Opinion Mark Blicavs

[sarah.13]

I fully expect to be called out on for most things on here now to be honest. Anything other than unblinking and unquestioning adoration.

By the way, skewing evidence would be including stats for a half v a full game, or similar editing. I didn't do that. I put up the full game. That's not misrepresentation. It might be more critical, but no figures were massaged. You think he was good. I thought he was extremely valiant, but we're in a no win situation with our list right now. His lack of body size compared to a normal ruckman means he can - and will - get pushed aside easily at times. Doesn't explain the "infringement" paid against him though (only the umpire and Port fans could find a free there).

Beautifully deflected to fine leg...

 

[catempire]

Beautifully deflected to fine leg...

You've got to hand it to him, it has been a gritty knock against all odds!

 

[vinum coupe]

You've got to hand it to him, it has been a gritty knock against all odds!

Lots of singles on a ground with a short boundary though.

 

[vealesy]

So, once again, the cries of "drop him!" Are muted by the naming of Blitz at CHF.

 

[cats_09]

So, once again, the cries of "drop him!" Are muted by the naming of Blitz at CHF.

I kinda doubt that he will be starting in that position, but it would be good to see how he goes at CHF if given an extended chance (even just 1 game, not just 10 minutes in one game)

 

[catempire]

So, once again, the cries of "drop him!" Are muted by the naming of Blitz at CHF.

It will be a while before they are muted around here. Rendered irrelevant more like it.

 

[vealesy]

I kinda doubt that he will be starting in that position, but it would be good to see how he goes at CHF if given an extended chance (even just 1 game, not just 10 minutes in one game)

I know that, most old positions are redundant now. Its more just for honour.

Its basically just smalls and talls now.

 

[rooie]

So, once again, the cries of "drop him!" Are muted by the naming of Blitz at CHF.

if he comes out and plays the position well, awesome. if he again does bugger all, well, what then?

 

[cats_09]

if he comes out and plays the position well, awesome. if he again does bugger all, well, what then?

As long as his running patterns are ok, then all will be fine

 

[vealesy]

if he comes out and plays the position well, awesome. if he again does bugger all, well, what then?

What, besides learn, is he being told to do out there that will decide if its bugger all or well played?

 

[rooie]

What, besides learn, is he being told to do out there that will decide if its bugger all or well played?

well, walker kicked 2 goals before being subbed, lets start with that.
if we want him to learn to be a CHF put him in the VFL, otherwise, give the kid we have been training to play that position in the VFL the opportunity to play that role in the AFL.

i am a big fan of blitz as a backup ruckman. i want him in the team playing that role when simmo or mac are out. i dont want him getting games in positions that arent his, keeping other deserving kids out. its as simple as that.

edit: just like i will support burbs whilst we are short of small forwards, regardless of mistakes. but if they put him in as a defender or mid, i would say that sheringham or shcroder should be getting that game head of him.

 

[Cataholic]

What, besides learn, is he being told to do out there that will decide if its bugger all or well played?

I've no doubt he's been sent out there to learn, and with that comes some latitude. How much he'll be given only CS and the MC know. But sooner or later they'll want to start seeing results for their patience.

 

[vealesy]

well, walker kicked 2 goals before being subbed, lets start with that.
if we want him to learn to be a CHF put him in the VFL, otherwise, give the kid we have been training to play that position in the VFL the opportunity to play that role in the AFL.

i am a big fan of blitz as a backup ruckman. i want him in the team playing that role when simmo or mac are out. i dont want him getting games in positions that arent his, keeping other deserving kids out. its as simple as that.

edit: just like i will support burbs whilst we are short of small forwards, regardless of mistakes. but if they put him in as a defender or mid, i would say that sheringham or shcroder should be getting that game head of him.

So, besides the team sheet, what are you basing Blitz being a CHF on?

None of the players you mentioned are competing for Blitzs spot. Walker is not ahead of Blitz yet. He is close.

You may want them to get games emotionally, but they offer no tactical advantage so them "deserving" games above another player is... Unwise.

 

[rooie]

So, besides the team sheet, what are you basing Blitz being a CHF on?

None of the players you mentioned are competing for Blitzs spot.

You may want them to get games emotionally, but they offer no tactical advantage so them "deserving" games above another player is... Unwise.

yes they are if he is playing in a spot they play.

no i have no emotional desire for any one player over another to get a spot. except maybe rooke, but i think that is a long shot...

of course someone who is a liston medal winning mid offers a tactical advantage over a long distance runner with no footy background if the position in question is the midfield. if it is the ruck, i want blitz, if its the midfield i want a mid.

in terms of deserving, i think actually that players to work their butts off do deserve consideration when the team has an opening for their position, rather than running continuing experiments.

 

[vealesy]

"Midfield" is a position still?

Its not supercoach mate.

Blitz does work hard, for the team. Running is the hardest thing you can do in footy.

 

[rooie]

"Midfield" is a position still?

Its not supercoach mate.

Blitz does work hard, for the team. Running is the hardest thing you can do in footy.

dont be condescending, it seems your fall back position, and it shifts a thread from a discussion to a fight. i prefer to discuss things.

so the key to your argument is that there are no positions in footy any more, just runners. and we should be picking the team based on how hard they run, as opposed to their actual football ability, skill or experience? is that right?

 

[vinum coupe]

dont be condescending, it seems your fall back position, and it shifts a thread from a discussion to a fight. i prefer to discuss things.

so the key to your argument is that there are no positions in footy any more, just runners. and we should be picking the team based on how hard they run, as opposed to their actual football ability, skill or experience? is that right?

But you're arguing for Walker to be in over Blitz.
Completely different structural setup.

If Murdoch was out for him I'd get the argument. Kind of.

 

[rooie]

But you're arguing for Walker to be in over Blitz.
Completely different structural setup.

If Murdoch was out for him I'd get the argument. Kind of.

i agree with you. the thing is, the constant defence of his inclusion regardless of position is what i am struggling to understand.
if we want to give him a run at CHF, great. i think we should give walker some time there as that is the point of him being on our list, but lets see how he goes.

if however he doesn't line up there, and instead lines up on a wing, or half back or whatever, how can we not judge him according to the person he is keeping out of the side who plays that position in the VFL? if he plays as a midfielder (i still believe in them, and as every child knows fairy creatures need our belief to exist) then he is keeping schroder etc. out. if he plays at CHF he is keeping walker out etc.

i hear the argument that he adds flexibility, but do his handful of minutes in the ruck justify his lack of output in the other positions for the rest of the match? hence why i think he needs to be judged on his output compared to who is missing out.

 

[vinum coupe]

That's the thing. He doesn't play a position.
People use wing because we really have no idea.

He's playing a role and we have little idea as to what it is.
Wish we did, but the match committee must believe he is doing the job.

Still say he is our 'break glass in case of emergency' player.

Be that ruck, run with, whatever.
And maybe he's not great at any of them, but the club seems to trust him to just get it done.

 

[vealesy]

dont be condescending, it seems your fall back position, and it shifts a thread from a discussion to a fight. i prefer to discuss things.

so the key to your argument is that there are no positions in footy any more, just runners. and we should be picking the team based on how hard they run, as opposed to their actual football ability, skill or experience? is that right?

No im not saying that.

Im saying football is a running game first. Get to the right/team/predictable/best position and the ball opportunities will occur. You need the skill to make the most of the opportunities you CREATE with running.

With the right development, he could be an edge against opposition. A smart, hard running big man who can get to the right spots. Competition is all about the edge.

They are developing on the fly. See what ground he can cover when not following the ball as a ruck. Figuring out what he can actually do with his current fitness on a football field at the top level. Notice him always turning around and spotting the others and what every option looks like when hes out running around not gathering possessions?

The miles he puts in his legs ends up saving a seasoned vet having to run around defending the same space. We dont normally throw the young ones out wide without experience. They dont have the fitness base. Remember that year everyone said Duncan had shit stats? He was playing out wide and running.

Then last week they throw him back in the thick of it against Port/Lobbe. And he plays well. Some would say his best for the year.

Im not cheerleading this kid, Im just interested in how the MC utilise his unique running abilities and get sick of piss weak attempts at criticising him because you dont observe the experiment.

 

[vealesy]

i agree with you. the thing is, the constant defence of his inclusion regardless of position is what i am struggling to understand.
if we want to give him a run at CHF, great. i think we should give walker some time there as that is the point of him being on our list, but lets see how he goes.

if however he doesn't line up there, and instead lines up on a wing, or half back or whatever, how can we not judge him according to the person he is keeping out of the side who plays that position in the VFL? if he plays as a midfielder (i still believe in them, and as every child knows fairy creatures need our belief to exist) then he is keeping schroder etc. out. if he plays at CHF he is keeping walker out etc.

i hear the argument that he adds flexibility, but do his handful of minutes in the ruck justify his lack of output in the other positions for the rest of the match? hence why i think he needs to be judged on his output compared to who is missing out.

Again. You are looking at old school position names. They dont exist like that anymore.

 

[rooie]

I think they do, they may work further up the ground, but every other player in the team you understand their position and role. He is treated differently by the MC, they are making it up as they go, and maybe it is part of some master plan and will be hailed as game changing, but till then we have every right to question his inclusion.

 

[Pivo]

So, once again, the cries of "drop him!" Are muted by the naming of Blitz at CHF.

Blicavs at CHF is probably shorter odds than Johnson starting off the bench.

That is true.

 

[Cattery]

but till then we have every right to question his inclusion.

Sorry mate that's just not correct, mere mortals who don't have the expertise to "observe the experiment" have no right to criticise.

Maybe I'm just not seeing the big picture as outlined in post #220 (if somebody could decypher that one for me I'd be grateful) but what I've observed is that in the three full games he's played in a non rucking role he's been among our three or four worst performed players in the first two, and arguably our worst in the other (Hawthorn)

At the moment he's probably no worse an option then whoever would replace him given who's missing, the real worry though is that they'll keep playing him even when we have a full list to choose from, becasuse on current form he's not deserving a game.

To head off the cries of "you hate the kid so you're irrational" nothing could be further from the truth, actually this is more a criticism of the MC for continually selecting him then it is of Blicavs himself, the kids obviously busting a gut and it isn't really his fault that he just isn't up to the task at present.

Hopefully he proves the doubters wrong and has a blinder tomorrow, although it will take a fairly big form reversal for that to occur.

 

[vealesy]

According to nuffies who cant read, it will.