Preview AFL Round 19 - North Melbourne v Geelong, Etihad Stadium, 7:40PM Saturday 2 August

[cynical]

Sadly, the 2 giants are not really fit even now, and early on this season they were supporting each other, almost 2 for 1, while Blic stayed on as well, or was the sub. Now, nearing September, they probably do have to make choices.
My issue is, I don't see HMc as the backup option, in preference to DS, for Blicavs, but isn't it interesting that Blicavs has become the fixed option in that trio.

HMac should be playing finals because he is the most experienced.

Simpson just isn't fit enough to play back to back finals and Blicavs is a weak ruck and poor in high pressure games.

Horses for courses is the best option I think, I certainly would rather a fresh Simpson with HMac as no2 vs Freo and I think Hmacs ability to go forward vs Hawthorns small backs is also useful.

 

[JUBJUB]

Simpson just isn't fit enough to play back to back finals and Blicavs is a weak ruck and poor in high pressure games.

Still on your Blitz bashing

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

it's a north home game and they are coming off a putrid loss to carlton

North had that putrid loss at the same venue, when a win would have put the Roos right in the mix for top four contention. The players have not really had the blowtorch turned on them, like they have after other losses this year (partly because several other heavy favourites had worse losses between North's last game and now) and people are just sort of expecting them to come good, because that's what they've tended to do after a bad loss.

our poor clearance work means we only thrash the weakest teams

When was the last time we had Johnson, Caddy, Christensen and Stokes all in the same team and all in pretty good form? Hint: they've played together once this year and in that game, Stokes was subbed out with an ankle injury so severe that he's still listed as being 2-3 weeks away on the AFL website, despite playing in our last game.

even with a pretty much full list we just aren't that good

B: Enright, Lonergan, Rivers
HB: Mackie, Taylor, Kelly
C: Motlop, Selwood, Johnson
HF: Bartel, Kersten, Duncan
F: Murdoch, Hawkins, Christensen
R: McIntosh, Stokes, Guthrie
I/C: Horlin-Smith, Caddy, Blicavs, Varcoe
E: Simpson, Bews, McCarthy

Can't say I see too much wrong with that lineup. Why shouldn't that team be able to knock off anyone, including the team below?

B: Firrito, Thompson, Wright
HB: Atley, Hansen, Dal Santo
C: Anthony, Swallow, Greenwood
HF: Harvey, Brown, Ziebell
F: Thomas, Petrie, McKenzie
R: Goldstein, Cunnington, Gibson
I/C: McDonald, Jacobs, Daw, Bastinac
E: Adams, Black, Dumont

 

[FredLeDeux]

Blicavs is a weak ruck.

You need to keep up to date, not live in the past in your early snap-decision (no good, therefore never going to be any good) world.

Blicavs is poor in high pressure games.

Must be another Blicavs. You need to keep up to date.... etc, etc.

 

[FoolCat]

The club is a bit iffy when it comes to 250ths. Maybe Kelly will get the green vest to really ram home the importance of the occasion?

Not a bad idea that. It will give the team a huge rev up when he finally takes it off and runs onto the ground with the crowd cheering.

 

[caitsith01]

Blicavs is a weak ruck and poor in high pressure games

Blitz isn't a ruck at all, he's a tall flanker who can compete at ruck contests if necessary.

 

[caitsith01]

Got a gut feeling we're going to come out on Saturday night and make a statement and lead all night and win by about 8-10 goals.

Wow, really? The only teams we've beaten by those sorts of margins this year are West Coast, Melbourne and St Kilda, who are all floundering.

North coming off a loss, Geelong is very modest form... this will be tight.

 

[Partridge]

Dawson is just not fit enough and giving enough around the ground atm, we get almost nothing out of him after the ruck contest, and it forces us to have HMac at CHF which is worse for our structure than a 2nd key forward, and we can't not have Hamish in the side as Simpson isn't fit enough to ruck a whole game on his own. So one ruck plus Blitz is a better structure for us.

Two different arguments as I see it:

1. If Simpson isn't fit enough, then I have big questions for the club. Namely, what the hell do they do with him over pre-season and now? There's no excuse for not being able to run out a game. Not for anyone.

2. Overall you could definitely say McIntosh does more; but not in the last game. McIntosh hasn't played up forward for a fair while now, not since Kersten has come in anyway.

Of all our 3 ruckmen, only McIntosh (when playing well) really offers a presence around the ground. The other two just don't. Neither are indispensable, but it comes to down to hitouts (Simpson) v extra disposals (Blicavs). That's pretty much it.

 

[Partridge]

You need to keep up to date, not live in the past in your early snap-decision (no good, therefore never going to be any good) world.

The statement was "Blicavs is a weak ruck". He averages 6.8 hitouts per game this season. You tell me any other ruckman, any other player, that would not be criticised for that kind of output.

Must be another Blicavs. You need to keep up to date.... etc, etc.

The Qualifying and Prelim finals last year offered extremely compelling evidence for his argument. We'll find out in just over a month how much has changed (although the Fremantle and Hawthorn games will help too).

 

[FredLeDeux]

The statement was "Blicavs is a weak ruck". He averages 6.8 hitouts per game this season. You tell me any other ruckman, any other player, that would not be criticised for that kind of output.



The Qualifying and Prelim finals last year offered extremely compelling evidence for his argument. We'll find out in just over a month how much has changed (although the Fremantle and Hawthorn games will help too).

The point I was making is that he has steadily improved throughout the season in both respects, and that neither statement is true now. The poster's comments were obviously based on conclusions based on early observations, which have become personal biases set in concrete, unshaken and unmoved by changes in circumstances and facts.
He is now a more than useful 2nd/3rd ruckman, and has been ever since the season's half-way mark (whenever he has been played as such), especially at boundary throw-ins and as 3rd man up, which is a matter of simple observation.
His season-long ruck stats (and last season's) are no longer relevant, first because of this improvement, and secondly because they include games where he simply didn't ruck at all.
The suggestion that he's poor under pressure may have been true last season, in a couple of finals, in his 20th game or thereabouts. As a matter, again, of simple observation, it is demonstrably untrue now. His coolness under pressure is a marked feature of his play, especially in the context of his inexperience. He ain't perfect, but he's better in this respect that many, many sub-40 gamers.

 

[MotleyLemon]

Thought we were going to lose handily for the last couple of weeks, but now I realise it's Pop's 250th, reckon we'll likely get up by 5 or 6 goals...

Otherwise I would lock this in as a loss.

 

[Stig_90]

Blicavs has been exceptionally good under pressure and I think that's what the coaches love about him. There's often been times this season where he's been tackled and looked gone and cooly gotten off a handball to a teammate. I love him in the team as a roaming wing/utility.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

The point I was making is that he has steadily improved throughout the season in both respects, and that neither statement is true now. The poster's comments were obviously based on conclusions based on early observations, which have become personal biases set in concrete, unshaken and unmoved by changes in circumstances and facts.
He is now a more than useful 2nd/3rd ruckman, and has been ever since the season's half-way mark (whenever he has been played as such), especially at boundary throw-ins and as 3rd man up, which is a matter of simple observation.
His season-long ruck stats (and last season's) are no longer relevant, first because of this improvement, and secondly because they include games where he simply didn't ruck at all.
The suggestion that he's poor under pressure may have been true last season, in a couple of finals, in his 20th game or thereabouts. As a matter, again, of simple observation, it is demonstrably untrue now. His coolness under pressure is a marked feature of his play, especially in the context of his inexperience. He ain't perfect, but he's better in this respect that many, many sub-40 gamers.

I agree with all of this. I have been reasonably skeptical of Blicavs previously (in particular last season), but I feel like he is developing nicely and his ruckwork is getting better. He's also shown a bit in defence and could be a long-term option to fill the Mackie role in the future. Really, I like all three of our ruckmen, but I don't think we can/should fit all three into the senior team and it should only be considered if there's exceptional circumstances (i.e. playing against Sandilands), mainly because Simpson doesn't have enough strings to his bow. As the interchange cap becomes more and more restrictive, I'd like to see Blicavs and Simpson drop back across half back when they are obliged to be on the ground, but not as the ruckman, while McIntosh should go forward. On this season's efforts, I'm not as confident in Simpson covering the ground well enough, but he looked surprisingly mobile and a good marking target last year, so there's still hope.

 

[vinum coupe]

If Blicavs kicked the ball more. There'd be no argument.
He is a far better kick than Simpson or HMac.

Anyone can handball 3m.
But, he is there because of flexibility.

 

[Teriyakicat]

Blicavs has been exceptionally good under pressure and I think that's what the coaches love about him. There's often been times this season where he's been tackled and looked gone and cooly gotten off a handball to a teammate. I love him in the team as a roaming wing/utility.

Blicavs looked pretty cool last year in the packs when he hadn't played his first 20 games, too, Stig. Apart from one huge 'deer in the headlights' moment, I thought he was very good at standing up in a tackle and getting the ball out to the best option most of the time.

 

[caitsith01]

Is there any evidence whatsoever that "milestone" games make any difference?

Are people seriously suggesting that the players normally take it easy, but then if it's a milestone game they suddenly start trying?

 

[FredLeDeux]

Are people seriously suggesting that the players normally take it easy, but then if it's a milestone game they suddenly start trying?

There are other possible and plausible alternatives in between your two rhetorical extremes.
That's why this is an example of the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.

 

[JUBJUB]

The Qualifying and Prelim finals last year offered extremely compelling evidence for his argument.

FFS it was his first season
You,cynical & VC really are a bunch of DQ's

 

[vinum coupe]

FFS it was his first season
You,cynical & VC really are a bunch of DQ's

huh? What am I a DQ over?

 

[rickster]

Bloody hell.
A 14 year old poster.

Long-time listener, infrequent poster. Keep up the good work

 

[Teriyakicat]

There are other possible and plausible alternatives in between your two rhetorical extremes.
That's why this is an example of the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.

Damn! I hate lawyer speak! Now I'm going to have to look that up, Fred

 

[FredLeDeux]

Damn! I hate lawyer speak! Now I'm going to have to look that up, Fred

It simply means that it's wrong to say or imply that something must be either this or that when there are other reasonable possibilities in between.

 

[caitsith01]

There are other possible and plausible alternatives in between your two rhetorical extremes.
That's why this is an example of the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.

No there aren't, and no it isn't.

Either the players play better in milestone games or they don't.

If they players play better in milestone games, by definition they are playing worse in other games. There is no 'middle ground'.

 

[manboob]

There are other possible and plausible alternatives in between your two rhetorical extremes.
That's why this is an example of the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.

Take it elsewhere poindexter!

 

[caitsith01]

It simply means that it's wrong to say or imply that something must be either this or that when there are other reasonable possibilities in between.

What's the in between possibility - that they play better in milestone games but don't play worse in other games?

It's a binary proposition.