Delisted Mitchell Golby (2009-2015)

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Link

Despite his AFL inexperience, Voss had little hesitation in naming Zorko with fellow rising stars Jack Redden, Pearce Hanley and Mitch Golby in his young leaders group.
Click to expand...
 
He's a bigger surprise than Zorko imo. Although he's played 21 games (five more than Zorko), he hasn't played a whole heap of footy in the last four years. He missed a big chunk in 2009 with an ACL injury before getting drafted. He missed a lot of footy in 2010 with another knee injury. He made his debut in 2011 and played eight senior games, and then last year he played 13 games before missing the rest of the season with a stress fracture in his foot. They obviously rate him highly - not only his leadership but his playing ability as well. His spot in the senior side is obviously pretty secure.
 
The poor bloke is very injury prone hope it turns his way . Looked like he was in disney land on sat nite after that sickning thud into the turf .
 
3KZ is Football said:
Fantastic start to the year for Mitch. Getting plenty of the ball and really putting in.
Click to expand...

I don't reckon it has. He's been sloppy with his disposal and Matera got the better of his defensive game last week.
 
He will be a long serving player for us. When he is running and hitting his targets he adds a valuable dimension to our team but at the moment I have to agree that there are issues with his defensive game - he is not alone there. I'm sure he and the coaches are working on it.
 
Grimreepah said:
I don't reckon it has. He's been sloppy with his disposal and Matera got the better of his defensive game last week.
Click to expand...
For a bloke who has played 24 games, his numbers this year have put a few of our more experienced players to shame. Currently ranked 4th for disposals, with only Moloney, Rockliff and Hanley above him. As for disposal efficiency, he is averaging 71% which is again significantly better than a number of our more heralded players. Last week we had players like Rich who had a disposal efficiency of 48.1%, Rockliff 54%, Bewick 50%, Polkinghorne 50% and Raines 52%. You also had Zorko with 6 Clangers, Hanley with 5, Yeo, Redden and Leuenberger with 4. I understand that if you are playing in the midfield and are getting most of your touches when you are "hot" in stop play situations, then your efficiency numbers will be down, but I think that this stat is still a reasonable measure of how well a player is using the ball. With only 2 Clangers for the game, I think that you are being a little harsh on Golby here Grimreepah. Remember, he is a developing player and the best thing about him is that he appears to have a knack for getting his hands on the ball. As he develops, his skills will improve, as will his ability to play "both ways."

I am happy to stand by the view that he has had a great start to the year and wish that some of our more senior players like McGrath, Adcock, Polkinghorne and Patfull had had as much of the ball.

I thought this was a great reading of the situation by POBT on the Changes for next round thread:
I thought John Worsfold's column on afl.com.au was very pertinent.​
That is a top notch read. Highly recommend it to others. What it says to me is that cause and effect in footy is really hard to determine.

For example, everyone has been very quick to say that Matera's goals last weekend are Golby's fault. And perhaps they were, if Golby made a series of poor decisions that were inconsistent with the game plan.

But it is also possible that Golby did everything right and that there were other causes. It could be that the structure was wrong (ie coaching mistake) or that other players weren't covering when they were supposed to (player mistake or perhaps a communication mistake).

Or, it could be that it was a risk that the coaching staff were willing to take and that, on balance, the fact that Gold Coast really struggled to get the ball out of their half on most occasions more than made up for the occasional fast break goal. In other words, there were no mistakes - just a natural and expected consequence that was minimal compared to the benefit gained from the structural decisions.

But to simplify it absolutely to "Golby's opponent kicked goals - therefore, Golby must have been the cause" is way too simplistic and is the sort of thinking that belongs in the 1970s. Worsfold's comments about Glass and Rocca are a great example of how complex cause and effect is in footy.
Click to expand...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

3KZ is Football said:
I understand that if you are playing in the midfield and are getting most of your touches when you are "hot" in stop play situations, then your efficiency numbers will be down, but I think that this stat is still a reasonable measure of how well a player is using the ball.
Click to expand...

I don't. Merrett has led our disposal efficiency in the past despite being our worst kick. Golby hasn't been going terribly, but I don't think he's been much better than so-so.
 
Grimreepah said:
I don't reckon it has. He's been sloppy with his disposal and Matera got the better of his defensive game last week.
Click to expand...

Matera also took marks inside 50 on Adcock and Patfull.

The logic that a few people on this board have followed is because Matera's first goal was kicked on him and Dermie made a comment about it = rest of the game it was Golby's fault despite others leaving him unmarked.
 
He's just made a few blatant errors which stick in the mind. Outside that, he's been quite consistent in both defence and rebound attack.

I think the club is trying to teach him to play a much more attacking role this year (perhaps as a result of losing Drummo), so he's probably still settling into that a little.

Not worried at all yet. Only four rounds in and we've all seen the type of football he can play.
 
You cant fault or question Mitch and his desire to compete and link up, BUT he lacks awarenss from time to time of whats going on around him, and either gets caught with the ball or sets his teamates up to get smashed. He also needs to watch his kicks a number of kicks ended up in turnovers, he tends to be precise instead of sometimes just going for a safer option
 
I was at the North Melbourne game and there were at least 10 other players I'd be much more worried about, a number of them quite senior. At least Golby is giving 100%
 
3KZ is Football said:
I was at the North Melbourne game and there were at least 10 other players I'd be much more worried about, a number of them quite senior. At least Golby is giving 100%
Click to expand...

Nah absolutely as i said his comitment is there, just his awarness lets him down at times,
 
sonofabeams said:
Nah absolutely as i said his comitment is there, just his awarness lets him down at times,
Click to expand...

He was providing a spark when others looked slow and flat footed. But I agree sonofabeams, that he needs to work on cutting down his errors.
 
Looked like he was moved up the field a bit in the second half. Definitely worth persisting with. Still only played 25 games.
 
jackess said:
Looked like he was moved up the field a bit in the second half. Definitely worth persisting with. Still only played 25 games.
Click to expand...

yeh, I wonder if that was because we were getting smashed and vossy just thought f*%k it play players where ever, or it is a long term veiw to get Golbs more involved in the midfeild rotations.
To me it makes sense to play him more in the middle, I meen we have a heap of players at the moment who can can play as small/ medium defenders. He as pace, he can find the ball would change things up a bit in our one paced midfeild
 
jackess said:
Looked like he was moved up the field a bit in the second half. Definitely worth persisting with. Still only played 25 games.
Click to expand...

I think the only spot he didn't play was as the ruck. Looked to play as a defensive forward for a bit, then later looked to have a run through the center bounce as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top