Opinion Mark Blicavs

[Pure_Ownage]

I understand. It's just that I don't think we are faced with a hypothetical - the reality is it's Blicavs or someone else running around in the VFL at the moment. The situation may be quite different if we had a gun young wingman pressing for selection. The fact is we don't.


(BTW, Kerr for me )

Yeah I tend to agree because the guys performing well at vfl level are inside mids like Schroder, Stringer etc, not genuine wingers, we don't have many of them unless we do a positional shift within the 22 such as putting Hunt on a wing.

That said, with his limited fitness base once he comes back Bundy will need to play mostly in the forward line, which for me means once he is fully up to fitness again, for me Motlop should be on a wing.

And by that stage our two actual rucks should be able to run out full games, at which point I don't think we'll need Blicavs in the 22.

But that is some weeks off yet, at this stage he is filling a role (as he did on the weekend) and we need him in the side until we get more players back.

 

[Vdubs]

Yeah I tend to agree because the guys performing well at vfl level are inside mids like Schroder, Stringer etc, not genuine wingers, we don't have many of them unless we do a positional shift within the 22 such as putting Hunt on a wing.

That said, with his limited fitness base once he comes back Bundy will need to play mostly in the forward line, which for me means once he is fully up to fitness again, for me Motlop should be on a wing.

And by that stage our two actual rucks should be able to run out full games, at which point I don't think we'll need Blicavs in the 22.


But that is some weeks off yet, at this stage he is filling a role (as he did on the weekend) and we need him in the side until we get more players back.

By the time we get a fit Caddy & Bundy back in, who knows what HMc & DS are up to, & Blic may also have turned another corner; I guess my point is, v long season, and best we take it owaat.

Been meaning to ask you about Toohey- any news on his progress? How do you rate him so far.
Very highly thought of as a person and as a prospective KF/Ruck

 

[Pure_Ownage]

By the time we get a fit Caddy & Bundy back in, who knows what HMc & DS are up to, & Blic may also have turned another corner; I guess my point is, v long season, and best we take it owaat.

Yeah that's true.

 

[Vdubs]

Yeah that's true.

Sorry, just added to my post while you replied- asked about Toohey.

 

[dazbroncos]

What a load of shit Partridge.

His manager could easily have thrown out feelers.
And there would have been bites then, and there'd still be bites now.

He accepted lower job security for the team. There can be no doubting that.
Cop a knee injury as a rookie? Toast.

Agree here. With the potential Blitz showed over the year and the progress as a footballer ( he still has plenty to do as well) there would have been in my estimation several options available to him as a low pick to move to another club. He certainly did the club a favour, intentionally or otherwise, by not demanding to be upgraded and allowing us another pick. I don't imagine it is common for Rookie listed players to play the majority of the senior games as a listed rookie only to return next year for the same team as listed Rookie again.

I see it as going both ways. Geelong signed him as a B rookie, paid him and let him run as an Olympic hopeful. He then came back to the club and played out the year, then got fully into footy the next preseason. I have no proof either way but it looks like symbiosis at its best to me.

Go Catters

 

[FredLeDeux]

I think both Schroder and Stringer were injured early this season, giving Sheringham the opportunity that he's had. Not sure of the pecking order with those three.

Sheringham is definitely a better player than Schroder.
But he got his game because we needed a HBF.
Stringer has a specialist talent at being injured at the wrong time, but the MC obviously rate him, and he'll get another chance at some stage.

 

[dazbroncos]

Sheringham is definitely a better player than Schroder.
But he got his game because we needed a HBF.
Stringer has a specialist talent at being injured at the wrong time, but the MC obviously rate him, and he'll get another chance at some stage.

You would have thought that with the list squeeze last year that no one would be kept to list clog. So IMO everyone here has something to contribute and can play. No whether they get a chance to show their wares and take their chance if it comes along is another thing. End of year will be very interesting musical chairs.

Go Catters

 

[FredLeDeux]

You would have thought that with the list squeeze last year that no one would be kept to list clog. So IMO everyone here has something to contribute and can play. No whether they get a chance to show their wares and take their chance if it comes along is another thing. End of year will be very interesting musical chairs.

Go Catters

I have said something similar in the past, I believe.
We picked these players because we thought they could play.
We've kept them for the same reason.
These are the players we're going to run with.
Subject only to some very minor list-adjustment exigencies.

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

You would have thought that with the list squeeze last year that no one would be kept to list clog. So IMO everyone here has something to contribute and can play. No whether they get a chance to show their wares and take their chance if it comes along is another thing. End of year will be very interesting musical chairs.

Go Catters

Just thinking about this situation about exiting players - the quality of who we exit has a direct correlation with how good our Recruitment/Development is.
We have held onto quite a few , elevated Rookies and will do more of the same going forward - I woner what interest our discards will produce?

 

[goodoldcats]

he is a really really good runner

 

[Partridge]

he is a really really good runner

Only player in the competition with endurance too apparently.

Did you know he's unique?

 

[cats_09]

He ain't too bad as a darth vader either

 

[Jimmy Yamazaki]

he is a really really good runner

The thing with this attribute, is that I don't see Blivcas blow up opponents. If he is the best runner in the side, he should find paddocks of space, especially late game. But he doesn't, it's not like he gets 10 disposals in the last 10 mins of the game or kicks a couple when everyone else is stuffed because of elite endurance,and It's something that we should be exploiting, if it is an actual proper advantage.

Aside from that, as I said earlier, I just don't think he adds enough to the side. If he can't do the above, he isn't damaging enough with disposals, nor does he rack it up enough, then he needs to get back to VFL, develop his game and push into the side like any other bottom 6 players.

Outside his current insurance as a backup ruck, I don't know why else the MC would persist with him. He's a good athlete yes, but he's not a freak like a Nic Nat or a Daw.

 

[vealesy]

he is a really really good runner

Back it up with stats please.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Isn't it interesting that the guy who cops the criticism when we lose just happens to be the guy who probably played his best game for the year and wouldn't have been in our worst 10 players. He broke even with a much bigger player in his time in the ruck and did some really nice things around the ground including kicking a very good goal at an important moment. Sure he made a couple of blues but he was far from alone there.

So why is Blicavs being discussed when walker, hunt, burbury, sheringham, murdoch, enright, rivers and thurlow were all comfortably worse than him? There were another 4 or 5 who did similar amounts to him. Overall he played his role better than most of the team. I must say for a guy that supposedly has no football ability he does a pretty good impression of a footballer. He sure looks good by hand, clean with the ball and the snapped goal was no sitter either. His disposal by foot was good too. I think people worry so much about his running ability that they've missed that his biggest weakness right now is his inability to use his running to damage teams. While everyone's worried about his running they're missing that he's putting in some solid performances while not utilising his biggest natural asset. He can only do that because even without his running he's a pretty handy footballer. When there are such a wide range of targets well deserving of criticism from the weekend I really fail to see why one of our more solid performers from the game should be the one to cop it.

 

[Partridge]

Isn't it interesting that the guy who cops the criticism when we lose just happens to be the guy who probably played his best game for the year and wouldn't have been in our worst 10 players. He broke even with a much bigger player in his time in the ruck and did some really nice things around the ground including kicking a very good goal at an important moment. Sure he made a couple of blues but he was far from alone there.

Not quite. His output around the ground was fine for a ruckman. However the "broke even" part doesn't quite stack up when you measure what that bigger opponent in Matthew Lobbe did.

Blicavs - 13 disposals, 4 marks, 1 goal, 1 tackle, 10 hitouts.
Lobbe - 13 disposals, 3 marks, 2 goals, 4 tackles, 32 hitouts.

Port won the hitouts 48-31 and the clearances 42-32.

Broke even? Not so much. More like got walloped. And you're absolutely right, there were plenty of other players down on the day, and there were some worse for sure. But check out the thread title for the club why he is being discussed here.

 

[denicat]

Talking about West i think he is having he's best year since 2011.having a dip again after a few bad years

 

[manboob]

So why is Blicavs being discussed...

In my opinion he appears to have stagnated a bit in development, he's not bad, he's not great - he's just going. I think there would be more to be gained from playing him in VFL to let him hone his skills a bit. The way he got caught holding the ball is the perfect example of this need to brush up on a few things. At AFL level getting caught like he was is inexcusable...

 

[sarah.13]

Not quite. His output around the ground was fine for a ruckman. However the "broke even" part doesn't quite stack up when you measure what that bigger opponent in Matthew Lobbe did.

Blicavs - 13 disposals, 4 marks, 1 goal, 1 tackle, 10 hitouts.
Lobbe - 13 disposals, 3 marks, 2 goals, 4 tackles, 32 hitouts.

Port won the hitouts 48-31 and the clearances 42-32.

Broke even? Not so much. More like got walloped. And you're absolutely right, there were plenty of other players down on the day, and there were some worse for sure. But check out the thread title for the club why he is being discussed here.

Don't forget that McIntosh was our No 1 ruckman, your analysis is clouded by your thinking on Blicavs in general
Trengove had 6 hit outs and 12 possessions is a more suitable comparison

 

[Partridge]

Don't forget that McIntosh was our No 1 ruckman, your analysis is clouded by your thinking on Blicavs in general. Trengove had 6 hit outs and 12 possessions is a more suitable comparison

Wrong. My analysis isn't clouded; I was referring to a direct assertion, namely this:

Isn't it interesting that the guy who cops the criticism when we lose just happens to be the guy who probably played his best game for the year and wouldn't have been in our worst 10 players. He broke even with a much bigger player in his time in the ruck and did some really nice things around the ground including kicking a very good goal at an important moment. Sure he made a couple of blues but he was far from alone there.

Last I checked that post didn't come from me. Your analysis is clouded by failure to read the sequence of posts in general.

 

[vealesy]

Don't forget that McIntosh was our No 1 ruckman, your analysis is clouded by your thinking on Blicavs in general
Trengove had 6 hit outs and 12 possessions is a more suitable comparison

Manipulated stats says Blitz is shit therefore he must be!!

Thats how that poster works. You will get used to it.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Not quite. His output around the ground was fine for a ruckman. However the "broke even" part doesn't quite stack up when you measure what that bigger opponent in Matthew Lobbe did.

Blicavs - 13 disposals, 4 marks, 1 goal, 1 tackle, 10 hitouts.
Lobbe - 13 disposals, 3 marks, 2 goals, 4 tackles, 32 hitouts.

Port won the hitouts 48-31 and the clearances 42-32.

Broke even? Not so much. More like got walloped. And you're absolutely right, there were plenty of other players down on the day, and there were some worse for sure. But check out the thread title for the club why he is being discussed here.

You're so blinded by your hatred for him that you'll say complete crap like that to "prove" your point. You're comparing a guy who played about 20-30% game time in the ruck with Lobbe who rucked virtually the entire game unassisted. When you consider how many contests they were involved in the hitout stats look very reasonable. It was McIntosh who Lobbe "walloped" (not really but he beat McIntosh) when they were both in the ruck while Blicavs was very solid in his time in there. I mean Bobby even went to the effort of putting in every contest he was in so you've got no excuse for using completely biased stats rather than actually watching the game. But then that wouldn't fit into your preconceived notions would it.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Last I checked that post didn't come from me. Your analysis is clouded by failure to read the sequence of posts in general.

Read that again. Particularly the part that says IN HIS TIME IN THE RUCK. Clearly Blicavs played far less in the ruck than Lobbe so of course he'll have way less hitouts. But he won some contests, lost some contests and broke even in some contests as Bobby's video showed. The hitout stats also make sense for a guy doing a solid job in the ruck but playing only a small % of the game in there. Your problem is that you've got your preconceived notions and you'll just present any stat that makes it appear like you're right. As a consequence you compared Lobbe to Blicavs with absolutely no context of how the game was played. Unfortunately for you Bobby put up the video and most people are smart enough to think about stats when presented and not just swallow the argument without thinking.

 

[vealesy]

Stats are something to look at after you have studied the game as a point of interest.

They are not evidence or proof of anything and anyone that bases their opinion on stats alone is never to be trusted as someone who knows football.

 

[catempire]

"...in his time in the ruck..."

Either clouded or wilful ignorance Partridge.