Travis Varcoe

[catempire]

Just as a matter of interest, would you be as forgiving of other players who fail to commit on a regular basis or is it just because his name is Travis Varcoe?
For instance, do you cut Hunt the same slack for his failures to put himself on the line when the balls in the air?

Hunt has been wrongly maligned for one (maybe two) incidents.

As I said, I try to look at the full package a player offers.

Clever answer, but really just another way of dismissing legimate criticsm of Trav.

Oh please. Clearly you could see it was in jest.

 

[Cattery]

Hunt has been wrongly maligned for one (maybe two) incidents.

As I said, I try to look at the full package a player offers.

One "blatant" incident, but many other occasions where he won't "fully" commit himself. It's obvious he's just not comfortable if he's not sure what's coming from behind [ I realise no player is probably comfortable in that position, but that doesn't stop them committing 100% ] which is something I can't say of Josh.
Same can be said of Trav and his willingness, or lack of, to commit to a contest.

I look at the full package also, but that doesn't stop me being critical of a players weaknesses, especially if it's displayed on a regular basis; doesn't mean that player is of no worth to the team [ both Hunt and Varcoe would be in my best 22 ] but I'm not willing to just turn a blind eye either due to the "bigger picture."

 

[Vdubs]

One "blatant" incident, but many other occasions where he won't "fully" commit himself. It's obvious he's just not comfortable if he's not sure what's coming from behind [ I realise no player is probably comfortable in that position, but that doesn't stop them committing 100% ] which is something I can't say of Josh.
Same can be said of Trav and his willingness, or lack of, to commit to a contest.

I look at the full package also, but that doesn't stop me being critical of a players weaknesses, especially if it's displayed on a regular basis; doesn't mean that player is of no worth to the team [ both Hunt and Varcoe would be in my best 22 ] but I'm not willing to just turn a blind eye either due to the "bigger picture."

Since when has Varcoe shirked a contest, and what do you see as his role anyway. From all games I've seen, his tackling is a highlight, and sure he is not a Selwood, but he is meant to be a creative attacking forward, whose body is maturing so that he may eventually take on a mid field role, perhaps. Sometimes players break his tackles, but not everybody has the strength of a mature James Kelly. Seems like there's a lot of expectation on Varcoe that he should be in and under, hard ball getter, elite runner and goalkicker.

 

[catempire]

One "blatant" incident, but many other occasions where he won't "fully" commit himself. It's obvious he's just not comfortable if he's not sure what's coming from behind [ I realise no player is probably comfortable in that position, but that doesn't stop them committing 100% ] which is something I can't say of Josh.
Same can be said of Trav and his willingness, or lack of, to commit to a contest.

Again, we just disagree. I haven't seen this from Hunt as a general rule.

I look at the full package also, but that doesn't stop me being critical of a players weaknesses, especially if it's displayed on a regular basis; doesn't mean that player is of no worth to the team [ both Hunt and Varcoe would be in my best 22 ] but I'm not willing to just turn a blind eye either due to the "bigger picture."

It's not a matter of overlooking weaknesses or ignoring them. It's about asking, "why is this player in the team in the first place?" For Varcoe, it's clearly not to win the hard ball. All that the coaches would ask of him is to play his role and clearly they think he does that otherwise he wouldn't be there.

I don't care that Corey is a generally a terrible kick because his work ethic is unparalleled.

I don't much care that Taylor is panicky because he generally beats his man.

I'm not fussed that Steve Johnson has the occasional brain fade because he is overall, brilliant and a matchwinner.

These are just three examples. I could pick out flaws with every player. At the end of the day, is it worth focusing on their minor flaws? I don't believe so because of what they bring as a total package.

Players who are flawed but don't add something from an overall view are moved on very quickly. This is a cut-throat business.

 

[Cattery]

Since when has Varcoe shirked a contest, and what do you see as his role anyway. From all games I've seen, his tackling is a highlight, and sure he is not a Selwood, but he is meant to be a creative attacking forward, whose body is maturing so that he may eventually take on a mid field role, perhaps. Sometimes players break his tackles, but not everybody has the strength of a mature James Kelly. Seems like there's a lot of expectation on Varcoe that he should be in and under, hard ball getter, elite runner and goalkicker.

Check what I've written previousely, I don't expect him to be an "in and under" type player, he's an outside receiver, and I have absolutely no beef with that whatsoever, a team needs a mix of different type players and they can be every bit as effective as the Joel Selwood type.

My criticism is his softness in contested situations [ not running down players from behind or from the side and laying tackles ] outside player or not there are always times in any match where you have to be prepared to put your body on the line, but Trav seems quite content to allow himself to be bustled out of contests far to easily without fully committing himself.

 

[Cattery]

Again, we just disagree. I haven't seen this from Hunt as a general rule.

Fair enough, can't all agree all of the time, though in this case I would have thought it was fairly obvious ...... apparently not.

It's not a matter of overlooking weaknesses or ignoring them. It's about asking, "why is this player in the team in the first place?" For Varcoe, it's clearly not to win the hard ball. All that the coaches would ask of him is to play his role and clearly they think he does that otherwise he wouldn't be there.

I don't care that Corey is a generally a terrible kick because his work ethic is unparalleled.

I don't much care that Taylor is panicky because he generally beats his man.

I'm not fussed that Steve Johnson has the occasional brain fade because he is overall, brilliant and a matchwinner.

These are just three examples. I could pick out flaws with every player. At the end of the day, is it worth focusing on their minor flaws? I don't believe so because of what they bring as a total package.

Players who are flawed but don't add something from an overall view are moved on very quickly. This is a cut-throat business.

Two points, I realise Varcoe is not there to win the hard ball, but there's a difference between not doing so and failing to attempt winning it [ with conviction ] when the need arises, and yes those players you mentioned also have flaws [ as every player does ] but they're minor compared to what they contribute overall, plus they're not flaws that have anything to do with attitude or willingness to commit; being preceived as "soft" is not something that can be brushed aside easily, especially in a player who's a 20/22 selection at best.

 

[vinum coupe]

especially in a player who's a 20/22 selection at best.

Maybe in this team which possibly has the best list off all time. Is that a bad thing?
If someone of his quality is our 22nd picked then the rest of the league is in deep shit.

I'd say he is about 18th picked right now.

Travis isn't going anywhere but up.

And I'm sorry to tell you mate but assuming he has good fitness when he comes back he is an automatic selection.

 

[DanA]

He definately sherked body contact early in his career but I beleive he showed a marked improvement in 09 in this regard. Still not up there with the likes of Bartel, Rooke and Selwood obviously but I think a lot of opinion about Varcoe resides from 08.

 

[Cattery]

And I'm sorry to tell you mate but assuming he has good fitness when he comes back he is an automatic selection.

Think you've confused me with another poster, I've already said he's in my best 22 so I have no problems with him being selected when he's fit again, as I'm sure he will be.

 

[vinum coupe]

Right then. Yes I have.

 

[catempire]

Two points, I realise Varcoe is not there to win the hard ball, but there's a difference between not doing so and failing to attempt winning it [ with conviction ] when the need arises, and yes those players you mentioned also have flaws [ as every player does ] but they're minor compared to what they contribute overall, plus they're not flaws that have anything to do with attitude or willingness to commit; being preceived as "soft" is not something that can be brushed aside easily, especially in a player who's a 20/22 selection at best.

Go back about 5 posts to where I said we just disagree on it and nothing of substance has been added since.

 

[meto]

But will he be in our best 22, 2010? That's the big question.
With his lack of winning the ball and goals kicked in 09' he might be overtaken by youth.
He's had time to show his stuff.

 

[Partridge]

But will he be in our best 22, 2010? That's the big question.
With his lack of winning the ball and goals kicked in 09' he might be overtaken by youth.
He's had time to show his stuff.

He's still in our best 22. As I've stated I'd have Byrnes ahead of him at the moment, but both are ahead of Stokes (and would have been no matter what occurred in the off-season). Djerrkura hasn't done anywhere near enough to earn a spot yet. Firstly he has to stay fit and then start showing form in the seconds. Motlop has shown less than nothing. Neither of these guys are a viable option at the moment.

I'd say if competition does come this year it could be Gamble, who at least has played good senior footy for us (whereas say Djerrkura hasn't - yet), and the new kids in Duncan or Christensen. Hogan when he gets full fitness up would have to be a real chance too.

 

[Cattery]

he might be overtaken by youth.

"Overtaken by youth" geez he's hardly an old man himself.

As Partridge says, the only way I see his spot being under threat is if Hogan, or possibly Duncan, get a few games early on and play out of their skulls, and provided Byrnes and Wojcinski display good form also it could make things interesting.

The dark horse is Gamble, if he's going to make it as a regular senior player you'd think this has to be the year he really makes his mark.

The other one of course is Stokes, "if" he returns to anywhere near his best form he'd be ahead of both Varcoe and Byrnes IMO, so it's going to make it interesting for those last one or two spots.

Personally I think he [ Varcoe ] is a virtual monty to return pretty quickly once he's available given the selectors past record with him.

 

[krisholio14]

I reckon Trav's been coming a long nicely myself.

I expect him to do well when he returns from his injury.

 

[DanA]

Travis pretty much cemented his spot in 2008 and he's now a much better player. I'd almost say he's at the level where he doesn't need to come back through the reserves after injury.

If fit he'd play every game and it would take a remarkable performance from Duncan while he's out to take his spot. Can't see anybody else pushing him out.