Past #20: Drew Petrie - NM '01-'16 (324gms/428gls) - WCE '17 (8gms/16gls) - thx for everything Drew

[Grendel]

Let me say, I don't he is a CHB at all.

But, I thought was pretty good against Brown. I thought he was very good early when the game was semi-hot, and did much better than i expected in some one on ones. Of course, when they got on top he was in trouble.

Physically, he simply couldn't go with Reevoldt.

Don't mean to suggest a permanent move down back. But four/five weeks (decent run) to just free him up a bit. Get his hands back maybe and see if it goes from there?

To be honest reading through this I thought intially it was just a bit of a trough but the way you blokes are talking it seems like it's a really REALLY deep slump or am I reading it wrong?

Btw whats wrong with my MONSTAA (a.k.a N.Thompson) injury? Thigh, groin? Seriously want for him to do well.

 

[Mr Reliable]

For what its worth id strip Drew of the DVC, on a temporary basis, too much pressure on the kid i reckon, give it to someone like rawlings or harris and let drew just run around and get his hands on the ball for port melbourne, we know what hes capable of but i just dont think he can handle the pressure of the job...

thoughts?

Try everything at least for a half a game before stripping him of a leadership position, including (1) a run in the ruck (let Hale contest the centre bounces and then run forward or back while Drew gallops around the ground), (2) a stint at CHB or in the back pocket on suitable tall opponents- obviously not against a gun CHF like Riewoldt or Brown (3) a stint playing for Port where we can all enjoy the same discussion about what position he should play.

In regard to (2) can you imagine the coach saying: "Drew we want you to get your confidence back so we're playing you behind the ball today on Nick Riewoldt. Oh and next week you'll pick up Tarrant, then Jono Brown and finally you can have a crack at Fevola. Now how's that sound?"

 

[Wrath]

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but could it be possible that Drew Petrie is actually playing to his potential. What l mean by this is that what happens alot in football is that players have an outstanding year for whatever reason, but then never recapture that form. The reason they never re-capture is because they played way above themselves for that year.

l havent decided yet which way Drew is headed, but it does make some degree of sense. He has only had one good year, 2002 and prior and since hasnt done much at all in comparison.

Maybe we all expect far too much from Drew based on what he showed us 2002, the club included.

In answer to the original question, l wouldnt strip him of the DVC this year, assess it at years end and if others step up, then pass the baton over.

Food for thought.

Wrath

 

[Z_K]

Valid quesion Wrath, but I don't agree.

I think he has genuine ability. His year in 2003 was good, but his numbers for that year didn't make 2004 look completely stupid. It wasn't as prolific, and because it he was expected to improve it looked like a terrible year. He was playing without Sav for 13 rounds, which made him the definate no.1 forward option. He is not, nor ever will be good enough to perform every week against the best.

 

[Event Horizon]

Wrath, if you're proven correct over time, then it would have been a huge oversight by Laidley to name him a DVC after just one good year.

 

[Darky]

Let me say, I don't he is a CHB at all.

But, I thought was pretty good against Brown. I thought he was very good early when the game was semi-hot, and did much better than i expected in some one on ones. Of course, when they got on top he was in trouble.

Physically, he simply couldn't go with Reevoldt.

Many of the better CHFs of the modern age have spent a year or two at CHB. Carey, Loewe, Grant, Kernahan, Stoneham, Schwarz...

Maybe just the odd game, or as a pre-season thing (should have been tried IMHO) but I reckon he'd learn a lot more about reading the play from being beaten by Riewoldt or Tredrea, than he would by watching Simmo, Brady etc kick it to anywhere but on his chest.

Poor bastard probably drops ones he should take because he's surprised they actually get to him.

 

[Darky]

To be honest reading through this I thought intially it was just a bit of a trough but the way you blokes are talking it seems like it's a really REALLY deep slump or am I reading it wrong?

No his stocks are set to rise. Can we interest you in a portion of our sponsorship of the big red #20?

 

[Angus1]

Deputy Vice Captain. You think that is pressure???? No way, just playing at CHF is more pressure then a DVC will ever feel.

Port Melbourne to learn the basics again.

 

[Harry Potter #4]

He should be dropped in the reserves!!!

Play David Hale, Hamish McIntosh, Chad Jones or Brad Moran in the forward pocket.

 

[ARDENSTREETforever]

Drew Petrie.
Where is he at???

Well he'll probably 'earn' another game next week as Corey is out
Drew was nothing short of a pathetic excuse for a ruckman, constantly being flogged by Minson and co.

He was bagged, by the entire NM members wing all game.

I was into him all night, and when he missed a bloody simple shot at goal in that 2nd term directly infront... well, i nearly walked out... Then in the 3rd term when a WB player had a shot for goal, Pretrie decides to mark the ball on the goal line, but instead didn't get a touch on it, and another goal to the Dogs.... Then he just trots back to the ruck, head down, as if nothing has happened!!!

Next week:
In: McIntosh, Baird.
Out: Petrie, Pratt.

 

[Glory Days]

He has to be dropped this week, there is no excuse for playing him again, NONE.

 

[1997LeadGoalKicker]

Hi all,

Just wonderng if anybody else has the same reservations about Drew Petrie that I have? It would seem to me that had he not been promoted to the leadership team, his form in the last few years (excluding last Sunday's game against Richmond) would have had him dropped several times. Was Dean Laidley hoping to emulate Denis Pagan's masterstroke of promoting W. Carey to leadership duties in his early 20's? In my opinion, Laidley have been better served by having Troy Makepeace in the leadership team just on consistency and toughness alone?

Cheers

 

[Daveo Plonk]

I personally think this "official leadership group" stuff is a load of tosh. We should have a Captain and a Deputy (in case the Skip is injured/suspended/dropped), and that's that. Other "leaders" should show their wares by leading, gaining respect of their team and coach. They would then be in line for promotion later on. Leaders lead. Members of large "leadership groups" are, well, members of large "leadership groups."

 

[Devil Fish]

I personally think this "official leadership group" stuff is a load of tosh. We should have a Captain and a Deputy (in case the Skip is injured/suspended/dropped), and that's that. Other "leaders" should show their wares by leading, gaining respect of their team and coach. They would then be in line for promotion later on. Leaders lead. Members of large "leadership groups" are, well, members of large "leadership groups."

Daveo Plonk, never a truer word spoken in jest. Captain, Vice Captain & Deputy Vice Captain worked for 100 years (although I'm not sure how long Deputy Vice Captains have been common place) & now we have `leadership groups'. Grant Thomas has a glow in his eye when he discusses this which is no surprise as he is also the inventor of rotating captains which unfortunately seems to be catching on eg. the Swans. Will there come a time when 4-5 players accept the premiership trophy on the dias with the coach?

 

[Rooboy 96]

Hi all,

Just wonderng if anybody else has the same reservations about Drew Petrie that I have? It would seem to me that had he not been promoted to the leadership team, his form in the last few years (excluding last Sunday's game against Richmond) would have had him dropped several times. Was Dean Laidley hoping to emulate Denis Pagan's masterstroke of promoting W. Carey to leadership duties in his early 20's? In my opinion, Laidley have been better served by having Troy Makepeace in the leadership team just on consistency and toughness alone?

Cheers

first Watt now Petrie... crikey if people want to have a go... please at least wait til the guys play poorly the week before...

btw welcome to the board...

 

[mav-1]

Daveo Plonk, never a truer word spoken in jest. Captain, Vice Captain & Deputy Vice Captain worked for 100 years (although I'm not sure how long Deputy Vice Captains have been common place) & now we have `leadership groups'. Grant Thomas has a glow in his eye when he discusses this which is no surprise as he is also the inventor of rotating captains which unfortunately seems to be catching on eg. the Swans. Will there come a time when 4-5 players accept the premiership trophy on the dias with the coach?

I don't see any problem in having a leadership group. When you have a list of 40 players, a captain and his vice are going to need a little help. Guess its a bit like the Aussie cricket team where every batsmen took a bowler under his wing. A little bit the same!

As for Grant Thomas inventing the rotating captain, I think he stole the idea from Ric Charlsworth who did the same thing with the womens hockey team. And this team and coach was one of the most successful Aussie teams of all time, in any sport. Ric is a master at getting the best out of players and a lot can be learnt from him. That said, I know he spent time at the Dockers but not sure if he still there. Just goes to show, not even the might Ric Charlesworth could help the fragil boys of freo.

 

[Daveo Plonk]

I don't see any problem in having a leadership group. When you have a list of 40 players, a captain and his vice are going to need a little help.

I've got no problem with having a leadership group, but this should develop organically. Making it an "official" group, doesn't improve their leadership, and quite probably prevents others with potential from strutting their stuff. Add to this the possibility of added pressure on out-of-touch players (ala, Petrie), and it's neutral at best, counter-productive at worst. I.e., NO NET GAIN.

 

[Devil Fish]

I've got no problem with having a leadership group, but this should develop organically. Making it an "official" group, doesn't improve their leadership, and quite probably prevents others with potential from strutting their stuff. Add to this the possibility of added pressure on out-of-touch players (ala, Petrie), and it's neutral at best, counter-productive at worst. I.e., NO NET GAIN.

Spot on again Daveo Plonk. No matter what sporting club you're at, a leadership group `develops' on its own. Do you think Al Pacino was nominated as a leader in Scarface?

 

[mav-1]

I've got no problem with having a leadership group, but this should develop organically. Making it an "official" group, doesn't improve their leadership, and quite probably prevents others with potential from strutting their stuff. Add to this the possibility of added pressure on out-of-touch players (ala, Petrie), and it's neutral at best, counter-productive at worst. I.e., NO NET GAIN.

But this is the exact reason why Drew was given the role, because he was displaying leadership around the club.

These are just 23 year olds that need to learn leadership and that is why they are given an "official" title once they display potential. As for preventing others displaying any leadership, that is just pure BS.

Tell me, as I'm not 100% sure, was Drew out of touch when given his role? Maybe the added pressure did affect his game, but if he can learn to deal with that pressure and play good footy (which he is well on the way to doing) then in the long run he will be better for it. NET GAIN = +'ve

Don't forget he is a deputy vice and his efforts on and off the field have been a great example to the other young players. Keep working hard, puting in 100% no matter what else is happening.

Boy some of you are so fn harsh.

 

[Ghostwriter]

Btw who was our leading goalkicker in 1997?

 

[Darky]

Btw who was our leading goalkicker in 1997?

Brett Allison.

I thought Drew should have probably been dropped 3-4 weeks ago... absolute rock bottom... the ONE week I couldn't justify him playing seniors he was retained, was good, and has been good since.

Leaving him in the ruck has been good for him. Getting his hands on the ball, and as we saw on Sunday in-close he is special for his hardness and his attack on the ball and man. He's had a month of "good solid games", so hopefully he can build on that, and continue on to something more attacking.

 

[Pres]

Brett Allison.

I thought Drew should have probably been dropped 3-4 weeks ago... absolute rock bottom... the ONE week I couldn't justify him playing seniors he was retained, was good, and has been good since.

Leaving him in the ruck has been good for him. Getting his hands on the ball, and as we saw on Sunday in-close he is special for his hardness and his attack on the ball and man. He's had a month of "good solid games", so hopefully he can build on that, and continue on to something more attacking.

I still don't see what his long term role is. Surely he won't be able to cut in consistently in the Ruck against the likes of White, Gardiner etc. That either leaves CHF where he's struggled at for a full 2 years now and the Leroy Brown spare parts role.

 

[benno87]

I know everyone is spewing about the result. But looking at the numbers I couldn't believe I saw someone with double figure tackles. Petrie needs to work on hisk icking, we all know this, but jeez defensivley for a man his size he tackles hard.

The next highest was 5 by Mattner and Corey Jones for the entire match.

 

[Borak]

Tackles this season
Adam simpson = 52 = 53 (1 tackle this game)
Daniel Harris = 48 = 52
Michael Firrito = 50 = 50
Drew Petrie = 39 = 49
Glen Archer = 44 = 46
Corey Jones = 36 = 41
Jess Sinclair = 35 = 37

 

[Tas]

I wasn't even remotely happy with his game, 10 tackles or 100 tackles he is not doing what he is meant to be doing and that is be a ruckman.

If he is playing the role of a tagger and he gets 10 tackles then that is a good effort.

But he is not. He should have 10 marks, at least half contested and 3 tackles. Not 3 marks and 10 tackles. He should have the ability to at least break even with second rate ruckman. Biglands and Hudson are not what I would call a premier ruck division but he just didn't contest all that well today.

They would have generated at least 5 of their goals from uncontested tap outs that were spoon fed to their midfielders.

Harris, Simpson and Harvey may be good footballers, they just don't have a hope in hell when they get so much first use of the ball.

If he doesn't start to show the ability of being able to win in his allocated position I struggle to see him having a spot in our side in a few years time. It is a pity because he is a great guy.