Would any melbourne player get a game in our side?

[rapidfire7]

Cameron Bruce, Aaron Davey, Russell Robertson, Brock McLean and Brad Green would all get a game in Geelong's best 22. Maybe Paul Johnson too.

B: Mackie; Scarlett; Bruce
HB: Milburn; Egan; Harley
C: Corey; Bartel; Ling
HF: Chapman; Mooney; Johnson
F: Davey; Robertson; Stokes
R: Ottens; McLean; Ablett
I: Enright; Green; Selwood; Blake/Johnson

I don't think so! Green Ahead of Kelly? Robertson is well passed it... Where is Wojo? Paul Johnson I don't think he can offer anymore than Blake, Bruce is past his best.

Brock Mclean only..Possibly Davey .. If all those guys are that good you wouldn't be in the postition you are! No disrespect but I think you are over-estimating many of those players current abilities ...

 

[Beats]

I don't think so! Green Ahead of Kelly? Robertson is well passed it... Where is Wojo? Paul Johnson I don't think he can offer anymore than Blake, Bruce is past his best.

Brock Mclean only..Possibly Davey .. If all those guys are that good you wouldn't be in the postition you are! No disrespect but I think you are over-estimating many of those players current abilities ...

Not really, every team has their top end talent, it's the depth that makes the difference, and ours is pretty bad.
As another Melbourne guy previously posted, how many of your players would be able to slot into our team and play as good as they currently are?
I'd have it as Scarlett, Harley, Corey, Bartel, Selwood, Ablett, Johnson, Ling and Chapman.
The others just wouldn't be able to look as good in our team.

Someone on our board posted this as your best 22, agree/disagree it'd be very close to this.

B: Mackie; Scarlett; Harley
HB: Milburn; Egan; Enright
C: Corey; Bartel; Selwood
HF: Kelly; Mooney; Johnson
F: Chapman; Lonergan; Stokes
R: Ottens; Ling; Ablett
I: Blake; Wojinski; Rooke; Hunt

Anyway I'd say these Melbourne players would be able to make it in...

Definitely:
Davey>Stokes - Pretty simple, nearly any unbiased supporter would rather Davey than Stokes.
Robertson>Lonergan - Robertson is able to do all that Lonergan can do, and if you base it on his form at the start of the year(before he got injured), against Lonergan's form in a much better team it's a simple conclusion.
Mclean>Kelly - In midfield terms Mclean is better than kelly, Mclean has also had stints in the forwardline in the past and done reasonably well, in short he's got Kelly covered.

Probably:
Rivers(when fit)>Mackie - Same type of player, pretty close to equal ability, however Rivers is able to look good in our team when he plays, if Mackie was to play in our team I don't think he'd look anywhere as good.
Green>Rooke - Green would be able to take Rooke's spot, Green is more of a forward than Rooke, but in your team it wouldn't matter so much and green is the better player
PJ>Blake - PJ's ruck work is probably not as good as Blake's, but it would be close, and his around the ground work as a ruckman is definitely better.

And finally I'll throw in a roughie:
Whelan>Hunt - You guys won't agree with this but Whelan is a solid player, not a star, neither is Hunt though and in the same team I'd back Whelan in ahead of Hunt.

 

[Exhale You]

Definitely:
Davey>Stokes - Pretty simple, nearly any unbiased supporter would rather Davey than Stokes.

Davey has been pants for two years now, whereas Mathew Stokes has quietly put together a cracking two years.

Stokes' job is to kick goals and provide an option up the ground.
Given that he kicks more than twice as many goals as Aaron Davey, AND manages to win more of the footy, why on earth would we trade down?

Mclean>Kelly - In midfield terms Mclean is better than kelly, Mclean has also had stints in the forwardline in the past and done reasonably well, in short he's got Kelly covered.

If Kelly was a fulltime midfielder then yes, but he's not, he plays a totally different role, a role that McLean isn't suited to.
In the role Kelly plays (and plays brilliantly), you'd take Kelly every time.

Rivers(when fit)>Mackie - Same type of player, pretty close to equal ability, however Rivers is able to look good in our team when he plays, if Mackie was to play in our team I don't think he'd look anywhere as good.

Um, apart from minor similarities in body shape, what makes them the 'same type'?

Green>Rooke - Green would be able to take Rooke's spot, Green is more of a forward than Rooke, but in your team it wouldn't matter so much and green is the better player

Do you know much about Max Rooke?

He's the polar opposite of Brad Green in terms of playing style and the reason he gets a game for us is that he provides something unique.

No doubting Green is the better and more talented player, but Max brings a uniqueness that we'd miss if we had Brad Green in his role, thus Max is more valuable to us.

 

[Beats]

Davey has been pants for two years now, whereas Mathew Stokes has quietly put together a cracking two years.

Stokes' job is to kick goals and provide an option up the ground.
Given that he kicks more than twice as many goals as Aaron Davey, AND manages to win more of the footy, why on earth would we trade down?

Has been pants?? I don't understand the terminology...
Simple argument, Melbourne have been playing poorly for the last two years, Geelong have been playing well for the last two years, It's hard to play the small forward role when the ball coming into the forward line is delivered poorly, and not very frequently, as I said, nearly any other unbiased supporter would take Davey over Stokes in a heartbeat.

If Kelly was a fulltime midfielder then yes, but he's not, he plays a totally different role, a role that McLean isn't suited to.
In the role Kelly plays (and plays brilliantly), you'd take Kelly every time.

You say Mclean isn't suited to it, Why?
I might be wrong but Kelly is a midfielder who spends time in the forwardline?
Mclean is pretty capable at playing the same role as Kelly, he has spent time in the forward line early in his career and while he has been injured and has done pretty well.

Um, apart from minor similarities in body shape, what makes them the 'same type'?

They both play as running back men who are suited to the third/fourth tall role?
Albeit River's has a much better contested side to his game.
And before you say Rivers plays as a KB or whatever you think he is, that was only when Melbourne had a lack of options, Rivers is much better suited to playing the same role as Mackie does.

Do you know much about Max Rooke?

He's the polar opposite of Brad Green in terms of playing style and the reason he gets a game for us is that he provides something unique.

No doubting Green is the better and more talented player, but Max brings a uniqueness that we'd miss if we had Brad Green in his role, thus Max is more valuable to us.

Polar opposite might be a stretch...
What I was saying was that Green is the better player and that as your team is so good you would be able to accomodate the loss of Rooke for Green.
I will also add in that Green is a winger/utility and has spent time in the backline as well as in the forwardline/middle.

 

[Ablettttttt!]

Has been pants?? I don't understand the terminology...
Simple argument, Melbourne have been playing poorly for the last two years, Geelong have been playing well for the last two years, It's hard to play the small forward role when the ball coming into the forward line is delivered poorly, and not very frequently, as I said, nearly any other unbiased supporter would take Davey over Stokes in a heartbeat.

Matthew Stokes has had an outstanding year, he has been one of the better small forwards in the competition this year and was selected for the Dream Team. I think saying people would take davey over him in a heartbeat is a bit of a stretch. He's definitely not as flashy as Davey but he's extremely good.

 

[shake_and_bake]

Brad Green would easily. Over the likes of a Lonergan or Hunt

They'd struggle to get a player in our VFL team.The Lemons are probably the most pathetic team in the last 10-15 years,but that's what happens when you hire idiots to coach [i.e see Geelong with Ayres].

Wonamerri and Davey we have covered up forward with players like Chappy,Dog,Stokes
Who would McLean,who ain't that good,replace ?

Brad Green is a pansy arsed wuss.Varcoe would get more hardball gets than him.

these are things im talking about. he wouldnt get a game because he is either half back, wing or half forward. our half back line is covered. wingers are pretty much selwood and corey. half forwards are chapman and s.j

 

[Exhale You]

Simple argument, Melbourne have been playing poorly for the last two years, Geelong have been playing well for the last two years, It's hard to play the small forward role when the ball coming into the forward line is delivered poorly, and not very frequently, as I said, nearly any other unbiased supporter would take Davey over Stokes in a heartbeat.

You got it right when you said it was a 'simple argument'.

You can make all the excuses you like, but the fact remains that Mathew Stokes has clearly outperformed Aaron Davey for two years now.
Not a chance in hell that Davey would replace Stokes.

You say Mclean isn't suited to it, Why?

Because McLean is an old-fashioned, hard at it, 'put me in the guts' type of midfielder.

He isn't a creative flanker and never will be.

I might be wrong but Kelly is a midfielder who spends time
in the forwardline?

You are wrong.

These days he's a flanker who spends time in the midfield.

Mclean is pretty capable at playing the same role as Kelly, he has spent time in the forward line early in his career and while he has been injured and has done pretty well.

How can you know he's capable of playing Kelly's role when you don't even know exactly what Kelly's role is?

Brock McLean is a very good footballer and i'd love to have him, but i don't believe he's at all suited to taking on Kelly's role.

They both play as running back men who are suited to the third/fourth tall role?

One is an excellent attacking flanker who creates plenty, wins a stack of footy and disposes of it extremely well.

The other is Jared Rivers.

Rivers is much better suited to playing the same role as Mackie does.

When Rivers averages 22-23 touches and has Mackie's disposal efficiency, get back to me, but until then the suggestion that Rivers would replace Mackie (in that role) is fanciful.

Polar opposite might be a stretch...

I don't think it is.

I can't think of two players whose styles and attitude are so diametrically opposed.

What I was saying was that Green is the better player and that as your team is so good you would be able to accomodate the loss of Rooke for Green.

And what i'm saying is that Max Rooke's unique talents are incredibly valuable to us.

I will also add in that Green is a winger/utility and has spent time in the backline as well as in the forwardline/middle.

He's very versatile, no doubt, but it doesn't change the fact that he couldn't give our side what Max Rooke does, thus there would be nothing gained from having him in Rooke's place.

 

[Vegas.]

One is an excellent attacking flanker who creates plenty, wins a stack of footy and disposes of it extremely well.

The other is Jared Rivers.

Haha, very good.

 

[davey_magik]

You got it right when you said it was a 'simple argument'.

You can make all the excuses you like, but the fact remains that Mathew Stokes has clearly outperformed Aaron Davey for two years now.
Not a chance in hell that Davey would replace Stokes.

Go on then, make a poll. Davey is not light years ahead of Stokes but he's easily a better player. If Davey was at Geelong he'd be AA easily.

Because McLean is an old-fashioned, hard at it, 'put me in the guts' type of midfielder.

He isn't a creative flanker and never will be.

Don't disagree with this, I'd rather McLean over Kelly as a player but in terms of the HFF role I'd rather Kelly.

One is an excellent attacking flanker who creates plenty, wins a stack of footy and disposes of it extremely well.

The other is Jared Rivers.

When Rivers averages 22-23 touches and has Mackie's disposal efficiency, get back to me, but until then the suggestion that Rivers would replace Mackie (in that role) is fanciful.

Very harsh on Rivers. He's a better player than Mackie, but Geelong already have a Rivers equivalent in Milburn so Mackie would play the running HBF role a lot better than Rivers.

 

[reidy75]

Definitely there are players that would get a game.

Look at some of the trades that have happened over the years, where guys go from a great club to a poor club - e.g. des headland. Looked like the next superstar at the Lions, but put him somewhere where he actually has to stand up, and he is just a player.

Absolutely no doubt in my mind, even though we've got a ripper team, that there are 3-4 players at most clubs that could potentially slot into Geelong and improve us.

Some of the players that are "good" at Melbourne, and are the ones that get the attention from opponents every week, could become absolute superstars in the geelong side as the fourth midfielder, forward, or loose backman. But when you're it, and the other players around you aren't standing up, you're not going to look as good.

But geez, I saw James Kelly pick the ball up with his left hand the other week, and Brock McLean doesn't do that so he can't possibly play Kelly's role.

 

[Ablettttttt!]

Very harsh on Rivers. He's a better player than Mackie, but Geelong already have a Rivers equivalent in Milburn so Mackie would play the running HBF role a lot better than Rivers.

Thats a big call for a a guy who has only played well in his first season and been injured ever since, compared to a guy who has been steadily improving and wouldn't be too far off (in my opinion) getting an AA spot in the next couple of years. Mackie is a much better athlete and his disposal is much better than Rivers'

 

[davey_magik]

Thats a big call for a a guy who has only played well in his first season and been injured ever since, compared to a guy who has been steadily improving and wouldn't be too far off (in my opinion) getting an AA spot in the next couple of years. Mackie is a much better athlete and his disposal is much better than Rivers'

Don't disagree Mackie is quicker and a better kick.

However Mackie is also a frontrunner who could not man up to save himself. Rivers is a completely different player.

Rivers' first season was 2003 BTW, his two best seasons were 2004 and 2006.

 

[JUBJUB]

Don't disagree Mackie is quicker and a better kick.

However Mackie is also a frontrunner who could not man up to save himself. Rivers is a completely different player.

Another useless Lemon hack who had 1 reasonable season ?

 

[Exhale You]

Go on then, make a poll.

Why? And what relevance would it have to the fact Stokes HAS clearly outperformed Aaron Davey for two years and that Geelong wouldn't change, even if they had the opportunity?

You could get a zillion Bigfooty posters saying that Aaron Davey is the second coming, but it won't change the fact that Mathew Stokes' output is significantly better, and has been for two years.

If Davey was at Geelong he'd be AA easily.

So he's a downhill skiier?

He's a better player than Mackie

Rivers can't even get on the park, let alone outperform Andrew Mackie, who has had a wonderful year.

There's no doubting Rivers was better earlier, but Mackie has gone past him so quickly that Rivers head is still spinning.

 

[davey_magik]

Why? And what relevance would it have to the fact Stokes HAS clearly outperformed Aaron Davey for two years and that Geelong wouldn't change, even if they had the opportunity?

You could get a zillion Bigfooty posters saying that Aaron Davey is the second coming, but it won't change the fact that Mathew Stokes' output is significantly better, and has been for two years.



So he's a downhill skiier?

Davey is a better player and if you can't see that you're blinded by bias. Downhill skiier? In the way he plays, yes he is. He's not strong enough to win his own ball. If you put Stokes at Melbourne he would really struggle.

Joel Corey's output has been superior to Judd over the past two years, but whose the better player? The 'output' argument is silly when one team is the best and one is the worst.

Rivers can't even get on the park, let alone outperform Andrew Mackie, who has had a wonderful year.

There's no doubting Rivers was better earlier, but Mackie has gone past him so quickly that Rivers head is still spinning.

Mackie's probably a prime example of how good a player can look in a quality side. Coincidence that he didn't start playing well until Geelong became the best team going around? I think not.

Injury has killed Rivers but if I was picking a team I'd be picking Rivers every single day of the week. If you want to argue Rivers wouldn't make the Geelong team I'd agree with you because his role is taken, but he's a better player than Mackie is.

 

[Exhale You]

Davey is a better player and if you can't see that you're blinded by bias.

Ah, so because i prefer the player who has CLEARLY outperformed the other for years, i'm biased, whilst you're impartial despite selecting the inferior performer who just happens to play for the club you support? Right.

If you put Stokes at Melbourne he would really struggle.

You keep coming up with these hypotheticals that can't be disproven because you realise it's the only way you can attempt to justify your opinion without having to use facts, facts that show you're wrong.

Joel Corey's output has been superior to Judd over the past two years, but whose the better player?

That's an awful example.

Chris Judd was far more proven than Jared Rivers ever was, and thus has a stack of credits in the bank.

The 'output' argument is silly when one team is the best and one is the worst.

Why? Because it reflects poorly on your players?

So many try to discount Geelong players performances based on the fact we're a good side, which is not only short-sighted and simplistic, but unfair.

Of course playing in a great team can help one's individual performance, but to totally discount one's performance simply because they play for a great team is doing a disservice to the player.

Coincidence that he didn't start playing well until Geelong became the best team going around? I think not.

And of course it had nothing at all to do with the fact that Mackie matured physically and was also moved to his most suitable position. Right?

If you want to argue Rivers wouldn't make the Geelong team I'd agree with you because his role is taken, but he's a better player than Mackie is.

Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it any more true.

Jared Rivers was better than Andrew Mackie, but under no circumstances could anyone legitimately argue that he is better now.

 

[JUBJUB]

So many try to discount Geelong players performances based on the fact we're a good side, which is not only short-sighted and simplistic, but unfair.

You're a slower learner Exhale.Surely by now you know all our players are shithouse and they only look good because they're playing in a good team.

If only we had superstar players like the Lemons have we might win one of those woodenspoons.

 

[whoknows]

You're a slower learner Exhale.Surely by now you know all our players are shithouse and they only look good because they're playing in a good team.

If only we had superstar players like the Lemons have we might win one of those woodenspoons.

Aye JubJub, when will people learn:

A champion team of unmitigated hacks will beat a team of champions any day. Geelong are the best 'team' going around. This has nothing to do that every single one of their players is VFL reserves-grade at best. It's their magical 'team-ness' that wins premierships.

Lucky we had such a 'good team' that we can afford to recruit and play 21 unaccountable hacks + Gary Ablett. Pathetic downhill skiers the lot of them.

Harley and Mackie couldn't find men at a gay bar. Mooney never takes the best backman. Scarlett doesn't take the best forward. Stokes is allowed to play as a free man in our forward line. Blake only wins hit-outs because he's playing for Geelong. Prismall would be a much worse kick if he was playing for North Melbourne. Selwood's disposal efficiency is that of a 21 year old's (& wouldn't dare put his head over the ball at another club). Bartel is a receiver. Kelly can't tackle. Lonergan's gutless. Milburn's a thug.

I have NO IDEA how we won a premiership. But thank God we did somehow.

 

[whoknows]

Injury has killed Rivers but if I was picking a team I'd be picking Rivers every single day of the week.

If you want to argue Rivers wouldn't make the Geelong team I'd agree with you because his role is taken, but he's a better player than Mackie is.

Wonderful logic. You could be one of the great minds of our time.

Have you considered attempting any of the Millenium Prize problems?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems



(As you can see, the (Navier)Davey-Stokes problem has long been recognised as one of the more difficult theories, but I think you may be up for it, especially after solving the Mackie-Rivers argument. The Hodge conjecture is also interesting: If a number 1 draft pick gets 30 posessions on a half-back flank, do they count for anything?)

 

[Ablettttttt!]

Davey is a better player and if you can't see that you're blinded by bias. Downhill skiier? In the way he plays, yes he is. He's not strong enough to win his own ball. If you put Stokes at Melbourne he would really struggle.

Joel Corey's output has been superior to Judd over the past two years, but whose the better player? The 'output' argument is silly when one team is the best and one is the worst.



Mackie's probably a prime example of how good a player can look in a quality side. Coincidence that he didn't start playing well until Geelong became the best team going around? I think not.

Injury has killed Rivers but if I was picking a team I'd be picking Rivers every single day of the week. If you want to argue Rivers wouldn't make the Geelong team I'd agree with you because his role is taken, but he's a better player than Mackie is.

Does the same go for Gary Ablett, jimmy Bartel, Cameron Ling and the multitude of other AA's we had last year who had the best seasons of their careers when we "became the best team going around." Maybe Mackie's outstanding season was one of the main reasons for Geelong's dominance?
Your argument of "he's better than him just cos" isn't very convincing considering they have both had better seasons than the other for the past two years.

 

[Brasil2007]

Matthew Stokes has had an outstanding year, he has been one of the better small forwards in the competition this year and was selected for the Dream Team. I think saying people would take davey over him in a heartbeat is a bit of a stretch. He's definitely not as flashy as Davey but he's extremely good.

Stokes is streets ahead on form this year and last and will be considered for AA. Davey has had one or two games where he has looked ok but that is it. Stokes can play anywhere on the ground and both inside and outside.

Mackie is a cert for AA. He can take a man if he has to (he's played on Buddy before) but why would he? His role is to deliver the ball forward.

Kelly is incredibly underrated and would be the #1 or #2 midfielder at most clubs.

Can't be bothered talking about the rest.