Scapegoating

[loki04]

Ask yourself would Blair get a game with any of the other 17 teams ?

I can give you an answer to that. No he wouldn't.

He tried to get another team to take him end of last year but no one was interested, that's why he was still unsigned so late in the year as he was "exploring" his options.

 

[loki04]

Based on last night, I agree and sadly there are about two or three others but will be interesting on who is available.

Kirby kicked 4 and looked very good from reports.
Not sure how young Daicos and Browny went.
Broomhead was solid.

 

[Maggie5]

Kirby kicked 4 and looked very good from reports.
Not sure how young Daicos and Browny went.
Broomhead was solid.

I really like Broomhead, very clever and unassuming player and hope he can be injury free.
The few games he has played a number of his goals have been due to him being in the right place (feet of the marking forwards).

 

[loki04]

I really like Broomhead, very clever and unassuming player and hope he can be injury free.
The few games he has played a number of his goals have been due to him being in the right place (feet of the marking forwards).

Broomy brings some things our forwards lack. Good evasive manoeuvres, good foot skills and can create goals or goal opportunities from nothing.

ATM our team is too dour.

 

[jmac70]

Broomy brings some things our forwards lack. Good evasive manoeuvres, good foot skills and can create goals or goal opportunities from nothing.

ATM our team is too dour.

And it makes the supporters sour.

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

Nicely turned phrases but your attempt to meld your footy career and Blair's career are ludicrous flights of fancy.

Blair had a stinker of a night in terms of touch - which is actually at odds with his contributions which are ordinarily very clean - but that was the story of the evening all round. The possession across the ground was ordinary by and large except for Adams (the forgotten disposal whipping boy of years ago).

This idea that Blair steps into another forwards path, cuts across lines and snatches the ball from another players grasp is just such easy nonsense to write and digest it's bound to be popular on this board.

A simple 'I disagree' would have been sufficient but I guess you're matching nicely turned phrases with nicely turned phrases.
We all would have had teammates who slowed time (Pendles), kicked the impossible goals (Daicos), seemed to be everywhere (Daisy), man handled opposition and missed from 20 out (Cloke). Of course the level will be relative to the competition we played in.
I have seen Blair play the way I wrote it. Whether it all occurs over one game or two seasons is irrelevant. He frustrates me and that's the main message of my post. Whether it is popular or not doesn't concern me.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

The premise of scapegoating is valid.

The discussion of players etc is also valid.

If done politely and respectfully I think it's fair enough.

Whilst Blair is the go to scapegoat, to me it depends how it's done.

When he's called names, described with temperate rudeness then that's too far in my view.

However, it is not illegitimate to discuss his shortcomings.
I'm not ever wishing he doesn't succeed, I'd love him to be a Tony Shaw type or tony liberatore type.

But he's not.
To me he just not an AFL standard player. He does not add anything of significance (that I can think of).
Not enough goals, not enough good decisions, not enough measured possessions, not enough tackles that stick.

Good luck to him, but for his size and level of talent he needs to do what tony Shaw used to.

That's my take.
Does anyone seriously think he helps deliver a flag?
In 2010 he was negligent in both GFs, just ok, and in the prelim also just noticed.

I don't recall him having ongoing big performances in big games.

Overall he has squeezed out so much from his gifts, good luck to him.

But as it stands he is not AFL standard level and at best depth if many injuries occur.

That's the huge difference between say Cox who can cop it too. cox has. A huge point of difference.
He is just so tall that any defender must be stretched.
He adds a good ruck elemony to the team.
He kicks well at goal.
If he fumbles at least he brings the ball to advantage under him.

I'd argue that's not scapegoating but an assessment done with politeness and respect.

 

[TW Sherrin]

I'd take Cox over Cloke due to the massive comparative advantage it gave us in the ruck and midfield stats reflect it.

I agree and I'm not Cox's biggest fan.

 

[TW Sherrin]

Lol at the Kirby talk. He kicked 4 in a vfl practice match. Afl would be 4 times harder.

 

[Black_White]

I'd take Cox over Cloke due to the massive comparative advantage it gave us on the ruck and midfield stats reflect it.

Sorry, but no, Cloke is far superior to Cox.
The ABC radio team hit the nail on the head today.
They stated that the Dogs players looked up and if Cloke was in the right position, they would honour that. If not they bypassed him.
At Collingwood we always kicked to Cloke, no matter his position, no matter his opposition.
They, correctly, pointed out how much more relaxed Cloke was under this game plan.
Bucks game plan was "kick it to Cloke". How many times did we, the supporters point that out.
Not sure if Cloke will be AA again, but he will be a valuable part of the Dogs Premiership defence.
Cox, will not be a clutch finals player. Ever.

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

Sorry, but no, Cloke is far superior to Cox.
The ABC radio team hit the nail on the head today.
They stated that the Dogs players looked up and if Cloke was in the right position, they would honour that. If not they bypassed him.
At Collingwood we always kicked to Cloke, no matter his position, no matter his opposition.
They, correctly, pointed out how much more relaxed Cloke was under this game plan.
Bucks game plan was "kick it to Cloke". How many times did we, the supporters point that out.
Not sure if Cloke will be AA again, but he will be a valuable part of the Dogs Premiership defence.
Cox, will not be a clutch finals player. Ever.

Having a go at the ABC not you. The relaxed line is what's expected when commentators are pumping up a premiership team's recruitment of a struggling forward.
The best thing about being a premiership club is that you can take a small risk (pick 72) on a player and if you have to drop him, "oh well, we hoped he would fit in but other players jumped ahead of him". If a struggling club does the same, all hell breaks loose.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Having a go at the ABC not you. The relaxed line is what's expected when commentators are pumping up a premiership team's recruitment of a struggling forward.
The best thing about being a premiership club is that you can take a small risk (pick 72) on a player and if you have to drop him, "oh well, we hoped he would fit in but other players jumped ahead of him". If a struggling club does the same, all hell breaks loose.

Spot on.

 

[mike123]

I'd take Cox over Cloke due to the massive comparative advantage it gave us in the ruck and midfield stats reflect it.

I'd take Cloke given he leads up the ground creates a hole for his other forwards provide a bail option up the field and crashes packs more than Cox. If fact I'd take Cloke over all our key forwards last night but it wouldn't make a difference anyways the problem is with our delivery, always has been, until we fix it our forwards will always struggle.

 

[Tazzaye]

Id say the only thing that's keeping Blair in the side is Elliotts injury

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

I'd take Cloke given he leads up the ground creates a hole for his other forwards provide a bail option up the field and crashes packs more than Cox. If fact I'd take Cloke over all our key forwards last night but it wouldn't make a difference anyways the problem is with our delivery, always has been, until we fix it our forwards will always struggle.

I don't think anyone here wants to acknowledge that Cloke was the best tall forward on the ground. He wasn't fantastic but he did his job. Apart from White, our tall forwards were well held. The bulldogs don't need a dominant forward - they just need someone to be a target and play a role. Cloke did that and Moore and Cox didn't.

 

[magpies42]

The premise of scapegoating is valid.

The discussion of players etc is also valid.

If done politely and respectfully I think it's fair enough.

Whilst Blair is the go to scapegoat, to me it depends how it's done.

When he's called names, described with temperate rudeness then that's too far in my view.

However, it is not illegitimate to discuss his shortcomings.
I'm not ever wishing he doesn't succeed, I'd love him to be a Tony Shaw type or tony liberatore type.

But he's not.
To me he just not an AFL standard player. He does not add anything of significance (that I can think of).
Not enough goals, not enough good decisions, not enough measured possessions, not enough tackles that stick.

Good luck to him, but for his size and level of talent he needs to do what tony Shaw used to.

That's my take.
Does anyone seriously think he helps deliver a flag?
In 2010 he was negligent in both GFs, just ok, and in the prelim also just noticed.

I don't recall him having ongoing big performances in big games.

Overall he has squeezed out so much from his gifts, good luck to him.

But as it stands he is not AFL standard level and at best depth if many injuries occur.

That's the huge difference between say Cox who can cop it too. cox has. A huge point of difference.
He is just so tall that any defender must be stretched.
He adds a good ruck elemony to the team.
He kicks well at goal.
If he fumbles at least he brings the ball to advantage under him.

I'd argue that's not scapegoating but an assessment done with politeness and respect.

Well how did he get to as many games as he has? Under two different coaches and a game that has evolved significantly since he began. He's a premiership player.

Furthermore salary caps result in clubs having players that play roles and aren't perfect.

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

I don't think anyone here wants to acknowledge that Cloke was the best tall forward on the ground. He wasn't fantastic but he did his job. Apart from White, our tall forwards were well held. The bulldogs don't need a dominant forward - they just need someone to be a target and play a role. Cloke did that and Moore and Cox didn't.

Had Cloke played the same game and we happened to get over line, there'd be question marks all over the place. IMO perception of his performance can be influenced by win/loss and who he's playing against.
I thought he was ok but whether he did his job or not is up to the dogs. There's no way that Bevo would say that he asked for more from Cloke. Not right now anyway.
I remember media circle jerk over Dawes' early form at Melbourne. They were so keen to get stuck into the Pies for letting him go that they went with a story about the importance of his leadership and even replayed a single tackle over and over again to highlight his importance.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Had Cloke played the same game and we happened to get over line, there'd be question marks all over the place. IMO perception of his performance can be influenced by win/loss and who he's playing against.
I thought he was ok but whether he did his job or not is up to the dogs. There's no way that Bevo would say that he asked for more from Cloke. Not right now anyway.
I remember media circle jerk over Dawes' early form at Melbourne. They were so keen to get stuck into the Pies for letting him go that they went with a story about the importance of his leadership and even replayed a single tackle over and over again to highlight his importance.

Cloke is a much more accomplished player than Dawes. Had Cloke played the same game for us, we probably would have won, because he would have given our forward line structure that it never had on the night. It's not like the trade with WB attracted the kind of return that Carey or Franklin did when they were traded late in their career. We got next to nothing for him. Reid was on him much of the night, and many posters have suggested Reid's game was just about the worst he has played. So it's not like our defenders took advantage of any deficiencies in Cloke's game.

I think we were hoping that Cloke was going to be an utter failure of a player who would spend most of the year in the VFL. I think he will prove that he is better than VFL level, that we misjudged where he was at in his football career. Moore sure looked ordinary in his absence. A fit and firing Cloke would have been the perfect foil for Moore and allow him time to develop as a player, instead of being the focal point.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Well how did he get to as many games as he has? Under two different coaches and a game that has evolved significantly since he began. He's a premiership player.

Furthermore salary caps result in clubs having players that play roles and aren't perfect.

There are forces in the universe that my brain can not begin to comprehend....

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Well how did he get to as many games as he has? Under two different coaches and a game that has evolved significantly since he began. He's a premiership player.

Furthermore salary caps result in clubs having players that play roles and aren't perfect.

He may be a premiership player, but he is also not even of AFL standard. He is short, slow, makes many poor decisions, has ordinary skills, overthinks everything he does and gets caught or mis-disposes the ball, doesn't kick goals and doesn't stick tackles. He is as you rightly suggest less than perfect.

 

[ZEV]

I don't think anyone here wants to acknowledge that Cloke was the best tall forward on the ground. He wasn't fantastic but he did his job. Apart from White, our tall forwards were well held. The bulldogs don't need a dominant forward - they just need someone to be a target and play a role. Cloke did that and Moore and Cox didn't.

Um Stringer took more marks, more marks inside 50, had more tackles and had more scoring shots and no-one even mentions him....

At least he provided a great chop out in the ruck for Boyd....

 

[mike123]

He may be a premiership player, but he is also not even of AFL standard. He is short, slow, makes many poor decisions, has ordinary skills, overthinks everything he does and gets caught or mis-disposes the ball, doesn't kick goals and doesn't stick tackles. He is as you rightly suggest less than perfect.

I don't have a problem with that, but the rest I do. Another thing that boggles me is h's pretty slow for sub 180cm player.

 

[mike123]

Um Stringer took more marks, more marks inside 50, had more tackles and had more scoring shots and no-one even mentions him....

At least he provided a great chop out in the ruck for Boyd....

So Stringer and Cloke were the best tall forwards out there. OK.

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

Cloke is a much more accomplished player than Dawes. Had Cloke played the same game for us, we probably would have won, because he would have given our forward line structure that it never had on the night. It's not like the trade with WB attracted the kind of return that Carey or Franklin did when they were traded late in their career. We got next to nothing for him. Reid was on him much of the night, and many posters have suggested Reid's game was just about the worst he has played. So it's not like our defenders took advantage of any deficiencies in Cloke's game.

I think we were hoping that Cloke was going to be an utter failure of a player who would spend most of the year in the VFL. I think he will prove that he is better than VFL level, that we misjudged where he was at in his football career. Moore sure looked ordinary in his absence. A fit and firing Cloke would have been the perfect foil for Moore and allow him time to develop as a player, instead of being the focal point.

IMO, Cloke wouldn't have made too much of a difference considering the way the Bulldogs defence works.
In terms of structure, anyone can help provide it but it takes the other five to follow. Can't help but think that the likes of Fasolo would be responsible for it falling down elsewhere, so Cloke's influence may have been minimal.

It was worked out quite early that our defence probably wouldn't take advantage of deficiencies in any opposition player. So much is made of one on one duels but in today's team defence mentality, if you don't have the back up in various situations, you'll struggle.

Regarding Moore as a focal point, I struggle to think that the club would be that stupid. I reckon they were looking at a model that would spread the load more than just rely on one to kick the majority. The dogs did it last year and perhaps Hawthorn did too. I'm not sure whether forward focal points need to exist in the current game. The media keeps talking them up but player movement suggests otherwise. Last night the forwards seemed bone lazy when resetting.

The Dawes example was highlighting how we can inflate a player's influence. I wasn't happy when we let Cloke go, especially for 72 however I doubt the dogs would have taken him had the trade demanded more. The test for him will be against the more experienced defences who will exploit his deficiencies. Bevo has shown form when it comes to below par performances and being dropped.

 

[TradeDraft]

I am really over this Blair scapegoating (one mistake and it starts), did he have a poor game, yes but so did many others and in fact if Broomhead or someone similar is not ready I would play him again next week. I would drop Mayne before him and can see why he was a late in.

I haven't seen the replay but kept an eye on both and felt that Mayne was like a fish out of water on numerous occasions with an opponent who was roaming free.

View attachment 349574

Mayne must be pretty Crap IF Blair gets a Game over Mayne.

Gubby must be a Terrible Picker of Players