Rumour 2023 Rumours and Speculation (Rumours total 37!, 1 (busted) BIG FISH ALERT last October 9th) (9 confirmed! 17 Busted!)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quite an important player though. Part of the squad that you need to win premierships. He can come in and do a job. Unlike Port who don't have any depth at all.

He is of no importance. A second round draft pick in their second year can provide output not dissimilar. Continually returning to these career fringe players stunts our potential. We should be playing kids with potential instead of known fringe dwellers when injury/poor form opportunity presents. But we don’t, it’s always back to the perennial plodders to bring their stock standard and Uber reliable but impactless 3/10 game.
 
Story on the Melbourne board that he can't look after his own house, doesn't mow the lawn. And team officials have to come round to do housekeeping
So a typical 20s young lad with money to burn
 
Not sure if we're watching the same game, but every game I saw McAdam play this year he chased, tackled and bumped as hard as anyone.

I'm not sure Gollant is the McAdam replacement, he's more the fog backup. I don't mind Gollant but to be the McAdam replacement be needs a level up in football IQ.
I'm not suggesting Gollant is a simple swap for McAdam. They are different players I agree with you. And I'll also concede that McAdam has improved his defensive game.

What I am saying is that Gollant improves our forward line because of his work ethic compared to McAdam. Defensively, that's advantage Gollant. Offensively, the stronger work ethic not only improves his own effectiveness as a forward, but also the other forwards by providing more space created by wider and longer leads. Shane always looked happiest when someone kicked it to him. Or a pack which he invariably interfered with. It looks flashy but I question it's overall effectiveness.

Lastly, without checking the data, has Gollant even played ten games yet. Is Worrell "more experienced"? There's so much growth that is yet to be revealed.

Time will tell but for now, I think McAdam will not be missed much. And in Gollant, we have a young talent who deserves a prolonged shot as much as anyone outside the 22.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Story on the Melbourne board that he can't look after his own house, doesn't mow the lawn. And team officials have to come round to do housekeeping
Crazy stuff..jims mowing could sort the lawns etc out for a couple of hundred bucks out of his $10k a week after tax income. A cleaner costing not much more could take care of the inside for him..and he would still have close to $10k per week left
 
You mean in the media only?

It was well known within clubland and even outside by many. The surprising thing is we supposedly went hard for him at one point obviously with full knowledge of his off field issues including fragile mental health if reports are to be believed.
If there was media and fan pressure to get rid of him, rather than hidden internal discussions, maybe we could have benefitted
 
I'm not suggesting Gollant is a simple swap for McAdam. They are different players I agree with you. And I'll also concede that McAdam has improved his defensive game.

What I am saying is that Gollant improves our forward line because of his work ethic compared to McAdam. Defensively, that's advantage Gollant. Offensively, the stronger work ethic not only improves his own effectiveness as a forward, but also the other forwards by providing more space created by wider and longer leads. Shane always looked happiest when someone kicked it to him. Or a pack which he invariably interfered with. It looks flashy but I question it's overall effectiveness.

Lastly, without checking the data, has Gollant even played ten games yet. Is Worrell "more experienced"? There's so much growth that is yet to be revealed.

Time will tell but for now, I think McAdam will not be missed much. And in Gollant, we have a young talent who deserves a prolonged shot as much as anyone outside the 22.
You think Gollant has a stronger work ethic in the forward line than McAdam?

This is just not true.
 
It clearly isn’t. McAdams defensive efforts are understated by some on here, averaged more tackles, inside 50 tackles and one percenters than Murphy
People that think Gollant is the natural replacement for McAdam just haven't watched either player play live.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20231021_115311_AFL.jpg
    Screenshot_20231021_115311_AFL.jpg
    199.7 KB · Views: 61
  • Screenshot_20231021_115245_AFL.jpg
    Screenshot_20231021_115245_AFL.jpg
    202 KB · Views: 61
It clearly isn’t. McAdams defensive efforts are understated by some on here, averaged more tackles, inside 50 tackles and one percenters than Murphy

It's pretty surprising to learn Murphy is only +20% in pressure acts vs McAdam but is -50% in scoring shots and roughly similar for score involvements.

Basically his lack of scoring is not compensated for with defensive work
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It's pretty surprising to learn Murphy is only +20% in pressure acts vs McAdam but is -50% in scoring shots and roughly similar for score involvements.

Basically his lack of scoring is not compensated for with defensive work
McAdam conversion is elite as well, which means he must be respected by the opposition. The opposition is always right next to him when the ball gets turned over, so hes not looking like he's running all day like Murphy, who the oppo don't respect. This is why he's tackle numbers are higher than Murphy who runs to chase but doesn't really get close enough to tackle.
 
It's pretty surprising to learn Murphy is only +20% in pressure acts vs McAdam but is -50% in scoring shots and roughly similar for score involvements.

Basically his lack of scoring is not compensated for with defensive work
Murphy tends to leave the forward 50 more than McAdam, so doesn't usually get the opportunity to have a ping at goal like McAdam.

What is slightly worrying though is because he plays a bit higher up the ground he's 3rd for average Inside 50's per game in the team, but 11th for Goal Assists and 12th for Score Involvements, which would indicate he's not generating a ton of immediate offense when he does get the ball and is delivering it inside 50.
 
Murphy tends to leave the forward 50 more than McAdam, so doesn't usually get the opportunity to have a ping at goal like McAdam.

What is slightly worrying though is because he plays a bit higher up the ground he's 3rd for average Inside 50's per game in the team, but 11th for Goal Assists and 12th for Score Involvements, which would indicate he's not generating a ton of immediate offense when he does get the ball and is delivering it inside 50.
Shocker
 
Gollant is overrated imo. Good at lots of things. Great at not much.
Gollant screams the classic "3rd best forward" which McAdam was too, but the obvious difference is Gollant is more of the same compared to what McAdam offered.

On your magnet board it's an easy swap, but the attributes they bring are what set them apart for us.
 
He is of no importance. A second round draft pick in their second year can provide output not dissimilar. Continually returning to these career fringe players stunts our potential. We should be playing kids with potential instead of known fringe dwellers when injury/poor form opportunity presents. But we don’t, it’s always back to the perennial plodders to bring their stock standard and Uber reliable but impactless 3/10 game.
Yet surprisingly, over the last three years our sub-50 game players have played more AFL (25% more than the next highest) than any of the other 17 teams. We are also number one for the least games played by 100+ game players.
 
Yet surprisingly, over the last three years our sub-50 game players have played more AFL (25% more than the next highest) than any of the other 17 teams. We are also number one for the least games played by 100+ game players.

I don’t find it surprising

maybe surprising from those who keep pushing out the narrative that Nicks should go and he is not investing in youth

we are still very young in age and games, and the fact that we are in a position to challenge next year for finals given our list profile should be recognised


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
I don’t find it surprising

maybe surprising from those who keep pushing out the narrative that Nicks should go and he is not investing in youth
This lie cant continue - I wish people would stop spouting it

Its not the investing in youth we are concerned about its the over investing in senior players .

Cook was the prime example - 1 game where he performed adequately for the side and is replaced by Soligo as sub until Sloane took the spot - why wasnt Rory dropped ?

And then the usual cry hypocrisy when we complain about that - ''youf for youf '

And thats BS as well
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top