Review Reviews and Views v Eagles

[Dylan12]

I thought McKeever played alright ans was quite lively off the half back.

Mate, I travelled over for the game and whilst I appreciate you are being nice, McKeever was embarrassing yesterday. I attended an Eagles function after the game and besides a few friends who also said the same, people were laughing about how he wouldn't get a game for Peel Thunder (which I'm sure you would agree is saying something). Even Karl Langdon thought it was laughable, which I completely agreed with.

Nothing wrong with just admitting you gave us a right royal belting which we thoroughly deserved with that insipid (non)-effort.

 

[Hollow Knight]

West Coast are just further down the development path than we are. Their least experienced player on the park yesterday had 28 games experience. We had 8 players with less experience than that on the ground. They had 528 more games of experience then we had.

That's pretty telling. We're on the up overall but with our list age/experience profile, games like yesterday will happen.

I thought McKeever played alright ans was quite lively off the half back

yeah McKeever is getting a hell of an education this year but is starting to show signs of coming out the other side. Hell of an athlete with a lot to learn. Will be interesting to see how far he can go.

 

[jesterwester]

Mate, I travelled over for the game and whilst I appreciate you are being nice, McKeever was embarrassing yesterday. I attended an Eagles function after the game and besides a few friends who also said the same, people were laughing about how he wouldn't get a game for Peel Thunder (which I'm sure you would agree is saying something). Even Karl Langdon thought it was laughable, which I completely agreed with.

Nothing wrong with just admitting you gave us a right royal belting which we thoroughly deserved with that insipid (non)-effort.

Thats fair enough I guess, I just thought he showed a bit, granted, I was watching with my eagles eyes on, but didnt think he was that bad, considering he was the late in.

He would be the best player for Peel Thunder.

 

[John]

That's pretty telling.

Nah its not. It is meaningless. I can tell by the outrage around here that things like this do not matter .

 

[patfullfankezz]

That's pretty telling. We're on the up overall but with our list age/experience profile, games like yesterday will happen.

Hell, it can happen to anybody. Remember we DID jump them earlier this year. Just because you're number 1 doesn't mean squat, someone can always come and knock you down.

Shit happens, you flush and move on.

 

[ZoBlitz]

One other demoralising comment I must make is the difference in fortune and misfortune between the Eagles and Lions in one draft regarding very similar picks. The Eagles gained Gaff and Darling who are absolutely stars and killed us yesterday and we wound up with Polec (admittedly taken after Gaff) and Karnezis (taken before Darling), who were nowehere to be seen and IMO unlikely to come close to the influential players that Gaff and Darling are. No doubt a lot here will come up with a raft excuses for our players, but geez, is it ever that hard to come out and just say we got it wrong.

So we got it wrong not to pick up a player that wasn't available at our pick or a player that could have been picked up by most if not all other clubs? Again, the Darling judgement wasn't purely based on what sort of on-field player he is. If he had done a Fev in a pub one night, would you have defended the club picking him up?

It's less than two full seasons since these players have been drafted. Let's not get carried away by impatience here.

 

[JasRulz63]

Gaff and Darling are looking good in a very good team mind you. Same could be said for all the debutants that Collingwood play such as Elliot and Fasolo last year, they come into settled side with a set role.

We don't know how well Polec or Karnezis if they were playing for WC. Gaff came into the league with elite endurance from memory, whereas we've seen that it isn't Polec's greatest strength in his game. This bodes well for Gaff when his career started while it'll take a few pre-seasons for Polec's to get to standard.

 

[PattyKwasagun]

Gaff and Darling are looking good in a very good team mind you. Same could be said for all the debutants that Collingwood play such as Elliot and Fasolo last year, they come into settled side with a set role.

We don't know how well Polec or Karnezis if they were playing for WC. Gaff came into the league with elite endurance from memory, whereas we've seen that it isn't Polec's greatest strength in his game. This bodes well for Gaff when his career started while it'll take a few pre-seasons for Polec's to get to standard.

It's a point often lost on many here. I have very little doubt that Darling or Gaff would be playing any better or have a much brighter future in our side than Karnezis and Polec. And three full seasons, in my eyes, is the absolute soonest you can start making judgements about draftees. Even then it's very, very hard to do accurately. There's no way you can say whether we got the drafting of Karnezis and Polec right or wrong definitively until at least 2015 in my eyes (unless they're de-listed first, of course). Far too premature.

I've been thinking a bit about Rocky's game, and am a little worried about it. He didn't have a tag at all, yet had absolutely no influence on the match. Hopefully it just comes down to his finger not being 100%.

 

[T Rick]

It's a point often lost on many here. I have very little doubt that Darling or Gaff would be playing any better or have a much brighter future in our side than Karnezis and Polec. And three full seasons, in my eyes, is the absolute soonest you can start making judgements about draftees. Even then it's very, very hard to do accurately. There's no way you can say whether we got the drafting of Karnezis and Polec right or wrong definitively until at least 2015 in my eyes (unless they're de-listed first, of course). Far too premature.

I've been thinking a bit about Rocky's game, and am a little worried about it. He didn't have a tag at all, yet had absolutely no influence on the match. Hopefully it just comes down to his finger not being 100%.

Rocky is carrying too many niggles at the moment. His knee is strapped to the hilt and he played just a few days following a compound dislocation of his finger. In retrospect, he probably shouldn't have travelled to Perth.

 

[PattyKwasagun]

Rocky is carrying too many niggles at the moment. His knee is strapped to the hilt and he played just a few days following a compound dislocation of his finger. In retrospect, he probably shouldn't have travelled to Perth.

Yeah, I think he definitely could do with a rest. He's had a pretty shocking year body-wise, with two knee niggling injuries, a horrible dose of the flue, a fractured finger, a slightly sprained ankle, a bruised shoulder, and probably others I'm unaware of. I guess that's the toll for going hard at the footy every week.

 

[Dylan12]

Yeah, I think he definitely could do with a rest.

If he's not 100%, why not just leave him up forward for a couple of games. Of course forwards still do a lot of running but certainly not the extent he would as a midfielder.

As a side note, and may have not been evident on TV, but massive thumbs up for Browny's workrate around the big ground. I noticed a few times he ran close to 200m just to get on the end of a pass when he really didn't need to. Similar to Davis (GWS) a month or so ago, he left his opponent Brown in his wake quite a few times in what was a pretty warm day.

 

[Dylan12]

In retrospect, he probably shouldn't have travelled to Perth.

I don't think three quarters of the team did, yet somehow there they were!

 

[Zhesty]

Unfortunately/fortunately I missed the game. Can anyone tell me how much time Rockliff spent up forward. Looking at the team we took over it looked like we would need him up forward more often as we lacked marking options. Was this the case? If so, could this be why he didn't have much of an influence. IMO he plays his best when he plays that inside mid role.

 

[Dylan12]

I am still perplexed why we only played one key forward and in a way continue to. Sure Merrett spends a little bit of time there and last Sunday played less time there. When Merrett goes into the ruck, Hudson is on the bench, not forward, which does raise the question as to why we do not regularly play a second and third tall. The Eagles played Darling, Lynch and Cox or Natanui and the talk is that that will continue once Josh Kennedy returns and they will play 4 tall forwards.

I'm just still struggling to understand the rational with only playing one ageing tall forward at any given time and expect to win.

 

[POBT]

I am still perplexed why we only played one key forward and in a way continue to. Sure Merrett spends a little bit of time there and last Sunday played less time there. When Merrett goes into the ruck, Hudson is on the bench, not forward, which does raise the question as to why we do not regularly play a second and third tall. The Eagles played Darling, Lynch and Cox or Natanui and the talk is that that will continue once Josh Kennedy returns and they will play 4 tall forwards.

I'm just still struggling to understand the rational with only playing one ageing tall forward at any given time and expect to win.

Merrett plays significant amounts of time forward. I suspect the reasons he spent more time away from the forward line on Sunday were because the Eagles have a genuine 2 man ruck combination who can cover the big ground better than Hudson and because Goose was on and off the ground with injury.

I would hazard a guess that Merrett has been playing 80-90% of game time as a forward in other games. So we don't play 1 tall forward.

What we then do with the 3rd marking forward role has been quite changeable. I think we looked best when McGrath played that role as it gave us some pace and agility up forward, combined with the fact that McGrath is a genuine marking target on the lead. We've tried Cornelius in a similar role and we tried to play 4 taller forwards (albeit with one as the sub) against Sydney. On Sunday, I think we experimented with Hawksley in the McGrath role. It was a bit hard to judge the success of that given we were smashed all over the ground. To be honest, it wasn't the forward line set up that had me scratching my head.

 

[Haso]

I think maybe Sauce played in the ruck more this past weekend because Hudson was getting very tired. Against two athletic rucks on Subi that was bound to happen. Generally though Merrett has been up forward 80 - 90% like POBT says.

 

[jackess]

It was strange that Merrett was everywhere against the Suns but against the Eagles he got to very few marking contests. Maybe he got lost on the bigger ground. If Hawksley was meant to play as a marking forward it failed spectacularly given he didn't take any marks (he did get at least 1 free from a marking contest). I was hoping Bewick would act as a link man but that didn't really happen.

The fact that Hudson takes very few marks means the Lions really struggle to take pack marks on the wing. Merrett goes alright but I think we need another option.

 

[POBT]

The only way to use Hudson is like a workhorse. His contested marking is pretty ordinary so, as jackess said, you lose that bail out kick to the wing. He is not a forward's backside so all you can do is run him in the ruck until he's buggered and then put him on the bench.

To be honest, we've probably made the best of a bad situation in terms of our ruck situation this year. We've got good value out of Huddo and couldn't really ask anymore from Merrett in a totally new role. It has been far from ideal but it hasn't been terrible.

We aren't the first and won't be the last team to be burned by the Eagles' ruck combination.

 

[Haso]

The fact that Hudson takes very few marks means the Lions really struggle to take pack marks on the wing. Merrett goes alright but I think we need another option.

Leuey was in the habit of taking marks on the wing. That was one of the bigger aspects of his game. We really do miss him.

 

[Quigley]

Interesting the number of people slagging off McKeever. Personally I thought he was much better than Patfull. Patfull was appalling for most of the match and just had no idea how to stem the tide. If I had the choice between dropping one or the other of them I would be picking Patfull. At least McKeever is likely to improve with more experience.

I am hoping Golby might be back this week. We need him at the back. He helps our defensive structure a lot and allows others like Adcock and Hanley to concentrate on other roles. He is also developing into a pretty reasonable user of the ball which was a problem on the weekend.

Jack Redden with 7 clangers. This is a worrying trend for Redden and he worries me a lot more than Rocky who I think is just sufferring from a build up of nicks in a season where he has gotten more attention. Redden has been going backwards disposal wise for a couple of years and this needs to be reversed in a hurry.

Polkinghorne playing through the middle managed 13 possessions and went at 54% DE with 3 clangers. Not good enough. Beams plays a similar role in the reserves and is killing it week after week.

Lester wasn't terrible but is not setting the world on fire. I would like to see Karnezis be given a similar opportunity in that role.

Banfield - 1 disposal in 28% TOG. Even for a small forward that is not good enough. He has not looked up to it since he has come back. Time to make him work for the spot. Interesting I think his one disposal came when he played onball.

Bewick played as an outside receiver and only managed 13 disposals at 46%. That is terrible for someone playing that role and its not like he is an 18 year old. A few people talked about Gaff and Bewick is the guy who played that role for us. A mile of difference between the two. I would give Docherty a run at that role and see how he goes. Realistically he could not do worse.

Wrigley I felt a bit sorry for. He was given difficult roles with the ball coming in entirely too easily. I thought he worked into the game a bit and I would like to see him given another week. Similar with Harwood.

Yeo and Crisp looked young and out of their depth. Hard for them to impact the game when the more senior guys are getting smashed.

 

[lions_den]

Seriously hate Darling, someone needs to fix that actor right up. What was with the Eagles supporters booing Brown for being on the end of Glass' thuggery? Never seen anything like it, a complete 180 on reality.

 

[patfullfankezz]

Interesting the number of people slagging off McKeever. Personally I thought he was much better than Patfull. Patfull was appalling for most of the match and just had no idea how to stem the tide. If I had the choice between dropping one or the other of them I would be picking Patfull. At least McKeever is likely to improve with more experience.

Say WHAT now?!

I can't begin to count the number of times Joel managed to stem the tide. Sure in the last quarter he fell away, but so did the rest of the defenders.

While I agree that McKeever put in a great effort and shouldn't be dragged over the coals for his performance (personally, all our defenders deserve medals and life memberships) saying that he was better than Joel is a bit much. And yes, I watched the whole game twice (no wonder I woke up at 2.30am with a headache...) just so people wouldn't pull the fangirl card on me.

 

[whatboutbob]

Banfield - 1 disposal in 28% TOG. Even for a small forward that is not good enough. He has not looked up to it since he has come back. Time to make him work for the spot. Interesting I think his one disposal came when he played onball.

He was in the middle for at least a couple of bounces too. Not that the ball spent long in there anyway...

When Zorko was brought in one of Kerr's stated aims was to release Banfield into the middle more. You'd have to think Zorko has leap-frogged him there.

 

[patfullfankezz]

Actually, just for the fun of it (ugh, my head) I watched the second quarter again this morning.

Even though this was our best quarter, I think this is where we lost it. We squandered our opportunities, meaning no reward for lots of effort. I think if we had taken our chances in the second quarter and perhaps caught up to the eagles at half-time, it might not have blown out the way it did.

And with that I am going back to bed. Ugh.

 

[POBT]

Yeah, I can't agree that McKeever was much better than Patfull. Both were pretty average IMO.