of discretion involved.

I'd like to see him up on a wing too. He's a beautiful finisher in front of goals and playing him that little bit further up the ground gives us the option to push him back as a link man out of defense as we've been using him, or having him getting on the end of it around half forward.

 

[pjcrows]

Would trade Pick 14 for him in a heartbeat. But this is coming from the Adelaide Advertiser folks. There is a 99% chance that this rumour is bollocks.

 

[BigCat1]

To me Mackie is not the sort of character who would be he'll bent on returning to Adelaide life.....

He offers so much flexibility, he can play anywhere, a new coach will see him back in All Australian contention. No chance.

Agreed. Mackie is an all aust in his prime. Had a bad 8 weeks but who doesn't over their career. With Milburn going he is definately required. Got tagged heavily this yr as well. The only way I'd part with him is if it was, for say, a clarke who we really need.

Suggesting a trade for pick 14 achieves absolutely nothing. Makie has 120+ quality games left in him and we got him for pick 7!! Has more than lived up to that

 

[CatFan79]

effectiveness is a rubbish stat

Care to explain this?

Don't think turnovers are costly?

 

[noclashjumpers]

Provided he wants to stay, I think he deserves to be given next year to write the wrongs of 2010.

BTW, people dismissing criticism of Mackie's 2010 by saying "..a few bad games towards the end", clearly don't remember his woeful start to the year.

 

[thegerman]

Yeah, doesn't matter if he visits them, he is contracted for another 3 years. So bad luck I guess for him.

If he wishes to be traded, again, bad luck. Only if he was out of contract at the end of the year would anyone have a chance. If he doesn't want to play, he loses part of his salary and earning potential.

I have never heard of a player holding out on a contract. It would be a death sentence.

 

[cynical]

Care to explain this?

Don't think turnovers are costly?

i already did

most stats dont tell you the whole story

here is a hypothetical situation

say lonners doesn't trust his kicking so instead of taking a high risk high reward kick he kicks it 25m across the ground to milburn (who isnt in an attacking position)

mackie does trust his kicking and kicks to a high risk high reward spot where 75% it'll setup a scoring shot in the corridor and 25% it'll result in a turnover

which is more effective?

1st one will make scoring harder, because it makes defending easier

2nd one although will result in a turnover 25% of the time, 75% of the time will result in a scoring shot in a good spot

stats dont tell you these things

 

[Archangel]

Re: Mackie to Adelaide?

I think Mackie is a required player. He is someone that you can pinch hit up forward if you need to as well as being a key defender.

He was an All Aussie nominee in 2009 and although he had a few bad games towards the end of 2010 i think that we will keep him

He's soft as butter; can't remember the last time he stuck a tackle.

Needs to go in my opinion

 

[Turbo911]

We wouldn't trade Mackie for anyting cheap imo.
Pick 14+ something, 3rd club trade?

Keep him for anothher year, if he another crap year we could trade him away after that year regardless if he wants SA or not.

Keep him, GWS would offer more next year for him in pick wise if we want to get rid og him, which it would be as he is contracted.

 

[witsend]

Yeah good point Kris.

You look great if you kick it through the middle and we pounce forward.
But if you keep doing it, teams (ala the pies) are going to be aware of it, pick you off, and you're going to look a little dumb.

Especially with how quickly the ball moves now. Turn it over in the centre and you're dead ducks.

It won us a Premiership

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Agreed. Mackie is an all aust in his prime. Had a bad 8 weeks but who doesn't over their career. With Milburn going he is definately required. Got tagged heavily this yr as well. The only way I'd part with him is if it was, for say, a clarke who we really need.

Suggesting a trade for pick 14 achieves absolutely nothing. Makie has 120+ quality games left in him and we got him for pick 7!! Has more than lived up to that

At 26, pick 14 + a good young player/another pick is fair, and honestly while I'm not desperate to get rid of mackie, if that were offered, and gave thunt menzel etc regular games, gave us the money to lock up the kids away from GWS, and a good draft pick too/ability to address other areas of need in trade week, you would have to seriously seriously consider it.

 

[Tristagi]

if he wants back to Adelaide then there are only a few players I would even consider trading him for..

Adelaide: Chris Knights or Patrick Dangerfield

Port: Travis Boak

They are they only things I would trade Mackie for as he is a required player and despite what some people think, he has currency and is the prototype for the modern half back flanker; tall, fast, and skillful. He doesn't have to be hard and stick tackles, it would be a bonus if it happened more but he is a set up player, a rebound player. But I highly doubt the Crows or Power will deal those players so Mackie will be at Geelong next year.

 

[year of the cat]

It sounds as though his name has been thrown out there as a possible trade option..

 

[DogsAreBarking]

Interesting that when I asked last week if anybody had heard about Mackie wanting to leave I got accused of trolling and the thread was deleted, but when a Geelong fan brings it up it's good for 5 pages of discussion.

 

[Tristagi]

Interesting that when I asked last week if anybody had heard about Mackie wanting to leave I got accused of trolling and the thread was deleted, but when a Geelong fan brings it up it's good for 5 pages of discussion.

you know what its like when opposition supporters come over to your board talking about one of your players wanting out, you automatically think troll.

I only think this topic is still going because there have been the stupid trade week mumblings from the media. It was bound to happen, he missed the last two finals and if you work in the media you put one and one together and get five.

 

[David the Cat]

if he wants back to Adelaide then there are only a few players I would even consider trading him for..

Adelaide: Chris Knights or Patrick Dangerfield

Port: Travis Boak

They are they only things I would trade Mackie for as he is a required player and despite what some people think, he has currency and is the prototype for the modern half back flanker; tall, fast, and skillful. He doesn't have to be hard and stick tackles, it would be a bonus if it happened more but he is a set up player, a rebound player. But I highly doubt the Crows or Power will deal those players so Mackie will be at Geelong next year.

This

 

[thegerman]

Yep, Boak for mine.

 

[Hoffy95]

Boak re-signed. He's not going anywhere.

 

[Pivo]

Boak re-signed. He's not going anywhere.

Re-signing signals intent by both player and club to stay but that isn't to say if the right deal came along a club wouldn't pull the trigger.

That said, I highly doubt Port would trade Boak for Mackie.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Mackie to Adelaide..

pffft.

Rumours are great. I just started one on Bay13 re Fevola going to St Kilda. One last roll of the dice before the window shuts and all that. The goal kicker they need for 2011. A plausible tale. LOL My source told me about. My super secret source. I think its the same one that is responsible for the Mackie one.

 

[Turbocat]

Mackie to Adelaide..

pffft.

Rumours are great. I just started one on Bay13 re Fevola going to St Kilda. One last roll of the dice before the window shuts and all that. The goal kicker they need for 2011. A plausible tale. LOL My source told me about. My super secret source. I think its the same one that is responsible for the Mackie one.

The rumor was that Mackie regrets signing after seeing the huge money being offered by GC. Sometimes smoke=fire , sometimes smoke=cod. The one thing I'd say is Mackie , unlike a lot of our side , would have currency and probably is not essential. If he was traded for something early and we managed to pickup a quality mid kid , I think we may be better off. Continue to revitalise our list and pick up a kid like Smedts for instance who could become another Bartel.

In the end he is contracted so if nothing happens no big loss he plays on.It may not even be this year , he may be an option GWS.Im sure Sheedy will be looking hard at everyone.

 

[Papa G]

if he wants back to Adelaide then there are only a few players I would even consider trading him for..

Adelaide: Chris Knights or Patrick Dangerfield

Port: Travis Boak

I reckon Knights would be the only one you'd get remotely close to. Boak and Dangerfield are future captains of their respective teams and also have youth on their side.

Mackie is a good player, but where would he sit on your list? Would he scrape into the top 10? Granted you have had a significantly better list than either SA teams, but Boak and Dangerfield in my subjective view will be better players than Mackie. It might even be interesting to see how Mackie goes in a not so dominant side.

If you're happy to keep Mackie that is all well and good, but to suggest a fair trade is either Dangerfield or Boak I think is stretching it for even the most one eyed supporter.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

The rumor was that Mackie regrets signing after seeing the huge money being offered by GC. Sometimes smoke=fire , sometimes smoke=cod. The one thing I'd say is Mackie , unlike a lot of our side , would have currency and probably is not essential. If he was traded for something early and we managed to pickup a quality mid kid , I think we may be better off. Continue to revitalise our list and pick up a kid like Smedts for instance who could become another Bartel.

In the end he is contracted so if nothing happens no big loss he plays on.It may not even be this year , he may be an option GWS.Im sure Sheedy will be looking hard at everyone.

Wasn't there a rumour that he was walking up to opposition players he hardly knew after the match telling them he's over playing for Geelong?

I like the Fev rumour I made up better. It sounds more....whats the word?....plausible...especially now that I have a source for it.

But if my source is wrong about the Fev deal, I'll have a word with him.

 

[hamG]

Interesting that when I asked last week if anybody had heard about Mackie wanting to leave I got accused of trolling and the thread was deleted, but when a Geelong fan brings it up it's good for 5 pages of discussion.

Your thread was probably moved. It happens.