General Bombers Talk Overrating Players?

[Kong]

I think our coaching staff overrate McVeigh.

 

[Slattery_20]

If anyone seriously thinks a guy, who was fit all season, has been around a while and played 6 whole games is "over-rated" then I hate to think how lowly you actually rate him.

 

[Kong]

Ricky D, to be clear?

 

[Slattery_20]

Yep.
Can only assume he's rated below all of Hibberd, McVeigh, Slattery, Browne, Ross, Hardingham, Heppell, Dempsey.
ALL OF THEM played small back roles before he got a look in.
So he's starting roughly 10th in line, for 3-4 spots.
Then they added Baguley & Hunter, and look to set Davis for a similar role - so perhaps further back again.


He came in when we absolutely had to, and OTOH did a solid job in 2 or 3 of his 6 starts.
I don't agree with him being kept on but FFS it is a massive non-issue.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Do we really need another "I have less football knowledge than Luke Darcy, here's a 2 line op with some good players I don't rate" thread?

 

[Kyptastic]

Do we really need another "I have less football knowledge than Luke Darcy, here's a 2 line op with some good players I don't rate" thread?

Stay on topic Ben, this isn't the 'overrating commentators' thread.

 

[gPhonque]

With no due respect, you and your mate are ****ing morons.

I love how anybody who disagrees with you is a "****ing moron." (didn't you used to be a mod here as well?)

You're not the only person who watches football. People have different opinions. You might want to learn to deal with it without looking like a twat and resorting to abuse and nothing else.

Regardless of what the OP's intentions were in starting this thread, I think it's ridiculous to suggest that people at the club (ANY club) wouldn't overrate some of their own players. They work with and see these people nearly every day. They become close to them. They give them more "benefit of the doubt" than people outside (including us supporters) do who only see their impact ON the field. Sure, the flipside is that we don't see their work and impact OFF the field... but that's not what is being discussed.

(Hell, I saw an interview with Bomber Thompson a couple of weeks ago where he said that he thought Jobe Watson wasn't defensive enough a year or two ago, and had average skills.... and that Jobe has since improved on those things. Yet, if anybody had come onto this board at the time and said "Jobe Watson isn't defensive enough and his skills are average", no doubt you would have called him a "****ing moron" as well...)

Now, I know you were replying to the guy who was bashing Stanton... but you also commented on Monfries as well. I still say Monfries is inconsistent. Because he is. He's plays one blinder of a game and 21 average games per year where he has very little impact. This is his 8th year now. I don't think anybody is expecting him to tear every game a new arseh*le like he did against Adelaide, but just become a little more consistent in having some kind of impact on a game. Personally, I just think he needs to find a bit more of the ball. His skills are great, and he rarely wastes the ball. If he can get his average disposals up from the 17-18 it was at last year up into the 20's... and KEEP it there... he'll be well on his way and will start to have an impact on games more often. BrunoV made some excellent points earlier regarding our use of Monfries as well. Let's hope, as he said, that "we may actually get to see Monfries play the football he was drafted to play this year." He did start to string it together a little more in the 2nd half of last season... so let's hope that trend continues this year.

You know, some of you guys seem to constantly think that "everything is hunky-dory at Essendon! All our players are great! They don't need to improve!" And as soon as somebody comes along and dares to criticize anybody in any way, you jump all over them and call them ****ing morons and blah blah blah...

Yet, we haven't won a final since 2004, and we've had our arses handed to us in the only two finals we've managed to make since then. I'd suggest we've got quite a bit to improve on.

James Hird certainly thinks so anyway.

 

[Kong]

Sorry, missed that post. Edited out.

Ben, no more.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I love how anybody who disagrees with you is a "****ing moron."

It's got nothing to do with agreeing with me, and everything to do with objective fact.

There are certain players who are objectively good players. If you disagree with the statement that Jobe Watson or Sam Mitchell or Ryan Griffen or Todd Goldstein or Brent Stanton is a good player, then you are, objectively speaking, wrong. If you don't think David Myers is a good player, then fine, it's a subjective matter. But some players are beyond that, and the OP listed at least one and possibly two of those players.

The idea that a person would "hate" a player from their own team who is objectively good because they think that player is not good transcends the wrongness I mentioned above and moves into the territory of ****ing moronic.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Speaking of objectively wrong, I loved this quote.

I still say Monfries is inconsistent. Because he is. He's plays one blinder of a game and 21 average games per year where he has very little impact.

By your own description of Monfries, you've managed to prove yourself objectively wrong. I'd say a player who plays 21/22 games a year at the same level is incredibly consistent.

So for all your high and mighty walls of text, perhaps it might be an idea to reassess what you're saying before posting.

 

[gPhonque]

By your own description of Monfries, you've managed to prove yourself objectively wrong. I'd say a player who plays 21/22 games a year at the same level is incredibly consistent.

Wow, great job in not actually reading what I said:

I don't think anybody is expecting him to tear every game a new arseh*le like he did against Adelaide, but just become a little more consistent in having some kind of impact on a game.

So for all your high and mighty walls of text, perhaps it might be an idea to reassess what you're saying before posting.

Given the example above, I'd say that applies to you far more than me.

 

[Coldacre]

Go back and watch the Elimination Final - Stanton and Monfries were two of our best players

..... and look what good it did us!

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Wow, great job in not actually reading what I said:






Given the example above, I'd say that applies to you far more than me.

My humblest and most sincere apologies for not using your incorrect (noticing a pattern?) definition of the word consistent and instead using the commonly accepted definition of "producing an output which is generally at the same level".

The word you are looking for is better. You think Monfries is consistent, and you want him to be better.

 

[gPhonque]

The word you are looking for is better. You think Monfries is consistent, and you want him to be better.

Yes and no. Of course I want him to be better. Thus, I believe that when it comes to performing at the level we (or at least I) would like, Monfries is inconsistent.

You can sit there and claim that Monfries is consistent... and you'd be right. However, I can also claim he's inconsistent... and I'd be right as well. It all depends on the context and what we're referring to.

eg.

When it comes to performing at an average standard and not really have a big impact on games of football, you're right - Monfries is incredibly consistent.

When it comes to performing at a high level and having an impact on games of football, Monfries is incredibly inconsistent.

I would have thought it was obvious what I was referring to (nobody else seemed to have any issues understanding it) but if you couldn't understand what I meant, then I do apologise - I clearly overestimated your comprehension skills and I should have made things clearer.

Of course, if you'd prefer to debate the English language rather than football, perhaps you should head over here:

http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/grammardiscussion.html

 

[SirJimi05]

Sorry but BtG is right. Monfries is our most consistent forward. Next time you should just say "Monfries doesn't play enough great games". You are just going to confuse people when you use the word 'inconsistent' in he wrong context.

 

[BrunoV]

It's got nothing to do with agreeing with me, and everything to do with objective fact.

There are certain players who are objectively good players. If you disagree with the statement that Jobe Watson or Sam Mitchell or Ryan Griffen or Todd Goldstein or Brent Stanton is a good player, then you are, objectively speaking, wrong. If you don't think David Myers is a good player, then fine, it's a subjective matter. But some players are beyond that, and the OP listed at least one and possibly two of those players.

The idea that a person would "hate" a player from their own team who is objectively good because they think that player is not good transcends the wrongness I mentioned above and moves into the territory of ****ing moronic.

Totally Gooner.

There is nothing more piss weak than the relativist rubbish that some people come out with. You know, the "I am entitled to my opinion and I don't have to agree with you". There are plenty of objective facts that exist whether certain posters want to admit it or not.

The biggest way to paint yourself as utterly clueless is to insist on slamming a player because he turned the ball over a few times when he was 20 (and may not have hit the contest hard enough). Just take a few deep breaths, remove head from rectum and admit that you were wrong.

I'll start: in a 2009 end of year thread I posted that Prismal would replace Stanton in our best side. Mods, I think we should actually have a thread dedicated to exercising the demons to assist the stubborn souls amongst to feel comfortable admitting that they are/were wrong.

 

[matty lloyd the champ]

..... and look what good it did us!

Well without the two, we might have been smashed even more. Surely you can't be serious, taking a pot at Stanton and Monfries for standing up in a final?

On the Monfries issue, I think he is consistently poor. One good game mixed in with four bad ones. Hopefully we can see him becoming a fringe player in the next few years.

 

[gPhonque]

The biggest way to paint yourself as utterly clueless is to insist on slamming a player because he turned the ball over a few times when he was 20 (and may not have hit the contest hard enough). Just take a few deep breaths, remove head from rectum and admit that you were wrong.

Is this directed at me? (I'm hoping and assuming not, because I wasn't the one criticizing Stanton...!)

If it's not, then disregard...

Although just for the record, even though the post of Ben's that you quoted was in reply to me, I actually agree with it. (I just think he needs to work on his communication skills, rather than just abusing and insulting those who have a different opinion to him... regardless of whether they're right or wrong.)

Next time you should just say "Monfries doesn't play enough great games".

Ok then - Angus Monfries doesn't play enough great games.

Now, do you agree or disagree with that? (that's directed at you too Ben)

If you agree, then we're all on the same page and we're simply debating semantics. (a pointless debate in which we both have completely valid arguments I might add)

 

[BrunoV]

Is this directed at me? (I'm hoping and assuming not, because I wasn't the one criticizing Stanton...!)

If it's not, then disregard...

Although just for the record, even though the post of Ben's that you quoted was in reply to me, I actually agree with it. (I just think he needs to work on his communication skills, rather than just abusing and insulting those who have a different opinion to him... regardless of whether they're right or wrong.)



Ok then - Angus Monfries doesn't play enough great games.

Now, do you agree or disagree with that? (that's directed at you too Ben)

If you agree, then we're all on the same page and we're simply debating semantics. (a pointless debate in which we both have completely valid arguments I might add)

It is you and everyone who shitcans Stanton, Monfries, Myers and Ryder without any real thought about what it is they are asked to do.

Does your view of Monfries' consistency get adjusted for the countless times he has been asked to play as a CHF? Do you understand that he basically couldn't win the ball playing as a foil on a guy about 6 inches taller than him (not to mention the shocking delivery), attempting to drag said KPD from our half forward line and provide the repeat efforts because none of Neagle, Hurley, Gumby or Ryder were fit enough to do it?

It isn't just about looking at Monfries' height and the pick we used to draft him and writing off every performance that doesn't stack up like the one against Adelaide last year.

This year I full expect Gus to play as wingman/midfielder more so than a forward. We have managed to upgrade the CHF role and can use a combination of Hurley, Ryder, Crameri and maybe even Gumby to do it. This will free Monfries to play a role that suits his own attributes. This is the year stats will count for Gus more than ever. He will need to hit the stat sheet and the score board because he should be freed up to play in a more freewheeling role. I think the Adelaide type performance will happen more often (although we can't seriously expect any player to get 35 touches and kick 2 or 3 every second week).

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Ok then - Angus Monfries doesn't play enough great games.

Now, do you agree or disagree with that? (that's directed at you too Ben)

If you agree, then we're all on the same page and we're simply debating semantics. (a pointless debate in which we both have completely valid arguments I might add)

Depends what you're after. He's a good player who plays mostly good games, with a couple of blinders and maybe one shocker a season. If you're expecting an A+ player, yeah, he needs to play more great games. I think he's a reasonably talented but not incredibly smart at times. For anyone who follows the Premier League, he's pretty much the best Theo Walcott could hope to be.

 

[Summer Nights]

Fun fact: Angus is the first name of the MacGyver character. Now there's a man of consistency.

 

[gPhonque]

It is you and everyone who shitcans Stanton, Monfries, Myers and Ryder without any real though about what it is they are asked to do.

Of those players, I simply mentioned that I think Monfries is inconsistent (sorry, "doesn't play enough great games") but has class... so I'm not sure where I've shit-canned anybody...

(I also stated that ALL clubs would rate Stanton highly, and we both basically share the same opinion of Myers so far. So again, not sure where the "shit canning" is...)

Depends what you're after. He's a good player who plays mostly good games, with a couple of blinders and maybe one shocker a season. If you're expecting an A+ player, yeah, he needs to play more great games. I think he's a reasonably talented but not incredibly smart at times. For anyone who follows the Premier League, he's pretty much the best Theo Walcott could hope to be.

Ok, thanks for finally discussing this like a normal person.

I'm not expecting an A+ Ablett/Judd-like player... just a bit more than what he's given us so far. And if we're to take the next step as a club, we're going to need the same from everybody. (go through the whole list if you like and put an asterisk next to every name... except for perhaps Jobe and Fletch.) As I said, if Monfries can find a bit more of the ball and get his stats up a bit, his class and decision-making will take care of the rest. But at the moment, he just doesn't quite get enough of the ball, and thus make enough of an impact, regularly enough. (thus, he's inconsistent. )

And although I don't expect an "Adelaide" game every week, that game is a beautiful example of what a Monfries 30+ possession game can actually bring to the side.

 

[yaco55]

Gphone

Think you are saying that there is too much of a difference between Monfries best games and his poorest games - Think there is an element of truth in this argument - although I thought he improved in this facet in 2011 - If he can move up another level ( which is possible ) - he will be a valuable player.

Think his biggest deficiency is when the ball hits the ground - lacks that burst of speed to run down an opponent.

 

[Kong]

Mods, I think we should actually have a thread dedicated to exercising the demons to assist the stubborn souls amongst to feel comfortable admitting that they are/were wrong.

We had a thread last pre-season, going over old posts and having a laugh.

I'll try dig it up.

 

[Kong]

Strong argument of semantics in this thread.