Murphy..

[Brishawk]

Look whether right or wrong, that is what I based it on and thats what it said (by the way, AFL site stats (official????) have no GAs either: http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/16931/Default.aspx#fixtureid=5643&tab=Stats (see advanced tab)).

On trawling the video looking for examples, actually, its more of a case of getting the facts by looking at the vision rather then looking through the biased eyes (and it is funny about your comment of "trawling the video" as you will see in an upcoming post ). Perhaps if others did this, then there would be less argument about it. Can I tell you, that if you think that Murphy is out of position all the time, you will see him out of position all the time! Because that is the time you take a mental snapshot of his position and use it in examples. As we keep on about this Blues game, the reason for "trawling the video" as you called it was to see the 3 critical errors that he was meant of have made. The one in question was when he went back to help out on Jamison (when Jamison was marking everything and threatening to take the game away from us) which makes it even more comical as all the people ready to drop Murph use the argument he never helps out as a reason! Well if you come off your man to help, occasionally the ball is going to spill to your man.

But people have said to look at his game and I will do this (in fact, I will help everyone to do this).

Just so we have it straight, his game against the Swans was poor right? And Cheaney could have done better right?

PS. I somewhat joke above about the Cheaney thing. Firstly, again, I really like him as a player but he is outside our best 22. Secondly, as others have correctly stated, he isn't competing with Murph for his spot, he is more competing with Poppy and Guerra, and I think we all agree, he isn't in that league at present.

You keep going on about this 'three errors' which I have not mentioned once in this thread (nor in the other thread I think). As it stands, his opponent did set up a goal and you know it. It is disingenuous to say otherwise and appeal to a lack of statistical evidence as the video evidence is easily viewed on AFL.com.au. If a small forward has a hand in a goal or two, has three shots himself, has 19 touches I'd say he had a good game. Nail all three and he was a match winner. The spoil attempt was not good enough. He had plenty of time to get back and make a proper spoil. For me, it is not that he made a mistake, it is why he made the mistake. He is either too slow to make the contest (I don't believe this), not good enough at reading the flight or he felt pressure from behind and was trying to avoid body contact (looks like he ducks his head on the video but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt). I wish I could say it was a one off but many have noticed he is not the greatest spoiler in terms of clearing the area. I don't think there was a valid reason for failing to smash that ball clear. Happy to listen to your hypothesis but I feel you will say something along the lines of others make mistakes and why hold murphy to higher standards, right?

On positioning, SJ ran Murphy up the ground, lost him in traffic and then ran back towards goal. Watch the Podsiadly soccer off the ground goal. You see SJ run towards the contest in the centre while Murphy peels off towards goal (slowly). SJ ends up with the ball and kicks it to pods. Murphy can be seeing running back towards goal at the bottom of the screen. That wasn't a case of supply creates opportunity, it was a case of Murphy not sticking with his man.

Regarding Cheney, If you actually read what I have been saying I am not calling for Murphy's head this week. In the short term I don't think there is not enough to gain and will support Murphy against the pies and hopefully against the cats. But others may have a different opinion and I respect there right to state it in a reasonable manner. Is that ok with you or will you attack another straw man?

 

[mollyfud]

You keep going on about this 'three errors' which I have not mentioned once in this thread (nor in the other thread I think). As it stands, his opponent did set up a goal and you know it. It is disingenuous to say otherwise and appeal to a lack of statistical evidence as the video evidence is easily viewed on AFL.com.au. If a small forward has a hand in a goal or two, has three shots himself, has 19 touches I'd say he had a good game. Nail all three and he was a match winner. The spoil attempt was not good enough. He had plenty of time to get back and make a proper spoil. For me, it is not that he made a mistake, it is why he made the mistake. He is either too slow to make the contest (I don't believe this), not good enough at reading the flight or he felt pressure from behind and was trying to avoid body contact (looks like he ducks his head on the video but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt). I wish I could say it was a one off but many have noticed he is not the greatest spoiler in terms of clearing the area. I don't think there was a valid reason for failing to smash that ball clear. Happy to listen to your hypothesis but I feel you will say something along the lines of others make mistakes and why hold murphy to higher standards, right?

On positioning, SJ ran Murphy up the ground, lost him in traffic and then ran back towards goal. Watch the Podsiadly soccer off the ground goal. You see SJ run towards the contest in the centre while Murphy peels off towards goal (slowly). SJ ends up with the ball and kicks it to pods. Murphy can be seeing running back towards goal at the bottom of the screen. That wasn't a case of supply creates opportunity, it was a case of Murphy not sticking with his man.

Regarding Cheney, If you actually read what I have been saying I am not calling for Murphy's head this week. In the short term I don't think there is not enough to gain and will support Murphy against the pies and hopefully against the cats. But others may have a different opinion and I respect there right to state it in a reasonable manner. Is that ok with you or will you attack another straw man?

a) You are but one person in the list. I think only once claimed you said about the 3 errors and once I found the thread and saw it wasn't you I corrected it!
b) I keep mentioning the three errors as proof of the unfairness of the argument
c) As you say, stats do lie at times. If you watch the video i posted from the Sydney games its hard to see anything more then a kick and hb and GA from the guys Murph was on when he was on them.
d) Murph's job against Johnson was to shut him down in the forward line. It has long been our style to let guys like that kick chase all they want. If you can't admit that was true, you are mislead! Now, if I had another day up my sleave, I would do exactly what I did with the swans game for the cats game. I think it would be an interesting exercise. I have a trip to the US coming up, perhaps that would be an interesting exercise for the plane!
e) Come on mate, Betts having a good game? You don't truly believe that do you? And the spoil attempt brought the ball to ground! Were is the ridicule for Guerra for letting Garlett get goal side of him?

On your last point, if people continue to talk crap I will continue to attack them!

PS. In an earlier post you said "I think Murphy's form has being worrying in the back end of the season including both finals." Now if you can go through the video I posted above and say that game is worrying, you must have had him headed for AA at mid season!

 

[Hungry Hawk]

Pretty hard to bitch about Murphy purely on that footage and it would appear that Ol Commetti is one of his biggest fans.

His positioning would appear to be very good just when he has to use the ball going the ball going the other way he makes a few mistakes, but who doesnt.

When Rohan flies and takes that mark in the square, Murph is blocking Spangher from flying whilst Burger is waiting for the crumbs. Not sure who is directly responsible for Rohan but Murphys is'nt spectating.

Fair effort their Fud just for arguments sake.

 

[mollyfud]

Pretty hard to bitch about Murphy purely on that footage and it would appear that Ol Commetti is one of his biggest fans.

His positioning would appear to be very good just when he has to use the ball going the ball going the other way he makes a few mistakes, but who doesnt.

When Rohan flies and takes that mark in the square, Murph is blocking Spangher from flying whilst Burger is waiting for the crumbs. Not sure who is directly responsible for Rohan but Murphys is'nt spectating.

Fair effort their Fud just for arguments sake.

Thanks mate. Thought I would look for myself as I did start to doubt what I knew to be true. Not doubting self at all now!

 

[Brishawk]

a) You are but one person in the list. I think only once claimed you said about the 3 errors and once I found the thread and saw it wasn't you I corrected it!
b) I keep mentioning the three errors as proof of the unfairness of the argument
c) As you say, stats do lie at times. If you watch the video i posted from the Sydney games its hard to see anything more then a kick and hb and GA from the guys Murph was on when he was on them.
d) Murph's job against Johnson was to shut him down in the forward line. It has long been our style to let guys like that kick chase all they want. If you can't admit that was true, you are mislead! Now, if I had another day up my sleave, I would do exactly what I did with the swans game for the cats game. I think it would be an interesting exercise. I have a trip to the US coming up, perhaps that would be an interesting exercise for the plane!
e) Come on mate, Betts having a good game? You don't truly believe that do you? And the spoil attempt brought the ball to ground! Were is the ridicule for Guerra for letting Garlett get goal side of him?

On your last point, if people continue to talk crap I will continue to attack them!

PS. In an earlier post you said "I think Murphy's form has being worrying in the back end of the season including both finals." Now if you can go through the video I posted above and say that game is worrying, you must have had him headed for AA at mid season!

HAHAHAHHA Murphy's job was was to stop SJ in the forwardline yet SJ was goal side of Murphy??? You are hilarious! Watch the video on GA. They start from the same spot and one player pushes to the next contest, receives the ball and sets up a goal while the other player trotts back towards goal before trying all to late to make it back to the defensive 50 . . . and you think that is what the coach expects? You're satisfied by that effort?

I think even if I spent the time and analysed every piece of play Murphy was involved in and weighed up the value of his successes and failures and demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that he was beaten by a better player in SJ you would still not accept he had a bad game (regardless of the abundant supply to the Geelong forwards).

The spoil attempt on Jamison was rubbish. Needed to hit it clear like Gibson did against the swans. I don't know why you think his effort and application was sufficient but as it resulted in a goal to the opposition I think the facts are on my side.

But I don't need to do that. The renewed interest in Murphy's form in the later part of the year is because his form is not talking for itself. When he was in good form everyone went quite. But as his form trailed off (not that he has been terrible but it was below what he is capable and possibly what we need from him) people started asking the same old questions again.

 

[smithy_9]

Look its pretty simple, he is one of the coaches favourites. All coaches have favourites. Usually the kind of players who remind them of themselves so Clarko probably sees himself in Murphy. He has played all year and done a pretty good job defensively so won't be getting dropped now.

 

[mollyfud]

HAHAHAHHA Murphy's job was was to stop SJ in the forwardline yet SJ was goal side of Murphy??? You are hilarious! Watch the video on GA. They start from the same spot and one player pushes to the next contest, receives the ball and sets up a goal while the other player trotts back towards goal before trying all to late to make it back to the defensive 50 . . . and you think that is what the coach expects? You're satisfied by that effort?

I think even if I spent the time and analysed every piece of play Murphy was involved in and weighed up the value of his successes and failures and demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that he was beaten by a better player in SJ you would still not accept he had a bad game (regardless of the abundant supply to the Geelong forwards).

The spoil attempt on Jamison was rubbish. Needed to hit it clear like Gibson did against the swans. I don't know why you think his effort and application was sufficient but as it resulted in a goal to the opposition I think the facts are on my side.

But I don't need to do that. The renewed interest in Murphy's form in the later part of the year is because his form is not talking for itself. When he was in good form everyone went quite. But as his form trailed off (not that he has been terrible but it was below what he is capable and possibly what we need from him) people started asking the same old questions again.

To suggest that the interest in him changes week to week is comical! Show me a preview of the week thread where Murph isn't in the outs and I will be very surprised!

 

[dermott]

To suggest that the interest in him changes week to week is comical! Show me a preview of the week thread where Murph isn't in the outs and I will be very surprised!

Just to try and move away from the "Murphy is crap", "Murphy is great" nature of this debate I am interested in people's views on who Murphy will match up on against Collingwood.
Yes, I am assuming he will play (barring injury) as it is unlikely we will see many (any) changes at this time of the year. I am also assuming Gibson, Schoey and Stratton (the great man!!!) will take the talls.
I was overseas when we played Collingwood and did not see the match ups then.
Does anyone want to have a punt on who Murphy will match up well against?

 

[Cynic]

Just to try and move away from the "Murphy is crap", "Murphy is great" nature of this debate I am interested in people's views on who Murphy will match up on against Collingwood.
Yes, I am assuming he will play (barring injury) as it is unlikely we will see many (any) changes at this time of the year. I am also assuming Gibson, Schoey and Stratton (the great man!!!) will take the talls.
I was overseas when we played Collingwood and did not see the match ups then.
Does anyone want to have a punt on who Murphy will match up well against?

Played on Blair last time and kept him to 1 goal. However Didak, Krakouer or Fasolo is he's not dropped are all reasonable players for Murphy.

 

[Brishawk]

To suggest that the interest in him changes week to week is comical! Show me a preview of the week thread where Murph isn't in the outs and I will be very surprised!

So that entitles you to bully anyone who starts a thread or comments in a thread about Murphy? The interest has changed in recent weeks from that of mid season. Its being a while since we had a stand alone thread on Murphy but it was always going to happen given his form is not as good as you want to believe and people are noticing. Again I'll point out that I am not suggesting he be dropped. So why can't I have an opinion that I am worried about his form?

 

[Brishawk]

Played on Blair last time and kept him to 1 goal. However Didak, Krakouer or Fasolo is he's not dropped are all reasonable players for Murphy.

I think he will take Blair again.

 

[Hawkforce]

Lol at some Hawthorn supporters.

Just... Lol...


Walks away from thread shaking head

 

[Pino]

It is so fecking weird. I have been a Murphy defender for quite some time. I don't get annoyed when people question his place...No player in a forum should be distant from any criticism.

But, like some others, come on....Enough is enough on TM. He is easily worthy of a spot in our backline. As I stated in another post, my only criticism is that I would like him to back himself a little more and help out his team mates in marking contests when their opponents have easily lost their man.

He can easily add this to his game but us lacking some height down back is not his fault. He is negating his opponent most matches and very effectively.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Played on Blair last time and kept him to 1 goal. However Didak, Krakouer or Fasolo is he's not dropped are all reasonable players for Murphy.

Yep, imagine it may start like:

FF: Krakouer - Dawes - Blair
FB: Stratton - Schoey - Murphy

HF: Sidebottom - Cloke - Didak
HB: Birchall - Gibson - Burgoyne

Expect Fasolo to be the sub again.

 

[Bosk]

I've never been a fan of Murphy but it's obvious he's improved a great deal and no longer makes nearly as many critical errors as he was a couple of years ago.

He's a very limited player and I admit his place in the leadership group mystifies me somewhat but this year he's been quite solid and has contributed some good performances for the team.

I'd love to see someone else who has more nous for attacking footy step up and take his place next year but for now he's won his role in the team and is there to stay for the remaining games.

I don't think he's been our worst player in either of our first two finals either.

 

[burnside5]

totally agree Bender..

Murphy makes some terrible turnovers that cost us goals and would drop him for Lisle for certain. Lisle when he went down back, looked really good at times and would prefer the bigger body against the pies forwards. Start him on the bench a insurance for Schoe and Makers.......

B: GUERRA GIBSON STRATTON

HB: BIRCHALL SCHOENMAKERS SUCKLING

C: SMITH MITCHELL SHIELS

HF: RIOLI FRANKLIN BURGOYNE

F: PUOPOLO HALE LEWIS

RUCKS, BAILEY, HODGE, SEWELL,

INTERCHANGE: OSBORNE, WHITECROSS, LISLE, BATEMAN

EMERGENCY: ELLIS, MURPHY, BRUCE, SAVAGE, YOUNG, LADSON,

Not knocking Murphy, but in terms of structure we would look much better with Lisle instead.

Shoey & Lisle - 195+
Gibbo & Stratts - 190cm
Goo & Poppy - <189cm

Much better than having 3x 190cm. PLUS lisle is much much better at reading the ball in the air than Murphy. God knows he was really good last time we played Collingwood.

This would be ideal, as Gibbo would play on the opposition's 3rd tall, which will allow him to come over the top for all the high balls (like he did against Sydney) instead of having to stand a player who is too tall for him.

 

[Hawkforce]

So that entitles you to bully anyone who starts a thread or comments in a thread about Murphy?

You are being bullied?

You?


Lol. Just... Lol... How would you describe the treatment Tom Murphy gets then?!


Great work Mollyfud. Good to see some spirited defence of an honest trier who does his job within his limits yet gets bugger all recognition from so-called "supporters".

 

[IBleedBrownNGold]

Great video Molly. I, like you, got a lot of value out of seeing that once again. I never had doubts of course.

I think people should be allowed to voice their opinion on any player, but Tom seems to be the most maligned player on this Board. As such, it is often difficult to read the posts (many of which are just downright derogatory, not pointing any fingers here guys) and it is starting to become un-Hawthorn like.

I suppose it's the nature of the beast... opinions are just that, and with opposing opinions, nobody wins. But it'd be nice if we could just accept the situation for what it is... Tom is playing the role that is asked of him at the level the club sees as satisfactory. At this stage he is in our best 22. That is it.

 

[HAWKS HEROES]

Great video Molly. I, like you, got a lot of value out of seeing that once again. I never had doubts of course.

I think people should be allowed to voice their opinion on any player, but Tom seems to be the most maligned player on this Board. As such, it is often difficult to read the posts (many of which are just downright derogatory, not pointing any fingers here guys) and it is starting to become un-Hawthorn like.

I suppose it's the nature of the beast... opinions are just that, and with opposing opinions, nobody wins. But it'd be nice if we could just accept the situation for what it is... Tom is playing the role that is asked of him at the level the club sees as satisfactory. At this stage he is in our best 22. That is it.

well said .

 

[jd1991]

He's a very limited player and I admit his place in the leadership group mystifies me somewhat but this year he's been quite solid and has contributed some good performances for the team.

I'd love to see someone else who has more nous for attacking footy step up and take his place next year but for now he's won his role in the team and is there to stay for the remaining games.

I don't think he's been our worst player in either of our first two finals either.

Regarding leadership - a players ability/how good they are, have nothing to do with Leadership. Look at Gary Ablett Snr or Tony Locket - two all time greats, but there leadership would be lacking. Why is Maxwell or ling Collingwood or geelongs captains - when they would not be in the first 10 picked for there sides. Leadership has nothing to do with playing ability. Many things happen behind the scenes we are not privy to. He may be a great mentor, leads the young players off the field in doing the right things.

2nd point highlighted I agree with you, I would to, and if that person happened to be Murphy himself, believing in himslef more and taking another step fwd, I would be very happy for as well. This bloke has now played 88 games for the Hawks, in a period where we have been relatively successful (not continuos bottom of the ladder). That means he is not a dud, but a player of some ability - how long he can maximise it and stay in the side will be a year to year proposition. But he has found his rolw at present where the coaching panel is extremely happy with.

 

[Hawkzzz]

"An opinion is the lowest form of knowledge"

 

[Dragz]

I wonder if the criticism of Murphy comes because he doesn't look like he's putting in %100? Even though I imagine he is, he just never really seems to portray that fact.

Thoughts?

(And btw, I always cheer him down in Tassie!)

 

[IBleedBrownNGold]

"An opinion is the lowest form of knowledge"

Unless, of course, it is a professional opinion.

 

[Hawkzzz]

Unless, of course, it is a professional opinion.

I suppose we are, in a sense, semi-professional big footiers.

 

[Cynic]

I suppose we are, in a sense, semi-professional big footiers.

Pretty low educational or knowledge base requirements for a profession based on 90% of us.