Welcome back Mass

[KUNG FU]

What does it matter?

No one had named anyone FFS, it was just stated that we will have to look at delisting more than the mandatory 3 players required.

But it’s all good as long as we can continue to bag Luke Jericho for everything and anything, just not talk about who may get delisted.

The knives are out!

I'm not stopping anyone. It just usually leads to a lot of blood-letting and I like to wait until at least after we lose some games beyond the mid-season break.

So anyway, I'll get it started:

Jericho

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Reilly, Goodwin & Burton are in our best 22,
therefore i see 3 positions available for:

- Shirley, Doughty, Torney, Massie, Porps, Jericho, and ...Douglas, etc ....

Shirley in in our best-22. AFC think so too, so that leaves 2 positions.

Doughty has been a great form of late & there is buggar all chance of him being dropped by the selectors, even though some posters have it in for him.

That leaves 1 position available between the remaining players. Massie would be my pick, but I wouldn't be surprised if the selectors pick Torney of Porplyzia instead.

 

[Alex99]

The knives are out!

I'm not stopping anyone. It just usually leads to a lot of blood-letting and I like to wait until at least after we lose some games beyond the mid-season break.

So anyway, I'll get it started:

Jericho

NNNNooooooooooooooooo - i don't think anyone saw coming.

Jericho to be delisted, that's way out of left field.

 

[KUNG FU]

NNNNooooooooooooooooo - i don't think anyone saw coming.

Jericho to be delisted, that's way out of left field.

Well look, I say it as I see it and if you can't deal with my controversial opinions you should go elsewhere!

 

[treeman]

If it wasn't for a horrible umpiring mistake he would have had a goal to his name.

-Ben

 

[Jars458]

If it wasn't for a horrible umpiring mistake he would have had a goal to his name.

-Ben

Apparantly the umpiring department are saying it was an optical illusion and the ball did not hit the goal umpire.

Give me strength!!

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Apparantly the umpiring department are saying it was an optical illusion and the ball did not hit the goal umpire.

Give me strength!!

This just makes them look worse!

IMO, they would get more credibility if they admitted their stuff-ups. They are after all only human ... but not admitting they sometimes make wrong decisions makes them look untouchable, regardless.

 

[- PC -]

Some doubt as to if Burton may or may not be fit.

Could also be Chris Knights ''talking it up''

Todays Inside Football ( where Dandy-Go gets a mention) had a CK article and he mentioned players coming back and said Burton could be 2 weeks away still

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Some doubt as to if Burton may or may not be fit.

Could also be Chris Knights ''talking it up''

Todays Inside Football ( where Dandy-Go gets a mention) had a CK article and he mentioned players coming back and said Burton could be 2 weeks away still

Just mentioned on the West Coast thread that Goodwin, Reilly & Perrie all look set to return, with Burton & Bode outside chances.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

When we start to get some players back there are going to be some hard selection decisions. At this stage in their careers, I would have Massie ahead of Torney.

So would West Coast. They'd like us to keep Jericho in too please.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

So would West Coast.

How do you figure that.

Are you suggesting Torney is in better form than Massie?

 

[jenny61_99]

Danger is bringing in too many under-done players at once against a formidable opponent. I hope they don't.

 

[writeoff]

Well done Massie on a great 1st game back into the Crows lineup. However I wouldn't rush to drop Torney as I believe he provides valuable contests in the defensive half. He has taken some crucial contested marks in recent games and also provides run from defense. He is one of those 'big bodied players' that the commentators are referring to when they mention the Crows. I do admit that he isn't in peak form atm but he is not alone. I'd also be hesitant to drop Porps as his ability to take a contested mark is also vital in the forward line if we are to play a more attacking style like we did against the Kangaroos. Of course that comes back to who to drop...

 

[mightymightyblues]

he was a decent server for the blues, i remember watching him play when he just burst onto the scene and was very impressed. does anyone know how u guys ended up with him? trade or a pick up?

 

[Vader]

he was a decent server for the blues, i remember watching him play when he just burst onto the scene and was very impressed. does anyone know how u guys ended up with him? trade or a pick up?

Direct player swap, no draft selections involved.

Carlton gave us Kris Massie, we gave them Andrew Eccles (long since delisted).

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Danger is bringing in too many under-done players at once against a formidable opponent. I hope they don't.

I agree. I would suggest a maximum of 3 changes. If more than 3 are available to return, we would be better off playing some players back through the SANFL.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Well done Massie on a great 1st game back into the Crows lineup. However I wouldn't rush to drop Torney as I believe he provides valuable contests in the defensive half. He has taken some crucial contested marks in recent games and also provides run from defense. He is one of those 'big bodied players' that the commentators are referring to when they mention the Crows. I do admit that he isn't in peak form atm but he is not alone. I'd also be hesitant to drop Porps as his ability to take a contested mark is also vital in the forward line if we are to play a more attacking style like we did against the Kangaroos. Of course that comes back to who to drop...

With players returning, there is probably only room for 1 of Massie & Torney. Whoever misses out will be unlucky.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

How do you figure that.

Are you suggesting Torney is in better form than Massie?

Yes. And that he is twice the player that Massie will ever be. I know there are a number of posters here who don't really rate Torney and describe him as 'last picked' quite often. I don't think these people really understand the quality of what they are seeing. Last week I defended Torney here...

www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337075&page=2

...and compared him to Mark Waugh. Mark Waugh copped similar criticism due to his casual manner and often the brilliance of his performances were undervalued because he made it look so damn easy. I remember the test series in India (which we ended up losing 2-1) when Harbhajan took 30 odd wickets. In the last test Australia were trying to defend 150 and I think India ended up passing the score 8 or 9 down. The fifth day wicket was playing lower and lower and the slips were getting closer and closer. Mark Waugh took two of the quickest, most brilliant catches I have ever seen off McGrath's bowling low down at second slip. The trouble was he made them both look like he was shelling peas. Regulation. Minimal highlights. Not eye catching, just sheer quality and rarely seen skill that was not obvious to the casual observer.

Earlier in the innings he caught a diving one hander at mid wicket off a ball that ballooned to his right. Good catch, but much lower down the difficulty scale than the other two. Of course the diving one hander was replayed a million times.

I urge those who think Torney is just a handy, run-of-the-mill footballer to really watch him closely over the next couple of matches. In particular watch the times when he is in a 50/50 contest. Or when he finds himself outnumbered. Or when a team mate sets him up with an ordinary kick/handball. It is in these situations that you will see just how good a player he is.

How often do you hear this about certain Crows players: "He might make a few errors but you could never question his effort." This 'praise' is typically reserved for players who make it obvious through their flailing limbs and look of intense effort on their face that they are giving 100%. Torney barely looks like he raises a sweat. Also, no one would ever praise Torney's second efforts - that's because he never fumbles. Second and third efforts are over-rated anyway. Usually it means you have stuffed up under pressure and through perserverance have managed to limit the damage of your initial error.

I think that Torney's performances as a footballer get overlooked in the same way that Ben Hart's first quarter in the 1998 Grand Final is forgotten (by some) due to the brilliance of McLeod and Jarman in the second half.

 

[maccas_no1]

Danger is bringing in too many under-done players at once against a formidable opponent. I hope they don't.

I agree, NC shows faith in his players and wont make whole sale changes unless they are needed, I honestly cant see anymore than two changes for the game against West Coast.

 

[maccas_no1]

Yes. And that he is twice the player that Massie will ever be. I know there are a number of posters here who don't really rate Torney and describe him as 'last picked' quite often. I don't think these people really understand the quality of what they are seeing. Last week I defended Torney here...

www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337075&page=2

...and compared him to Mark Waugh. Mark Waugh copped similar criticism due to his casual manner and often the brilliance of his performances were undervalued because he made it look so damn easy. I remember the test series in India (which we ended up losing 2-1) when Harbhajan took 30 odd wickets. In the last test Australia were trying to defend 150 and I think India ended up passing the score 8 or 9 down. The fifth day wicket was playing lower and lower and the slips were getting closer and closer. Mark Waugh took two of the quickest, most brilliant catches I have ever seen off McGrath's bowling low down at second slip. The trouble was he made them both look like he was shelling peas. Regulation. Minimal highlights. Not eye catching, just sheer quality and rarely seen skill that was not obvious to the casual observer.

Earlier in the innings he caught a diving one hander at mid wicket off a ball that ballooned to his right. Good catch, but much lower down the difficulty scale than the other two. Of course the diving one hander was replayed a million times.

I urge those who think Torney is just a handy, run-of-the-mill footballer to really watch him closely over the next couple of matches. In particular watch the times when he is in a 50/50 contest. Or when he finds himself outnumbered. Or when a team mate sets him up with an ordinary kick/handball. It is in these situations that you will see just how good a player he is.

How often do you hear this about certain Crows players: "He might make a few errors but you could never question his effort." This 'praise' is typically reserved for players who make it obvious through their flailing limbs and look of intense effort on their face that they are giving 100%. Torney barely looks like he raises a sweat. Also, no one would ever praise Torney's second efforts - that's because he never fumbles. Second and third efforts are over-rated anyway. Usually it means you have stuffed up under pressure and through perserverance have managed to limit the damage of your initial error.

I think that Torney's performances as a footballer get overlooked in the same way that Ben Hart's first quarter in the 1998 Grand Final is forgotten (by some) due to the brilliance of McLeod and Jarman in the second half.

Torney is a great player no doubt but to say Massie isnt on par with him down right rubbish.

Im starting to think you are related to a few other posters on this board

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Torney is a great player no doubt but to say Massie isnt on par with him down right rubbish.

Not in the same stratosphere.

 

[Crow-mo]

Not in the same stratosphere.

Carl, whilst i think you overrate JT a little, and perhaps underrate Mass a little, you're pretty much on the money here.

there is a quality to Torney that sets him apart.

 

[marvin]

I urge those who think Torney is just a handy, run-of-the-mill footballer to really watch him closely over the next couple of matches. In particular watch the times when he is in a 50/50 contest. Or when he finds himself outnumbered. Or when a team mate sets him up with an ordinary kick/handball. It is in these situations that you will see just how good a player he is.

I don't think that there are light years of difference between Torney and Massie, and one game of Kris Massie is too much to write a form line through to compare with JT's season to date.

Having said that, if I had to pick someone for our back 6, I choose Torney over Massie 100% of the time - for the reasons that Carl explains above. He just understands how to play contested football, and the right way to play defensively.

 

[Vader]

Yes. And that he is twice the player that Massie will ever be. I know there are a number of posters here who don't really rate Torney and describe him as 'last picked' quite often. I don't think these people really understand the quality of what they are seeing. Last week I defended Torney here...

www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337075&page=2

...and compared him to Mark Waugh. Mark Waugh copped similar criticism due to his casual manner and often the brilliance of his performances were undervalued because he made it look so damn easy. I remember the test series in India (which we ended up losing 2-1) when Harbhajan took 30 odd wickets. In the last test Australia were trying to defend 150 and I think India ended up passing the score 8 or 9 down. The fifth day wicket was playing lower and lower and the slips were getting closer and closer. Mark Waugh took two of the quickest, most brilliant catches I have ever seen off McGrath's bowling low down at second slip. The trouble was he made them both look like he was shelling peas. Regulation. Minimal highlights. Not eye catching, just sheer quality and rarely seen skill that was not obvious to the casual observer.

Earlier in the innings he caught a diving one hander at mid wicket off a ball that ballooned to his right. Good catch, but much lower down the difficulty scale than the other two. Of course the diving one hander was replayed a million times.

I urge those who think Torney is just a handy, run-of-the-mill footballer to really watch him closely over the next couple of matches. In particular watch the times when he is in a 50/50 contest. Or when he finds himself outnumbered. Or when a team mate sets him up with an ordinary kick/handball. It is in these situations that you will see just how good a player he is.

How often do you hear this about certain Crows players: "He might make a few errors but you could never question his effort." This 'praise' is typically reserved for players who make it obvious through their flailing limbs and look of intense effort on their face that they are giving 100%. Torney barely looks like he raises a sweat. Also, no one would ever praise Torney's second efforts - that's because he never fumbles. Second and third efforts are over-rated anyway. Usually it means you have stuffed up under pressure and through perserverance have managed to limit the damage of your initial error.

I think that Torney's performances as a footballer get overlooked in the same way that Ben Hart's first quarter in the 1998 Grand Final is forgotten (by some) due to the brilliance of McLeod and Jarman in the second half.

Mark Waugh was rarely (if ever) criticised for his fielding. He did, however, cop a regular bucketing for his batting.

As you say, he made the difficult look ridiculously easy. He was incredibly skillful. No doubt about it.

However, he also constantly managed to find new and inventive ways of getting out. Frequently to incredibly lazy shots. It was almost as if he found it so easy that he got bored, lost concentration and made a mistake.

Afghan was an unusual player in that he had an outstanding record against the better sides (West Indies at their peak), yet struggled against the weaker sides. Most probably for the reasons outlined above.

Most quality test batsmen manage to get at least one double century during their career. Even Jason Gillespie has managed this - albeit against a Bangladesh side which would be weaker than most district club sides in Australia. Mark Waugh's highest test score was 153. He is the only player in Australia's top 10 run scorers to never have scored a double ton. Actually, there's only one other player in the top 17 (Ian Chappell - who had a HS of 196) without a 200 to his credit.

He was always considered one of our brightest talents, but one who was never truly fulfilled his potential due to a lack of application. Given that he's #4 on our all-time highest test run scorers, imagine how good he could have been...

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

This is exactly the sort of criticism Waugh copped during his career and IMO it was unjustified. Lazy shot, lack of footwork, caught on the crease, not switched on, hitting across the line, throwing his innings away etc. The thing was that was how he looked like all the time!

He would clip a ball from off stump through square leg for four and people would stand and applaud a genius at work. Play the same shot but get out lbw and the criticism starts. What kind of shot was that? Ridiculous IMO and very lazy commentating. Tony Greig was the king. Waugh would come down the wicket to a spinner and get stumped - "very silly shot indeed" - but if the ball had cleared the fence he would have been the one waxing lyrical about it.

I hate the perception that Waugh didn't get the best out of himself. To have a 50 average in test cricket you need the following:
1) To have a high level of ability (obviously)
2) To have a number of not outs
3) To be able to fill your boots when you have the opposition beaten

Waugh possessed No. 1 in spades but didn't have Nos. 2 or 3. To be honest who gives a stuff about 2 or 3? Doesn't get me excited. Lara's hundred against us in the Carribean when he put on 40 with Courtney Walsh (!) for the last wicket to win the test was a better innings than his 277, 375 or his 400 IMO. Give me a bloke who averages 40 and wins us games against the best opposition rather than a bloke who averages more but is found wanting when we really need him to stand up.

In general, I think players should be judged more harshly on the games that are the most important, are against the best opposition or that have the most riding on them. There should be more scrutiny and more weight given to these instances. Averages can be misleading. I remember Michael Slater being made to look like a village cricketer by Wasim Akram in 95/96. He followed it up with 219 against Pushpakumara and the rest of the Sri Lankan 'pace' brigade at the WACA. Yes Massie was excellent in our runaway victory over the Kangaroos but I don't think you should draw too many conclusions from that.