Remove this Banner Ad

Selwood SPECS

  • Thread starter Thread starter magpies42
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

He has plent yof speed which is what we need, plus he is a very good and effective tackler. Also has shown he is a good tagger. He had a very good game on Nick Stevens during the year which gave him a good name.
 
Lonie_from_50 said:
He has plent yof speed which is what we need, plus he is a very good and effective tackler. Also has shown he is a good tagger. He had a very good game on Nick Stevens during the year which gave him a good name.
Click to expand...

nice! but that could come and bite us in the arse! if carlton take mclaren then there will be bo need for them to take a tall with pick 4 which means our chances of securing ellis and hurn are very low!
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

jabso said:
PSD draft is after the national draft.
McLaren is a ruckman not KPP and will not be their next FF/CHF/CHB/FB.
IF we want both Ellis and Hurn then the bigger threat is Hawthorn taking him at #3, although they will most likely take Ryder there.
Click to expand...
whether he is a ruckmen or not he can probably still play chf or even so by playing in the ruck he automatically releases somebody else to play up front!

i dont think hawthron are the threat i think it is definetly carlton! and i would much rather them take selwood, even tho i would be happy to have him
 
Lonie_from_50 said:
He has plent yof speed which is what we need, plus he is a very good and effective tackler. Also has shown he is a good tagger. He had a very good game on Nick Stevens during the year which gave him a good name.
Click to expand...
I personally haven't seen him, but I have heard he has standard AFL pace only. I presume he's like his brother, so I would suggest that that would be the case.

Also told he is a very unreliable kick, almost to Lica-esque proportions.
 
Yeah, he isn't been noted as a fantastic kicker, but it isn't a quality we should worry about. He is quick, determined and doesn't need to get plenty of the ball. He can be effective and do alot of damage without disposal.
 
Troy Selwood (Brisbane Lions)
Games: 17
Goals: 2

Kicks: 115
Handballs: 56
Disposals: 171
Marks: 66
Tackles: 54
Inside 50's: 26
Clearances: 26
Clangers: 28

MR Ranking Points: 980
MR Impact Rating: 74.64

Brownlow Votes: 0
MR Brownlow Votes: 2
 
FIGJAM said:
I personally haven't seen him, but I have heard he has standard AFL pace only. I presume he's like his brother, so I would suggest that that would be the case.

Also told he is a very unreliable kick, almost to Lica-esque proportions.
Click to expand...

Read the same stuff about him too
 
The point is we need fresh legs in the middle because Burns and Buckley are ageing. Mick will work with him and work on his kicking, he will play the role that he is required to in our structure. He will be a posative addition either way!!! I would rather recurit him, than not get anyone :D
 

Remove this Banner Ad

FIGJAM said:
I argued vehemently for keeping him last year, because we still had superduds like Lokan, Williams and King on our list, and he had at least some chance of an upside.

He wouldn't have lasted this cut.
Click to expand...
Yeah, McGough had played more good footy than those guys.

I wouldn't have cut King last year though, he had shown some promising form as a FP late in the season. Too bad he let himself get the size of the Rock of Gibraltar this year.
 
The thing is skills can be developed. Ball magnetism is a gift.

So McGough...could have been a great player
 
Lonie_from_50 said:
The thing is skills can be developed. Ball magnetism is a gift.

So McGough...could have been a great player
Click to expand...
After about 16 -17 years of age basic skills don't change that much - it just becomes more of a technique thing.
If you can't kick at that age you will never be able to kick.

McGough didn't have good kicking or awarness (his own awareness) skills. He had no defence to his game.
He turned the ball over numerous times and had zero pace.

So why was he worth keeping?
 
Murray said:
After about 16 -17 years of age basic skills don't change that much - it just becomes more of a technique thing.
If you can't kick at that age you will never be able to kick.

McGough didn't have good kicking or awarness (his own awareness) skills. He had no defence to his game.
He turned the ball over numerous times and had zero pace.

So why was he worth keeping?
Click to expand...

Never said he was worth keeping, but yeah, you must be right with the skills at the age part. I have never played football myself besides the usual kick at school so on, you get what I mean, so I can't have a main point on skills.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Murray said:
After about 16 -17 years of age basic skills don't change that much - it just becomes more of a technique thing.
If you can't kick at that age you will never be able to kick.

McGough didn't have good kicking or awarness (his own awareness) skills. He had no defence to his game.
He turned the ball over numerous times and had zero pace.

So why was he worth keeping?
Click to expand...
Because despite those facts, he had an uncanny ability to have significant positive impact on a game.

Even last year, he had outstanding games whereby he single-handedly kept us competitive to the point of almost winning with nigh on no players (eg Port Adelaide).

I personally wasn't fooled by King's late goal against Richmond. He was a dud then too! Add Lokan and Williams to the list and McGough was culled despite being a superior talent.

I supose one could argue that he might have played a part in winning us a few games this year, which would have been detrimental to our PP, so maybe it's for the best.
 
FIGJAM said:
Because despite those facts, he had an uncanny ability to have significant positive impact on a game.

Even last year, he had outstanding games whereby he single-handedly kept us competitive to the point of almost winning with nigh on no players (eg Port Adelaide).

I personally wasn't fooled by King's late goal against Richmond. He was a dud then too! Add Lokan and Williams to the list and McGough was culled despite being a superior talent.

I supose one could argue that he might have played a part in winning us a few games this year, which would have been detrimental to our PP, so maybe it's for the best.
Click to expand...


Make no mistake Figy, I was well aware of the two good skills McGough had - He could get the all and he was a reasonable hand ball.
That aside it was all down hill from there.
I think it is pure speculation to suggest those two skills in one man might have got us over the line in some games - I tend to doubt it.

As for King - waste of space.
But I don't see it as one over the other, to me they both should have gone and both at the same time.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom