Remove this Banner Ad

Rumour Mark Blake?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fpm84
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Cat Attack08 said:
Interesting to see the provisional AA squad.

The 2010 Four'N Twenty All-Australian squad
Carlton: Chris Judd
Collingwood: Alan Didak, Darren Jolly, Harry O'Brien, Scott Pendlebury, Dane Swan
Essendon: Dustin Fletcher, Jobe Watson
Fremantle: David Mundy, Matthew Pavlich, Aaron Sandilands
Geelong Cats: Gary Ablett, Corey Enright, Paul Chapman, Steve Johnson, James Kelly, Harry Taylor, Joel Selwood
Hawthorn: Luke Hodge, Lance Franklin
Melbourne: James Frawley, Brad Green, Mark Jamar
North Melbourne: Brent Harvey, Brady Rawlings, Andrew Swallow
Richmond: Brett Deledio, Jack Riewoldt
St Kilda: Nick Dal Santo, Brendon Goddard, Lenny Hayes, Leigh Montagna
Sydney Swans: Adam Goodes, Nick Malceski, Shane Mumford
West Coast: Mark LeCras
Western Bulldogs: Matthew Boyd, Adam Cooney, Barry Hall, Brian Lake

Can't see Blake's name there anywhere maybe now the Blake sympathisers will admit we made a mistake in keeping Mark over Shane.

Before I get beaten down by the "but we didn't have coin to pay him" argument consider both where out of contract if we either traded Mark out (ala King 07) or delisted him the money we used to sign Mark up could have gone onto the offer we put before Shane, that coupled with the fact that he would have been our clear choice as number 2 ruckman would have been enough to retain the Mummy and our ruck problems would be a thing of the past.
Mummy learns from Otto while Simpson and Vardy develop until one of them can back up Mummy when Otto retired it would have been nice bugga!!
Click to expand...

agree 100% such a shame.
 
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Keeping Blake was the correct decision at the time.

Blake is unfairly maligned. He is not as bad with the ball as people make out. Ruckwork is decent. Just useless at overhead marking and tackling.

Will be important against the Saints, and he is not bad for a second ruck. Will kill McEvoy.
 
burto said:
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Keeping Blake was the correct decision at the time.

Blake is unfairly maligned. He is not as bad with the ball as people make out. Ruckwork is decent. Just useless at overhead marking and tackling.

Will be important against the Saints, and he is not bad for a second ruck. Will kill McEvoy.
Click to expand...

And add in "contesting the ball when it is right next to him"

Thats one thing that always really impressed me about mumford, he was willing to get down on the ground and get his hands dirty to get the ball - Blake looks like he is too scared that he might get some mud on the white hoops.....

I loved mumford playing for the cats and was hoping that blake got traded last year and we went for a mummy/otto combo. If we still have mumford we wouldnt be worrying about if we are going to have 2 rucks or play Hawkins in the ruck, thats for sure!!
 
burto said:
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Keeping Blake was the correct decision at the time.

Blake is unfairly maligned. He is not as bad with the ball as people make out. Ruckwork is decent. Just useless at overhead marking and tackling.

Will be important against the Saints, and he is not bad for a second ruck. Will kill McEvoy.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%

Apart from the fact that he can't kick - can't mark - can't tackle - can't chase - can't handball, I'd say we have an absolute superstar in our ranks.

Based on the above I would like to lodge an official complaint with the All Australian selectors at his exclusion from the squad. What are these people thinking.

Despite all this he will play on Friday night and hopefully we have a plan to limit his damage (that's damage to our own gameplan).
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Jumping Jack said:
I agree 100%

Apart from the fact that he can't kick - can't mark - can't tackle - can't chase - can't handball, I'd say we have an absolute superstar in our ranks.

Based on the above I would like to lodge an official complaint with the All Australian selectors at his exclusion from the squad. What are these people thinking.

Despite all this he will play on Friday night and hopefully we have a plan to limit his damage (that's damage to our own gameplan).
Click to expand...

His kicking and handballing skills are actually ok. Not perfect, but name a ruckman in the comp who can hit leads lace out? Apart from maybe Kruezer. Agree with the chasing bit though, he does look incredibly soft and lazy when he stands there watching the play and not getting involved. But keep in mind, at the time of the Mumford/Blake decision, Mumford's ruckwork was still mediocre, notwithstanding his good ability to contest at ground level.
 
We made the right decision at the time, because 12 months ago Mumford was not half the ruckman he is now, and hence we would have had to let a durable capable (tap wise) no 1 ruckman go to keep a rookie, who was developing, but still not a good tap ruckman, and play him in our 10' flag tilt. It is clear 12 months later that we would have been better off with Mumford, and it will hurt once Ottens retires (I've said all along it will make no difference to whether we win the 10' flag, but it will make a difference to whether we win ones after that) but we could not have known that at the time, and so we did make the right decision, it's just unfortunate that it's going to burn us.
 
burto said:
His kicking and handballing skills are actually ok. Not perfect, but name a ruckman in the comp who can hit leads lace out? Apart from maybe Kruezer. Agree with the chasing bit though, he does look incredibly soft and lazy when he stands there watching the play and not getting involved. But keep in mind, at the time of the Mumford/Blake decision, Mumford's ruckwork was still mediocre, notwithstanding his good ability to contest at ground level.
Click to expand...


Why don't you ask Jarred Waite how soft he thought he was the week before last?
Hawkins is a forward and a match winning one at that, when he hits up for marks the way he's been doing he's a matchwinner.
He's wasted to a degree in the ruck, but OK for a change of tempo in very short bursts.
I like him playing just forward of centre, he gets involved much more, and is the better for it.
Blake is a very important player this week.
Gives us forward tall options.
 
burto said:
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Keeping Blake was the correct decision at the time.

Blake is unfairly maligned. He is not as bad with the ball as people make out. Ruckwork is decent. Just useless at overhead marking and tackling.

Will be important against the Saints, and he is not bad for a second ruck. Will kill McEvoy.
Click to expand...

Using that logic every up and coming young ruckman in our seconds will be poached like Mumford until Blake is so old he can't even do OK tap work. If Blake can keep his fitness levels up until he is 33 we could possibly lose a dozen good ruck prospects. With Blake spending most of the following year in the seconds himself. :D

(The only reason Blake got the finals gig last year was because Mumford by the end of season was buggered.)
 
Pure_Ownage said:
We made the right decision at the time, because 12 months ago Mumford was not half the ruckman he is now, and hence we would have had to let a durable capable (tap wise) no 1 ruckman go to keep a rookie, who was developing, but still not a good tap ruckman, and play him in our 10' flag tilt. It is clear 12 months later that we would have been better off with Mumford, and it will hurt once Ottens retires (I've said all along it will make no difference to whether we win the 10' flag, but it will make a difference to whether we win ones after that) but we could not have known that at the time, and so we did make the right decision, it's just unfortunate that it's going to burn us.
Click to expand...

If some team came knocking our our door for Vardy, would not it also be the same situation today. We would not be able to get rid of Blake to keep Vardy because Vardy is not yet a durable capable (tap wise) no 1 ruckman.
 
We just didn't have the $$$ to keep Mumford and he didn't have the confidence in his own ability to stay with us with the thought that he would overtake Blake/ +/- Ottens
 
Lets not kid ourselves.
Most of the posters believe that Mumford was better than Blake at the time he left, and still is. He has much more scope to improve.
That is why there was dissatisfaction when this occured.
Those of you who believed that Blake was, is or will be better are wrong

The club made a mistake in not keeping Mumford and put its faith in Blake. Mistakes happen in life. To date this is the opinion of the majority.
The problem is that we can not see the upside in Blakes game. The most annoying thing is that he has no grunt around the ground, very un-geelong like?
Mumford is in the All Australian side and Blake looks like is a compromise to our side.
 
Gogeelong said:
Lets not kid ourselves.
Most of the posters believe that Mumford was better than Blake at the time he left, and still is. He has much more scope to improve.
That is why there was dissatisfaction when this occured.
Those of you who believed that Blake was, is or will be better are wrong

The club made a mistake in not keeping Mumford and put its faith in Blake. Mistakes happen in life. To date this is the opinion of the majority.
The problem is that we can not see the upside in Blakes game. The most annoying thing is that he has no grunt around the ground, very un-geelong like?
Mumford is in the All Australian side and Blake looks like is a compromise to our side.
Click to expand...

No mate, it's you who is wrong.

And no he isn't
 
VEEDUBS said:
We just didn't have the $$$ to keep Mumford and he didn't have the confidence in his own ability to stay with us with the thought that he would overtake Blake/ +/- Ottens
Click to expand...

If we made the decision early after the GF as we did with King to move Blake on we would have had Mumford signed up before the Swans offer was even on the table.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

vinum coupe said:
No mate, it's you who is wrong.

And no he isn't
Click to expand...

He is right in saying that he Mumford is in the AA squad not saying he is going to make the final 22.

Stat's say that Mumford has gone ahead of Blake and Mumford is only in his third season
 
I'm with RegHickeyStand - looking forward to bidding farewell to all our up and coming ruck prospects over the next 8 years because they are not quite as good at a single point in time as our durable, capable (tap wise) no. 1 ruckman!

Playing Blake in the '10 GF was the right decision. Mumford's form this year however, shows that not moving mountains to resign him (i.e. getting rid of Blake) was not the right decision.
 
and the points margin too. I won't mind if the pies won if I can pick up a few mil.
 
And who got the norm?
First goal kicker too please.

And first point kicker for the Pies if you can remember.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Gogeelong said:
Lets not kid ourselves.
Most of the posters believe that Mumford was better than Blake at the time he left, and still is. He has much more scope to improve.
That is why there was dissatisfaction when this occured.
Those of you who believed that Blake was, is or will be better are wrong

The club made a mistake in not keeping Mumford and put its faith in Blake. Mistakes happen in life. To date this is the opinion of the majority.
The problem is that we can not see the upside in Blakes game. The most annoying thing is that he has no grunt around the ground, very un-geelong like?
Mumford is in the All Australian side and Blake looks like is a compromise to our side.
Click to expand...

This post is relevant to my interests :thumbsu:

(although it's only the AA squad)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

cats_09
    • Like
    • Love
Toast Game #300 - the Unicorn, Mark Blicavs
Replies
0
Views
38
cats_09
cats_09

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom