Autopsy Port def Freo @ our home game in Qld Rd 3

Remove this Banner Ad

Snuffaluphagus said:
I’ll clarify my thoughts on Cox since I’m one who criticised pretty early this week.

I think he has potential to be a very good player and I’ve had big wraps on him since the start. I also think he will be a bit of a liability for the rest of the year if he keeps playing his current position. And he will keep playing his current position coz we have no other option.

For me, his strengths and weaknesses do not lend themselves to be playing as a key back as a primary role, and I see them as follows

Strengths
1) Calm under pressure - I've never seen him sweat when getting tackled
2) Good decision maker with decent disposal
3) Good mark when given a good run at the ball

Weaknesses
1) Laconic, not overly competitive - doesnt have that mongrel in him too not lose a contest
2) Core strength - This one I'm hoping might be a confidence since there are contra-indicators. He always stands up in tackles, but then, when under the ball, he gets pushed off way way too easily. I've seen this a lot of times
3) Average speed - if he loses a player off the mark, he's not catching up
4) Reach - while he has decent size, he doesnt have particularly long arms or good leap.

My read of his strengths and weaknesses are that a key defender roll goes against every one of his weaknesses. To me, his best position is as a 3rd tall either up front or down back, and, while he can pinch hit as a key defender, the good monsters will eat him up which we saw on the weekend. Yes, the ball came in a fair bit in that second quarter but his direct opponent took three contested marks against him, in torrential rain, for three goals.

I'll say it again, I think Cox can be a very good player for us, but, he will have to play a position for the rest of the year that he is completely unsuited for. While this is not his fault, this will be an issue for the rest of the year.
Click to expand...
Seems about right to me.
 
I actually think Cox has a good leap and his top end pace is quite good (as shown by his burst through the middle in the last quarter), but his acceleration may be a slight issue. I also think, like many of our team, he doesn't have the confidence within himself to know he belongs at the level. Having said all that, confidence comes from actions as RTB would say and he needs to become accustomed to playing with more mongrel and urgency more often, which is seemingly contrary to his nature.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Snuffaluphagus said:
I’ll clarify my thoughts on Cox since I’m one who criticised pretty early this week.

I think he has potential to be a very good player and I’ve had big wraps on him since the start. I also think he will be a bit of a liability for the rest of the year if he keeps playing his current position. And he will keep playing his current position coz we have no other option.

For me, his strengths and weaknesses do not lend themselves to be playing as a key back as a primary role, and I see them as follows

Strengths
1) Calm under pressure - I've never seen him sweat when getting tackled
2) Good decision maker with decent disposal
3) Good mark when given a good run at the ball

Weaknesses
1) Laconic, not overly competitive - doesnt have that mongrel in him too not lose a contest
2) Core strength - This one I'm hoping might be a confidence since there are contra-indicators. He always stands up in tackles, but then, when under the ball, he gets pushed off way way too easily. I've seen this a lot of times
3) Average speed - if he loses a player off the mark, he's not catching up
4) Reach - while he has decent size, he doesnt have particularly long arms or good leap.

My read of his strengths and weaknesses are that a key defender roll goes against every one of his weaknesses. To me, his best position is as a 3rd tall either up front or down back, and, while he can pinch hit as a key defender, the good monsters will eat him up which we saw on the weekend. Yes, the ball came in a fair bit in that second quarter but his direct opponent took three contested marks against him, in torrential rain, for three goals.

I'll say it again, I think Cox can be a very good player for us, but, he will have to play a position for the rest of the year that he is completely unsuited for. While this is not his fault, this will be an issue for the rest of the year.
Click to expand...
'
The word "liability" needs clarifying, as it implies him being out there (given the absence of Pearce & Hamling) is detrimental rather than an addition to the defence. Watching the replay tells me Cox being in defence was very much a positive for the team.

Sure he's still a developing tall and he's got a ways to go, but who's to say where he might get to even this year.

On Sunday he was competing against a forward line that included some very experienced talls in Dixon & Westhoff as well as a very talented and promising Marshall. They seemed to be rotating through that forward line and up the ground. Cox was forced to be everywhere. It was quite a tricky thing to manage for an undersized defence, especially when the ball was coming with such repetition and frequency in that second quarter. From what I've seen Cox handled it best and the team very much benefitted from having him available to play defence.
 
arsesmart said:
'
The word "liability" needs clarifying, as it implies him being out there (given the absence of Pearce & Hamling) is detrimental rather than an addition to the defence. Watching the replay tells me Cox being in defence was very much a positive for the team.

Sure he's still a developing tall and he's got a ways to go, but who's to say where he might get to even this year.

On Sunday he was competing against a forward line that included some very experienced talls in Dixon & Westhoff as well as a very talented and promising Marshall. They seemed to be rotating through that forward line and up the ground. Cox was forced to be everywhere. It was quite a tricky thing to manage for an undersized defence, especially when the ball was coming with such repetition and frequency in that second quarter. From what I've seen Cox handled it best and the team very much benefitted from having him available to play defence.
Click to expand...
Liability: a person or thing whose presence or behaviour is likely to put one at a disadvantage.

Cox playing on key position forwards puts us at a disadvantage due to his footy behaviours (weakness’s)
 
Snuffaluphagus said:
I’ll clarify my thoughts on Cox since I’m one who criticised pretty early this week.

I think he has potential to be a very good player and I’ve had big wraps on him since the start. I also think he will be a bit of a liability for the rest of the year if he keeps playing his current position. And he will keep playing his current position coz we have no other option.

For me, his strengths and weaknesses do not lend themselves to be playing as a key back as a primary role, and I see them as follows

Strengths
1) Calm under pressure - I've never seen him sweat when getting tackled
2) Good decision maker with decent disposal
3) Good mark when given a good run at the ball

Weaknesses
1) Laconic, not overly competitive - doesnt have that mongrel in him too not lose a contest
2) Core strength - This one I'm hoping might be a confidence since there are contra-indicators. He always stands up in tackles, but then, when under the ball, he gets pushed off way way too easily. I've seen this a lot of times
3) Average speed - if he loses a player off the mark, he's not catching up
4) Reach - while he has decent size, he doesnt have particularly long arms or good leap.

My read of his strengths and weaknesses are that a key defender roll goes against every one of his weaknesses. To me, his best position is as a 3rd tall either up front or down back, and, while he can pinch hit as a key defender, the good monsters will eat him up which we saw on the weekend. Yes, the ball came in a fair bit in that second quarter but his direct opponent took three contested marks against him, in torrential rain, for three goals.

I'll say it again, I think Cox can be a very good player for us, but, he will have to play a position for the rest of the year that he is completely unsuited for. While this is not his fault, this will be an issue for the rest of the year.
Click to expand...
Sort of like an Adam Hunter type, but less cokey.
 
Snuffaluphagus said:
Liability: a person or thing whose presence or behaviour is likely to put one at a disadvantage.

Cox playing on key position forwards puts us at a disadvantage due to his footy behaviours (weakness’s)
Click to expand...
If we're going on the efforts against Port I disagree. Given where the injuries are at, who'd play in that tall defensive spot if not him? That instantly isn't a liability, but an asset.

He actually played quite well given the very difficult circumstances. That backline was getting deluged and it was a quite high-quality attack (certainly could make claims as one of the best in the league), I'm not sure any defence would hold up all that well to what happened in that second quarter. The number of instances where he thwarted dangerous Port attacks, far outweighed any glaring errors that lead to goals. The only real obvious one was the marking contest with Marshall and is not all that clear as to what his workload was directly before that might've left him off-balance and more spent.

It smacks a little of the ones actually putting out the fires getting blamed for lighting them, because they're the one's, due to their efforts, closest to the flames.
 
arsesmart said:
If we're going on the efforts against Port I disagree. Given where the injuries are at, who'd play in that tall defensive spot if not him? That instantly isn't a liability, but an asset.

He actually played quite well given the very difficult circumstances. That backline was getting deluged and it was a quite high-quality attack (certainly could make claims as one of the best in the league), I'm not sure any defence would hold up all that well to what happened in that second quarter. The number of instances where he thwarted dangerous Port attacks, far outweighed any glaring errors that lead to goals. The only real obvious one was the marking contest with Marshall and is not all that clear as to what his workload was directly before that might've left him off-balance and more spent.

It smacks a little of the ones actually putting out the fires getting blamed for lighting them, because they're the one's, due to their efforts, closest to the flames.
Click to expand...
I have said several times there is no one else we can play, and that I don’t think it’s his fault since he’s playing a role he’s not suited for.

im not trying to personally attack the guy, I’m not even saying he’s a bad player, I think he’s a good player with potential to be very good. I think we are going to have issues while he has to play on KPFs.

Did you see how Logue was rotated onto Dixon after the 2 goals he kicked on Cox in the 2nd?
 
Snuffaluphagus said:
I have said several times there is no one else we can play, and that I don’t think it’s his fault since he’s playing a role he’s not suited for.

im not trying to personally attack the guy, I’m not even saying he’s a bad player, I think he’s a good player with potential to be very good. I think we are going to have issues while he has to play on KPFs.

Did you see how Logue was rotated onto Dixon after the 2 goals he kicked on Cox in the 2nd?
Click to expand...
They (Cox, Logue and Hughes) had alot of trouble with their hand offs. Kept getting caught out unable to get back in the right structure.
Logue is the only one with half a chance of defending against physically taller forwards of three (Hughes too short, Cox too inexperienced in bodywork and positioning) one on one. The others need a chop out and, again due to inexperience and marshalling, the second man in often got blocked out of the contest.
IMO no team can win with no experienced general among your back 3 talls if your midfield is losing.
3 quarters where our midfield competed that backline inexperience didn't get exposed.
 
Paracleet said:
They (Cox, Logue and Hughes) had alot of trouble with their hand offs. Kept getting caught out unable to get back in the right structure.
Logue is the only one with half a chance of defending against physically taller forwards of three (Hughes too short, Cox too inexperienced in bodywork and positioning) one on one. The others need a chop out and, again due to inexperience and marshalling, the second man in often got blocked out of the contest.
IMO no team can win with no experienced general among your back 3 talls if your midfield is losing.
3 quarters where our midfield competed that backline inexperience didn't get exposed.
Click to expand...
I've said it before, but I think Pearce is more important to us than Fyfe. Pearce is a terrific leader down the backline and IMO, the best 1 on 1 stopper in the game. If he is playing those 1st three games, I reckon we win all of them - he's that important to us.

I suppose I've not been clear enough on my position. The issue is that our backline doesnt stand a chance against monster forwards without at least 1 of Hamling or Pearce. This is most evident in Cox who IMO is being forced to play a role he is not suited to and we will suffer as a result. I do not hold this against Cox
 
I love Moose too and plainly the club does as they made him a leader about three minutes after he walked trough the doors - and for 2 and a half of those minutes he was injured. In many ways he is really no more than a rumour or a myth.

Him being super important just means we have to work harder on covering for him.

I mean, after a while Hughes began dropping in the hole and Logue and Cox figured out who was going to actually stand Dixon - but that stuff should be quicker. Pearce not being there to marshal troops just accelerates the need for mofos to step up.
 
Snuffaluphagus said:
I have said several times there is no one else we can play, and that I don’t think it’s his fault since he’s playing a role he’s not suited for.

im not trying to personally attack the guy, I’m not even saying he’s a bad player, I think he’s a good player with potential to be very good. I think we are going to have issues while he has to play on KPFs.

Did you see how Logue was rotated onto Dixon after the 2 goals he kicked on Cox in the 2nd?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not saying you're attacking him per se, but I do have a different read on what his performance was like on Sunday and what that means for his medium and short term prospects as a KPD.

What I did notice was that sometimes Cox would be on Westhoff and sometimes he would be on Dixon. Sometimes he'd be up in the play on the wing. My take was that Dixon, Westhoff and Marshall were rotating fairly frequently between stationed deep forward and roaming further up the ground. I think they were also doing that at times which would disrupt handover and maximise the amount of ground Cox and Logue had to cover. So I'm not sure if there was anyone playing for extended periods on each other. I did see Cox was more involved in the play generally.

I'm actually encouraged by his performance following that closer examination. I'm reckoning in a few weeks, if he gets continuity, he'll be much more settled and we might see some break out performances sooner rather than later. In the meanwhile, ideally he would play on the more junior KPFs, but that's the compromise not having Pearce forces upon us.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ibd77 said:
Hi guys, just heard on channel 9 news that our clubs are joining together our second tier players for a scratch match against the Suns this weekend. So how's it going compadre's? :drunk:
Click to expand...

God, for a second I thought you were an eagles supporter and I was going to vomit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Van_Dyke
Review Freo storm home against North
11 12 13 14 15
Replies
361
Views
14K
mattis117
mattis117
vidwhal
  • Locked
Game Day Rd 5 - Port in Adelaide
41 42 43 44 45
Replies
1K
Views
13K
FreoGirl
FreoGirl
Mr Cheese
  • Locked
Game Day Rd 6 - Freo vs Bin Chickens (Away)
42 43 44 45 46
Replies
1K
Views
27K
Tonga Bob
Tonga Bob
Van_Dyke
MVP Rd 5 v Port (A)
Replies
18
Views
369
DQ 4EVER
DQ 4EVER
Snuffaluphagus
Prediction Rd 5 Changes vs Port
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
408
Views
16K
ignoramus
I
Van_Dyke
MVP Rd 3 v Crows (H)
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
ignoramus
I
vidwhal
Preview PORT VS FREO - ROUND 5 - POWERED BY THE WHISTLE
2 3 4 5
Replies
100
Views
5K
FreoGirl
FreoGirl

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top