Pendles too Un-Selfish

[Dave The Man]

I have Noticed Pendles does not take the game on by himself but He bring other people in the Game and Let them try to win it and not himself. He is Fantastic at that but when you are Arguably the best player at Collingwood you should try and Win by yourself.

Great Example he is like a Point Guard in Basketball where there job is to set-up the Play and Someone else be the Playmaker.

 

[didaka]

Pendles is extremely good at what he does, and should remain playing the role he does.

We need more game breakers to feed off him, that why we have to draft an outside midfielder.

 

[AsianWithAFro]

Pendles is extremely good at what he does, and should remain playing the role he does.

We need more game breakers to feed off him, that why we have to draft an outside midfielder.

We have to many out side mids we need more players who can win clearances as with Scotty Burns retiring this year O'Bree on his last legs it's exactly what we need.

The role Pendlebury plays is vital to our team structure. Every one can't be match winners but I do agree with Didaka we need one unless some one like Daisy stands up more often.

 

[EBIT NPAT]

We have to many out side mids we need more players who can win clearances as with Scotty Burns retiring this year O'Bree on his last legs it's exactly what we need.

The role Pendlebury plays is vital to our team structure. Every one can't be match winners but I do agree with Didaka we need one unless some one like Daisy stands up more often.

EXACTLY!

I hate how people are saying we need outside finishers, we NEED in and under types like mitchell and kerr. Thomas, Pendles, Davis, Didak, and Shaw (now Corrie) are all more than capable of playing the outside speedy role.

We need players to replace Burns and the aging O'Bree, PREFERABLY one with good foot skills. Tom swift would be abso-****ing-lutely perfect.

 

[Axl the great]

Dave the Man is spot on here, not just with Pendles though, MMs strict team orientated game plan means game winners such as Pendlbury,Thomas, Medhurst etc are torn between what the coaches would want me to do and taking the game on.
While i admire the strict gameplan we have it leaves little room for flair and individual brilliance without a hammering behind closed doors if it fails, we need a bit more selfish play in my opinion if we are to succeed to a grand final again.

 

[Pie eyed]

EXACTLY!

I hate how people are saying we need outside finishers, we NEED in and under types like mitchell and kerr. Thomas, Pendles, Davis, Didak, and Shaw (now Corrie) are all more than capable of playing the outside speedy role.

We need players to replace Burns and the aging O'Bree, PREFERABLY one with good foot skills. Tom swift would be abso-****ing-lutely perfect.

Time to declare your loyalties Ebit....unlisted?....we???

 

[DoubleO7]

Yes and no.

 

[The 10th Letter]

It's a good point that Dave makes and it's something that did become quite apparent this year. I don't know whether it's entirely just due to Pendles unselfish nature, or whether it's a combination of unselfishness and perfectionism.

Pendles strikes me as the sort of player who has extremely high expectations of himself, but he has suffered because of it. Quite a few times this year he was in a position to shoot/snap on goal and instead tried to create more space or find a more certain option.

He has the class and ability to score these goals; in fact I'm confident of him converting in such positions more so than with a lot of our other players. It seems he just doesn't want to let the team down in such instances and perhaps this ties in with what Axl mentioned about the strict game plan.

It seems to be something that has crept into his game since becoming a leader at the club. I'm confident that with a little more time and once he becomes completely at ease with his leadership role, this part of his game will fall into place.

 

[FIGJAM]

Pendles is extremely good at what he does, and should remain playing the role he does.

We need more game breakers to feed off him, that why we have to draft an outside midfielder.

He is not a first touch player. He is the go to. Whilst he is a starting four type, he is not an "inside" player in the clearance king sense.

As for outside types, our team may look something like this at the latter end of next year:

FB: O'Brien, Prestigiacomo, Anthony
HB: Clarke*, Brown , Shaw*
C: Pendlebury*, Didak*, Davis*
HF: Thomas*, Cloke, Corrie*
FF: Dick*, Rocca, Medhurst
Ruck: Frasier, Swan, Maxwell (tag)
I/C: Wood, McCarthy, Wellingham*, Cox*

The players with asterixes are 'go-to' midfielders. That is, they are not first-dibs types (see Mitchell, Judd, Cross, Ball etc.). I am being generous to Swan who wins some ball, but is better off as a linking 'go-to'. 19 year old McCarthy may be our best option, as well as O'Bree who I personally think is on the slide (I stood up for him during his refinding of form, so I am not a habitual basher).

Most of the players with astrixes are for the most part capable of getting their knees dirty, and sometimes getting the mits on it first, but they aren't the battle hardy types who get their mits on it first with amazing regularity.

The interesting thing about the asterixes, plus Swan, McCarthy and Lockyer, is that we have a small brigade of half-forward capable types, with plenty of flair and hurt factor, and in many instances, pace.

We have literally no need to recruit another outside midfielder. None! So check the Blease bandwagon at the door, because other than him being severely overrated, we would be throwing our team balance out of whack.

 

[King Woodie]

He is not a first touch player. He is the go to. Whilst he is a starting four type, he is not an "inside" player in the clearance king sense.

As for outside types, our team may look something like this at the latter end of next year:

FB: O'Brien, Prestigiacomo, Anthony
HB: Clarke*, Brown , Shaw*
C: Pendlebury*, Didak*, Davis*
HF: Thomas*, Cloke, Corrie*
FF: Dick*, Rocca, Medhurst
Ruck: Frasier, Swan, Maxwell (tag)
I/C: Wood, McCarthy, Wellingham*, Cox*

The players with asterixes are 'go-to' midfielders. That is, they are not first-dibs types (see Mitchell, Judd, Cross, Ball etc.). I am being generous to Swan who wins some ball, but is better off as a linking 'go-to'. 19 year old McCarthy may be our best option, as well as O'Bree who I personally think is on the slide (I stood up for him during his refinding of form, so I am not a habitual basher).

Most of the players with astrixes are for the most part capable of getting their knees dirty, and sometimes getting the mits on it first, but they aren't the battle hardy types who get their mits on it first with amazing regularity.

The interesting thing about the asterixes, plus Swan, McCarthy and Lockyer, is that we have a small brigade of half-forward capable types, with plenty of flair and hurt factor, and in many instances, pace.

We have literally no need to recruit another outside midfielder. None! So check the Blease bandwagon at the door, because other than him being severely overrated, we would be throwing our team balance out of whack.

You lost me at Fraser with an "i" and Maxwell as rover...

 

[FIGJAM]

You lost me at Fraser with an "i" and Maxwell as rover...

Typo, and Maxwell may have a shut down role based upon his Adelaide final.

Irrespective, the points in my post stands regardless of typo errors or moving Maxwell to the back line.

 

[mdc]

He is not a first touch player. He is the go to. Whilst he is a starting four type, he is not an "inside" player in the clearance king sense.

He might not spend the whole match on his knees like a Scott West, but he's certainly more inside than outside, and his hands are terrific. I'd compare him (in style) to Hird, in that he won't get 10 clearances a match, but the ones he does get are twice as damaging compared to your typical clearance mid.

Swan is a typical go-to midfielder. Thomas may well be another. Pendlebury's skills lie elsewhere.

 

[shawthing09]

Dave I am sorry if this is being harsh on you but that post features something that annoys me a fair bit which is. Failing to see the value in the work a player does because it doesn't look good. I think it comes a fair bit from people who don't have a great understanding of the game.

Pendles knows his limitations. His not incredible quick or strong through the core. You don't want him taking players on. Or trying to bust through packs into space. What he does have is great vision. Great evasive skills and composure. His not playing unselfishly for the sake of it. His playing to his strengths for the betterment of the team. He gets the ball and gives it to a player in a better position. In a Simion Black mould.

There is great value in that if he gets the ball whether it be in a tight situation or in a linking play more often then not the person who recieves it is in a better position. If he gets it in tight congestion the player who recieves it is usually on the outside with more space to work in. If he gets it on the link he usually hits a guy in space with the kick.

His never gonig to be a guy who looks extremely bame breaking that doesn't make what he does extremely valuable. Just because it doesn't look as good doesn't mean it's not equally good for the team. Judd getting the ball and breaking through a pack with speed and carrying the ball 10-20 meters and hitting a player with a kick 30 meters away is no more valuable then a Hodge, breaking through with strength and then kicking it 50 meters and hitting a player. Pendles feeding the ball outside with vision, composure and evasive skills is equally good for the team as a guy who gets into that space on his own.