Max King

[Meteoric Rise]

Well by it’s very nature doesn’t the top 49 per cent of players qualify as above average?

Yes that is correct. So are you saying you have 3 categories as follows:

1. Below average
2. Above average
3. Elite, which is a sub-section formed by 40% of the above average players?

 

[PhatBoy]

Using the NRL analogy, there are notionally 64 three-quarters at any given time and the same applies, there are 8 playing origin, they would all by definition be elite - even guys who only played 1 origin game STILL have that ‘hang on this guy played origin’ tag around them.

If it was 20 per cent in NRL, theoretically that would be 13 winger/centres. 8 played origin, then you’ve got your Latrell Mitchell’s, Jack Wighton’s, Ronaldo Mulitalo’s and Josh Addo Carr’s who didn’t but have in the past or in Mulitalo’s case, would have but for an eligibility issue. Then you’ve got Joey Manu who is arguably the best player of all when it comes to winger/centres but he’s a Kiwi.

I think if you’re looking at a percentage, 10 is way too small a sample

 

[PhatBoy]

Yes that is correct. So are you saying you have 3 categories as follows:

1. Below average
2. Above average
3. Elite, which is a sub-section formed by 40% of the above average players?

Theoretically yes. A minority of players who are above average.

On top of which, too, it DOESNT have to be based purely around numbers.
Ie. in an era where every team’s key forwards are rubbish aside from 2-3 players, I wouldn’t necessarily think the 4th best has to be elite just because he’s the fourth best. If he’s shit, it doesn’t matter if he’s fourth, he’s shit

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Using the NRL analogy, there are notionally 64 three-quarters at any given time and the same applies, there are 8 playing origin, they would all by definition be elite - even guys who only played 1 origin game STILL have that ‘hang on this guy played origin’ tag around them.

If it was 20 per cent in NRL, theoretically that would be 13 winger/centres. 8 played origin, then you’ve got your Latrell Mitchell’s, Jack Wighton’s, Ronaldo Mulitalo’s and Josh Addo Carr’s who didn’t but have in the past or in Mulitalo’s case, would have but for an eligibility issue. Then you’ve got Joey Manu who is arguably the best player of all when it comes to winger/centres but he’s a Kiwi.

I think if you’re looking at a percentage, 10 is way too small a sample

I barely know anything about Rugby League other than I went to watch Exeter play Rugby Union against Saracens one day. Great day was had by all, but don’t ask me what the jokers on the pitch were doing.

 

[PhatBoy]

I barely know anything about Rugby League other than I went to watch Exeter play Rugby Union against Saracens one day. Great day was had by all, but don’t ask me what the jokers on the pitch were doing.

Lol fair enough. But yeah look it’s an obvious thing in league - like having an AA blazer in your cupboard as an AFL player, even if it is just one and it was on the bench, that’s something you ALWAYS carry with you: Brisbane’s AA defender, Collingwood’s AA small forward so-and-so etc.

When you reference league players, their status as a representative player (in days gone by even City Country status used to be a thing).

Obviously they’re vastly different games and there’s 5 more blokes on the field in AFL so any analogy isn’t going to be a like for like comparison and I can respect that but there are still 6-7 vastly different roles across the field and isolating groups of each role into who is and isn’t elite would theoretically borrow from the same principals as other codes.

If you wanted to draw a really long bow, have a look at say, premier league goalkeepers. Predominantly there’s only 20 of them - so not dissimilar to ruckmen in the afl.

I don’t think it would be major surprise if pundits classified even 5-6 of those 20 goalkeepers as ‘elite’ (I don’t know much about soccer beyond the 5th grade incarnation of it that I play)

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Theoretically yes. A minority of players who are above average.

On top of which, too, it DOESNT have to be based purely around numbers.
Ie. in an era where every team’s key forwards are rubbish aside from 2-3 players, I wouldn’t necessarily think the 4th best has to be elite just because he’s the fourth best. If he’s s**t, it doesn’t matter if he’s fourth, he’s s**t

Well your grading system in that case seems fairly imprecise, and rather effusive in embracing players as elite.

It is easy to summarise what has occurred here. PJays has declared Max King elite thinking he has found his way into the top few(4-5) key forwards in the competition, based on a shaky sample that has been shown to not be reliable. I have more or less accepted his grading system as fair enough, but not his positioning of King within that system as elite. You have come along and criticised me for saying he is not elite and said he is elite. When it was shown we were judging against the accepted industry standard of what an elite grading requires, you have intervened with a new system that rates one in five players elite.

The trouble is we were not having the discussion based on your out of step with accepted industry standards gradings, so you should not be critical of us saying a player is not elite by a stricter standard.

Anyway “elite" etc is all hogwash. PJays seemingly rated Max in the top 4-5 key forwards in the AFL but has now altered this slightly, I presume to somewhere outside the top 5, but around the fringe of, or inside the top 10. I think in one of your posts you rated King 7th. And I have him around 11th.

Regardless of who is right or wrong, what can be seen quite clearly is that in 2022, based on measurable performance, King sits uncontroversially around the fringe of the top 10. And there is at least one distinct group of around 5 key forwards at least - Curnow, Cameron, Hawkins, Lynch, Walker who have been clearly better than him this season - so far. And another group of 5 who also seem to sit above him for measurable performance - Naughton, Wright, McKay, Lewis, Franklin.

I think when most people think of the word elite in terms of footballers they are not thinking of a player who has a clear cluster of players performing at a level above him. Certainly that is how I think of it. But here it is arguable he sits both outside the first group, and also at best on the fringe of the second group.

So before you come here all guns blazing, maybe it is best to try to understand what is being discussed in the terms it is being discussed.

Anyway, the thread is fun. It is a good way to track a rising star player and measure him against other established and rising stars to gain some clarity around all of them. So don’t be a fun policeman all your life.

 

[PhatBoy]

Well your grading system in that case seems fairly imprecise, and rather effusive in embracing players as elite.

It is easy to summarise what has occurred here. PJays has declared Max King elite thinking he has found his way into the top few(4-5) key forwards in the competition, based on a shaky sample that has been shown to not be reliable. I have more or less accepted his grading system as fair enough, but not his positioning of King within that system as elite. You have come along and criticised me for saying he is not elite and said he is elite. When it was shown we were judging against the accepted industry standard of what an elite grading requires, you have intervened with a new system that rates one in five players elite.

The trouble is we were not having the discussion based on your out of step with accepted industry standards gradings, so you should not be critical of us saying a player is not elite by a stricter standard.

Anyway “elite" etc is all hogwash. PJays seemingly rated Max in the top 4-5 key forwards in the AFL but has now altered this slightly, I presume to somewhere outside the top 5, but around the fringe of, or inside the top 10. I think in one of your posts you rated King 7th. And I have him around 11th.

Regardless of who is right or wrong, what can be seen quite clearly is that in 2022, based on measurable performance, King sits uncontroversially around the fringe of the top 10. And there is at least one distinct group of around 5 key forwards at least - Curnow, Cameron, Hawkins, Lynch, Walker who have been clearly better than him this season - so far. And another group of 5 who also seem to sit above him for measurable performance - Naughton, Wright, McKay, Lewis, Franklin.

I think when most people think of the word elite in terms of footballers they are not thinking of a player who has a clear cluster of players performing at a level above him. Certainly that is how I think of it. But here it is arguable he sits both outside the first group, and also at best on the fringe of the second group.

So before you come here all guns blazing, maybe it is best to try to understand what is being discussed in the terms it is being discussed.

Anyway, the thread is fun. It is a good way to track a rising star player and measuring him against other established and rising stars to gain some clarity around all of them. So don’t be a fun policeman all your life.

Well of course it’s imprecise.

Let’s say hypothetically there’s an era of Test cricket where there’s clearly a heap of really good bowlers around, (so the argument that runs are just easier at the moment doesn’t hold water), and suddenly there are 5 teams who have a top 6 who ALL average 40+ with the bat. Not an avalanche of Steve Smiths averaging 60, just a whole bunch of players at the same time who average over what is traditionally then benchmark for a ‘world class’ batsman.

Suddenly using your system if it’s THAT precise, you’re going to have a bunch of players who in any other period would be world class (let’s say world class = elite) but through no fault of their own are just considered mediocre.

Then when all those guys retire you might have guys who even against lesser attacks average 37-38 who using a precise definition, would be considered elite

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Well of course it’s imprecise.

Let’s say hypothetically there’s an era of Test cricket where there’s clearly a heap of really good bowlers around, (so the argument that runs are just easier at the moment doesn’t hold water), and suddenly there are 5 teams who have a top 6 who ALL average 40+ with the bat. Not an avalanche of Steve Smiths averaging 60, just a whole bunch of players at the same time who average over what is traditionally then benchmark for a ‘world class’ batsman.

Suddenly using your system if it’s THAT precise, you’re going to have a bunch of players who in any other period would be world class (let’s say world class = elite) but through no fault of their own are just considered mediocre.

Then when all those guys retire you might have guys who even against lesser attacks average 37-38 who using a precise definition, would be considered elite

I don’t like these sort of adjectives like elite for his precise reason. If you told me someone was ranked 30th best batsman on the planet at his peak and in the top 50 for 10 years I would find that much easier to interpret. Or if you said Max King at 22 has risen to be the 10th best key forward in the AFL or Gryan Miers peaked at the 1209th ranked footballer in Australia I think it is more clear.

But in an international cricket context, I would take the truly elite batsmen in the world at any given point to be the top 4-5 or so in each format, measured on their overall influence as far as that can be done. In the AFL I would say the same holds true, the elite players in each position are the top few in each position. And the elite players of the AFL(a different thing) are the top few players. One elite might stand out above the other elites and they are all still elite, but if more than one stands above the others then really, the top grouping are the elites. So in tennis in an international context for example over the last decade, the 3 guns who won all the Grand Slams make up the elite.

 

[PhatBoy]

I don’t like these sort of adjectives like elite for his precise reason. If you told me someone was ranked 30th best batsman on the planet at his peak and in the top 50 for 10 years I would find that much easier to interpret. Or if you said Max King at 22 has risen to be the 10th best key forward in the AFL or Gryan Miers peaked at the 1209th ranked footballer in Australia I think it is more clear.

But in an international cricket context, I would take the truly elite batsmen in the world at any given point to be the top 4-5 or so in each format, measured on their overall influence as far as that can be done. In the AFL I would say the same holds true, the elite players in each position are the top few in each position. And the elite players of the AFL(a different thing) are the top few players. One elite might stand out above the other elites and they are all still elite, but if more than one stands above the others then really, the top grouping are the elites. So in tennis in an international context for example over the last decade, the 3 guns who won all the Grand Slams make up the elite.

View attachment 1463347

I think what you’re talking about is where someone sits in the historical scheme of the landscape or their sport:

Ie. let’s say you were to talk about the elite forwards of the last decade:

• Riewoldt
• Franklin
• Hawkins
• Kennedy
• Roughead

The likes of Lynch and Walker are debatable.

Someone like Curnow right now is in both our criteria as elite.

When you look at the sport as a whole over a decade he’s not even on the radar.


So as such yes I would look at say tennis players of the last 15 years and say that Nadal, Federer, Djokovic Williams, Sharapova and maybe Murray are the elite.

But equally I would stand by my statement earlier that at a given point in time, currently speaking, anyone in the top 20 i think could classify themselves as ‘among the elite.’

 

[PJays]

PJays seemingly rated Max in the top 4-5 key forwards in the AFL but has now altered this slightly, I presume to somewhere outside the top 5, but around the fringe of, or inside the top 10.

Based on season to date he's probably 6th or 7th but honestly I don't watch enough of the others to hold a really confident opinion on exactly where he sits.

I think most experts though would rate his last 6 or 8 games of 2021 and his first half of 2022 as elite.

From my layman's perspective he has one serious weakness. His goal kicking accuracy. He's kicked 46.36 (and plenty of OOB's too). If that's 56.26 or 57.30 then he's right there with Curnow, he's in the AA40 and quite possibly the 22.

So if he's not quite "elite" that's the reason. It could be that missing 10 gettable set shots instead of kicking 10 gettable set shots over 22 games ends up the difference between "elite" season and a not quite elite season. But if he's not elite he's close.

And another group of 5 who also seem to sit above him for measurable performance - Naughton, Wright, McKay, Lewis, Franklin.

On what basis are they ahead of him? Seems to me like there's not a lot between most of those guys based on pure statistics

Much of this depends on what you emphasise.

King is average, or even poor in some areas of his game- eg tackle pressure and defensive positioning on opposing players exiting the Saints forward 50. Or goal kicking accuracy.

But he's one of the best contested markers I've ever seen.

Not only that, but he rarely loses a contest. And neutral contests sometimes leave defenders in bad positions which result in advantages to St Kilda within the passage of play that aren't necessarily measured statistically.

As a key forward, the contested marking ability is one of the keys and he's definitely elite there. Its having that one elite skill that makes him super exciting to me and extra valuable. Whereas someone like Mitch Lewis who is a solid player but without any remarkable individual skill like King's marking, I would put clearly below King

 

[My Tilly]

King's a gun. The stuff being said about him in here is comical. He's in his third season and going to slot 50+ goals.
One of the best pack marks in the comp.
Once he has genuine support, he is going to be a perennial 60+ goal per season forward.

Would definitely pick him ahead of Naughton and Larkey. 202cm players who can mark and move like that, super rare.
Get the kicking sorted out, he'll be unstoppable.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I think what you’re talking about is where someone sits in the historical scheme of the landscape or their sport:

Ie. let’s say you were to talk about the elite forwards of the last decade:

• Riewoldt
• Franklin
• Hawkins
• Kennedy
• Roughead

The likes of Lynch and Walker are debatable.

Someone like Curnow right now is in both our criteria as elite.

When you look at the sport as a whole over a decade he’s not even on the radar.


So as such yes I would look at say tennis players of the last 15 years and say that Nadal, Federer, Djokovic Williams, Sharapova and maybe Murray are the elite.

But equally I would stand by my statement earlier that at a given point in time, currently speaking, anyone in the top 20 i think could classify themselves as ‘among the elite.’

This is right that the word elite in football, and anywhere can be used in different contexts, correctly.

You could see with all the different grades of Aussie Rules from minor country leagues to Church leagues(do they still exist?) to D Grade Amateurs up to A Grade and State League level that the AFL is the elite level of football in the code. And so you could correctly say anyone who plays at that level is an elite level player. But of that set of elite level players, the elite amongst them are just the top few.

And then of course you can say player X had a breakout elite level game, player Y is in elite level form and player Z has enjoyed an elite career. Or you could say another player is elite amongst left footers or elite amongst short people or elite amongst first year players.

But once given the context, to be truly elite I think there has to be no discernible group of players above you within that context for you to be elite. So Kennedy, Hawkins and Riewoldt, whilst Franklin sits above them amongst the elite, still go to make up that elite group of key forwards over the last decade. Definitely Walker as well. Others as you say a bit harder to define.

I do think it is fair to say though that when you haven’t previously been rated as elite, you need a whole season at elite level to be recognised as reaching elite level. Whereas say Jack Riewoldt came out next year and put together a run of 10 games for 30+ goals and 10 goal assists, you would be saying he has clearly returned to elite level.

So I don’t agree that a top 20 player is elite in this context, unless say the 20th player has no discernible group above him, say there were 20 forwards averaging 3.4 to 3.7 goals + goal assists, and only one player averaging 4.1, then I think all things being equal the whole 20 are the elite goal guys. But if 5 guys average 3.4 to 3.7 and another 5 average 2.9 to 3.2, then I think you would be saying the top 5 are the elite goal players.

 

[PhatBoy]

This is right that the word elite in football, and anywhere can be used in different contexts, correctly.

You could see with all the different grades of Aussie Rules from minor country leagues to Church leagues(do they still exist?) to D Grade Amateurs up to A Grade and State League level that the AFL is the elite level of football in the code. And so you could correctly say anyone who plays at that level is an elite level player. But of that set of elite level players, the elite amongst them are just the top few.

And then of course you can say player X had a breakout elite level game, player Y is in elite level form and player Z has enjoyed an elite career. Or you could say another player is elite amongst left footers or elite amongst short people or elite amongst first year players.

But once given the context, to be truly elite I think there has to be no discernible group of players above you within that context for you to be elite. So Kennedy, Hawkins and Riewoldt, whilst Franklin sits above them amongst the elite, still go to make up that elite group of key forwards over the last decade. Definitely Walker as well. Others as you say a bit harder to define.

I do think it is fair to say though that when you haven’t previously been rated as elite, you need a whole season at elite level to be recognised as reaching elite level. Whereas say Jack Riewoldt came out next year and put together a run of 10 games for 30+ goals and 10 goal assists, you would be saying he has clearly returned to elite level.

So I don’t agree that a top 20 player is elite in this context, unless say the 20th player has no discernible group above him, say there were 20 forwards averaging 3.4 to 3.7 goals + goal assists, and only one player averaging 4.1, then I think all things being equal the whole 20 are the elite goal guys. But if 5 guys average 3.4 to 3.7 and another 5 average 2.9 to 3.2, then I think you would be saying the top 5 are the elite goal players.

Fair enough

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Based on season to date he's probably 6th or 7th but honestly I don't watch enough of the others to hold a really confident opinion on exactly where he sits.

I think most experts though would rate his last 6 or 8 games of 2021 and his first half of 2022 as elite.

From my layman's perspective he has one serious weakness. His goal kicking accuracy. He's kicked 46.36 (and plenty of OOB's too). If that's 56.26 or 57.30 then he's right there with Curnow, he's in the AA40 and quite possibly the 22.

So if he's not quite "elite" that's the reason. It could be that missing 10 gettable set shots instead of kicking 10 gettable set shots over 22 games ends up the difference between "elite" season and a not quite elite season. But if he's not elite he's close.


On what basis are they ahead of him? Seems to me like there's not a lot between most of those guys based on pure statistics

Much of this depends on what you emphasise.

King is average, or even poor in some areas of his game- eg tackle pressure and defensive positioning on opposing players exiting the Saints forward 50. Or goal kicking accuracy.

But he's one of the best contested markers I've ever seen.

Not only that, but he rarely loses a contest. And neutral contests sometimes leave defenders in bad positions which result in advantages to St Kilda within the passage of play that aren't necessarily measured statistically.

As a key forward, the contested marking ability is one of the keys and he's definitely elite there. Its having that one elite skill that makes him super exciting to me and extra valuable. Whereas someone like Mitch Lewis who is a solid player but without any remarkable individual skill like King's marking, I would put clearly below King

Let’s just maybe compare King’s season with a couple of other young key forwards, Lewis and Naughton. From these statistical comparisons we may be able to make some meaningful statements.

First, v Lewis

The first thing here is Lewis is 21 months older, but was acquired with a 4th round draft pick, whereas King obviously comes with the higher expectations being drafted at pick 4.

But their performance…

Lewis missed 4 games with injury but it didn’t seem to damage his performance in the games where he acquired the injuries. So we will just take both player’s average figures as indicative.

They are both similar for disposals around 11 average, Lewis has a slight edge in goal average but really they are similar. King has extra shots at goal, averaging 0.9 behinds more than Lewis, who has been very accurate. Lewis has a 37% edge in tackle count but they are both quite low. Tackles inside 50, Lewis is a lot higher. They have similar inside 50’s, Max has a slight edge. Lewis has a 25% edge on goal assists. Max has a 15% edge on contested possessions. Lewis has a similar edge in effective disposals and a reasonable edge in disposal efficiency. Max has about 9% more clangers. Max has a 60% edge in contested marks which is where his whole surplus in contested possessions comes from. Max also takes about 50% more marks inside 50 compared to Lewis. Lewis has 130% more 1%ers. You can also see Lewis turns the ball over a lot less, and intercepts more. Max has a 34m - roughly 17% edge in metres gained. Max has about a 5% edge in score involvements.

Where Max is stronger: Much stronger in the air, especially contested. From this flows his 0.8 extra shots at goal per game and I would think that also accounts for his extra metres gained.

Where Lewis is stronger: Much more efficient with the ball and his numbers suggest he is also a better reader of the play and slightly better ground player. He also gets involved in more of his teammates scores, but has appreciably less shots at goals himself than Max, and therefore slightly less score involvements overall. Stronger for tackling and 1%ers also suggest he is better post marking contest.

Overall: This is a very close comparison right now imo. Presence in marking contests is a huge part of being a key forward and Max is clearly stronger in this area. But he actually looks quite week beside that next to Lewis who you would not exactly say was Lance Franklin once the ball hits the deck. You could argue for either of these player’s performances right now, but not a doubt you can see the greater potential in Max’s figures given his age, and if he can fix some of his efficiency and post marking contest weaknesses, and perhaps also learn to read the play better. As of performance this season, I am going to give it slightly to Lewis overall, preferring the extra efficiency and ex-marking contest things he has brought to the table this season.

I will post the comparison with Naughton and analysis separately.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

So let’s compare Max to Naughton in 2022.

Here we can see Naughton at 22 years, 8 months is 8 months older than Max. They are both top 10 draft picks so come with relatively lofty expectations.


Naughton has missed just one game but performed ok the game before he missed so we will take their averages as indicative. Aaron has about 7% more disposals. They both average 2.4 goals, but Max averages about 18% more behinds. Naughton has about 160% more tackles per game and this is 1.3 tackles, which could reduce opposition disposals by an average of 4-5 or more per game. So it is significant. Naughton also has 0.7 extra hitouts per game so he rucks a bit more and Max in fact barely ever competes int he ruck, which is obviously beneficial to him in terms of scoring goals. Aaron has 35% more inside 50’s, which suggests he does more work up the ground than Max. Aaron has 75% more goal assists than Max. Max gives away 175% more free kicks. Aaron gets slightly more contested possessions though it is close and Max gets about 9% more contested marks. Max takes 35% more marks inside 50. Aaron gets about 12% more effective disposals and has slightly greater disposal efficiency. Max naturally has more clangers, by 20%. Aaron has 30% more 1%ers but this is not hugely significant they are both quite low. Aaron has slightly more score involvements. Aaron turn sit over a lot less, tackles inside 50 a lot more and intercepts a lot more. Max has 35m gained more than Aaron, clearly kicking the ball longer more often.


Where Max is stronger: In this comparison Max’s strengths are nowhere near as far ahead of Aaron’s as they were when being compared to M Lewis above. But Max does take some extra contested marks(around 9%) and has a similar edge in shots at goal.

Where Aaron is stronger: In just about every other way, efficiency, ground ball contest, tackling, 1%ers, score involvements, goal assists, intercepts, hitouts, clearances, and frees against he is either a little stronger or substantially stronger.

Overall: This one is much easier to judge and Max’s weakness in tackling and efficiency and ground ball play and intercepting and free kicks against would give him a substantial deficit on Aaron, on top of the fact Aaron has a slightly better scoreboard impact overall.


So the performance of these excellent three key forwards in 2022, I would rank:

1. Naughton, clearly
2. Lewis, by a very tight and debatable margin,
3. King

But you could easily rank King 2 and Lewis 3 or both of them =2nd.

Of course the season isn’t over, but it is probably about 85% completed for these guys. Naughton to me is the only one of this trio you could argue is up with the elite key forwards based on the overall value of his performance this season, but even he may sit below the elite key forwards. Max clearly has some things to work on in his game over the next couple of years, most notably, efficiency, tackling, ground ball play and reading of the play to effect intercepts.

 

[g_TRAIN]

PJays do you regret starting this thread yet?

 

[Falcon3518]

Cumberland looks better than King did in his first 3 games. By St Kilda fan’s logic he’ll be in the HOF and probably better than Buddy. Can’t wait for Cumberland to arrive although he probably just did.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Plugger35]

Cumberland looks better than King did in his first 3 games. By St Kilda fan’s logic he’ll be in the HOF and probably better than Buddy. Can’t wait for Cumberland to arrive although he probably just did.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Cumberland would be getting the 3rd or 4th best defender while King is getting the best defender and often gets double teamed or even triple teamed.

 

[Falcon3518]

Cumberland would be getting the 3rd or 4th best defender while King is getting the best defender and often gets double teamed or even triple teamed.

He gets doubled teamed because he’s a galoop. Nobody double teams medium/small forwards because they are too quick. Kings just gonna have to deal with that.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Cumberland would be getting the 3rd or 4th best defender while King is getting the best defender and often gets double teamed or even triple teamed.

Jeez how’s the oppo posters rushing to the thread to dump on Cumberland and say he is sh!t. Why can’t we just appreciate and celebrate a great young player.

King double and triple teamed = too slow to get separation and when by fluke he does, runs in the wrong direction into traffic. Unlike Noah Gunberland.

 

[Duskfire]

Jeez how’s the oppo posters rushing to the thread to dump on Cumberland and say he is sh!t. Why can’t we just appreciate and celebrate a great young players.

King double and triple teamed = too slow to get separation and when by fluke he does, runs in the wrong direction into traffic. Unlike Noah Gunberland.

Saying he gets the third best defender isn't calling him shit though?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Saying he gets the third best defender isn't calling him s**t though?

I am only kidding. Was a bit of a backhander to some posts throughout the thread that shall we say, were slightly overly sensitive in regard to anyone not jumping headlong onto the Max wagon.

Plugger35’s post is perfectly sensible, it wasn’t a dig at him although it appeared that way.

 

[Plugger35]

Jeez how’s the oppo posters rushing to the thread to dump on Cumberland and say he is sh!t. Why can’t we just appreciate and celebrate a great young players.

King double and triple teamed = too slow to get separation and when by fluke he does, runs in the wrong direction into traffic. Unlike Noah Gunberland.

King isn't too slow to get separation but he needs to lead more up the ground rather than being stationary where the defenders can just sit on him.

 

[Cadillac]

His form has shocked me this year. Thought he had more strings to his bow than what he’s shown.

 

[Ricketz]

But PJays, Richmond mid Shai Bolton has 13 less scoring shots for the season than Max, and only 2 less goals + goal assists, and 4 less scoring shots + goal assists. And he is a midfielder and part-time small forward. Your “elite" key forward is barely having more scoreboard impact than a part time small forward. How can this be PJays? Especially given your man is the most targetted forward in the AFL.

I think you need to keep your hand away from your erogenous zone until Max actually makes the grade.

He also has no one competing with him in the forward line from his own team, so he is doing ok Shai.