Barometers for 2011, Who do you think will be the keys

[_RT_]

I personally see numerous amounts of stats that are provided in regards to football and are wrapped that opinions aren't solely judged upon stats as I think stats can be extremely mis-leading , if you'd like to gain peoples opinion on who they think are the better ball users, tuck & jackson or martin&cotchin , perhaps you should start a poll ?

If Cotchin and Martin are such good ball users why are the DE% numbers equal to or lower than supposed poor ball users? That was the question I asked, which you ignored, much like you did earlier in the thread. Any chance of you answering it anytime soon?

 

[El Tigre]

Alot of talk of Tuck and Jacko...
At the end of the day, these are our 'only' 90+kg midfielders
And Jacko has the added ability to run with the play better than any other player we have on our list.
i think you can add Martin and Cotchin, whose (both of whose core strength / hip strength are very good)
I would need to say we need to add to this in number, and skill (stating the obvious), especially as we are likely to "lose" Tuck, as he is going to be 30 this year, and he's not the quality player that you would want, even if his body is ok, at 33.
Hopefully Grigg can add a stack more weight, and develop his endurance. That would go along way to making him an automatic 22 selection.
Morton has good strength as well, and he will no doubt be able to add to the strength of the midfield.

Now if you start comparing that to Collingwood, we are probably only 1 midfielder away from physically competing with them, and then comparing to Carlton, we already physically stronger than them (in the midfield, excluding ruck)

I think the issue is more the guys like Nason, Nahas, White, Edwards, who we just can't support that many in the team, at one time. Conca, Hellbig, Batchelor and Taylor have all got some height, are are young(er), so are all yet to fit out.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

If Cotchin and Martin are such good ball users why are the DE% numbers equal to or lower than supposed poor ball users? That was the question I asked, which you ignored, much like you did earlier in the thread. Any chance of you answering it anytime soon?

Unless stats can be obtained from a completely controlled environment I dont believe they can be considered as evidence of ones sole ability !
As I've said before McMahon's DE was always quite high yet was widely regarded as a poor disposer . As was pointed out yesterday by another user , within another thread , Jack Reiwoldt has openingly and frequently admitted Cotchin is the person he would prefer kicking to him , he isn't the only one that view , however as you've pointed out DE stats you have provided prove otherwise !

 

[_RT_]

Unless stats can be obtained from a completely controlled environment I dont believe they can be considered as evidence of ones sole ability !
As I've said before McMahon's DE was always quite high yet was widely regarded as a poor disposer . As was pointed out yesterday by another user , within another thread , Jack Reiwoldt has openingly and frequently admitted Cotchin is the person he would prefer kicking to him , he isn't the only one that view , however as you've pointed out DE stats you have provided prove otherwise !

I would argue that McMahon was regarded as a poor disposer of the ball because when he did turn it over it was usually very costly and therefor remembered. For the most part though when given time and space he would more often than not hit the target hence the higher DE%.

As for Cotchin, if given time and space like he is at training he is for the most part a great looking kick. But playing the role he does, i.e. inside midfielder, he will never get that time and space. Hence my reasoning for wanting to get him on the outside more often.

Another reason I believe that Cotchin and Martin struggle with their disposal while playing inside is because they just don't have the physical strength. I believe that this is because both lack core strength which would allow them to be able to remain somewhat upright while getting a kick away. Go back through the season and watch how many times they kicked as they were being dragged down and then watch how many times it happens to Jackson or Tuck.

Hopefully given time they get stronger through the body, Tuck & Jackson did because when they do they will be much better inside midfielders than they currently are.

 

[CoggaRules]

If Cotchin and Martin are such good ball users why are the DE% numbers equal to or lower than supposed poor ball users? That was the question I asked, which you ignored, much like you did earlier in the thread. Any chance of you answering it anytime soon?

unfortunately RT you are by and large missing the point, when it comes to stats and the points that are irrelevant from them.

Number 1 on the hit parade is the phrase "effective disposals".
Now seeing as you keep bringing them up, can you explain what an effective disposal is please.
You see it most likely equates to a disposal that ends up in a team mates hands, correct?
In my book an effective disposal is a disposal that ends up in a teams mates hands and then in the umps hands at the center bounce, after a goal to us.
This is where all the stats shit goes west in the overall big picture.
Thats why Cotch and Martin rank where they do, i.e. under Tuck and Jacko, because for their % of effective disposals, 90% of that equates to us raiding the goal square. They back their skill and awareness to hold on to the pill until they can get the pill to "the go to man" instead of just the next man they can.
Add to that the % of ineffective disposals that dont equate to the ball being whisked away by the opposition at warp speed, by Tuck and Jacko as opposed to Cotch and Martin and you might then understand what the claws and co of this world are trying to explain
Having said all that, i really cant believe you and others can continue to debate on the pros and cons of Tuck and Jacko vs the pros and cons of a Cotch and Martin on the back of lame numbers that have simple provisos attached to them. I mean, if these stats are anything to go by, "effective disposals", then a Pat bowden would be a legend atm, with the "effective disposals" he provided to his bro.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

I would argue that McMahon was regarded as a poor disposer of the ball because when he did turn it over it was usually very costly and therefor remembered. For the most part though when given time and space he would more often than not hit the target hence the higher DE%.

As for Cotchin, if given time and space like he is at training he is for the most part a great looking kick. But playing the role he does, i.e. inside midfielder, he will never get that time and space. Hence my reasoning for wanting to get him on the outside more often.

Another reason I believe that Cotchin and Martin struggle with their disposal while playing inside is because they just don't have the physical strength. I believe that this is because both lack core strength which would allow them to be able to remain somewhat upright while getting a kick away. Go back through the season and watch how many times they kicked as they were being dragged down and then watch how many times it happens to Jackson or Tuck.

Hopefully given time they get stronger through the body, Tuck & Jackson did because when they do they will be much better inside midfielders than they currently are.

DE % , now lets consider a couple of things that are within that very broad stat that is yet to be broke down.
Can you provide the following breakdown, of effective and ineffective disposals with the following.
State of the game ,0-10 points, 2-5 goals or 5 + difference with us in front or opposition.
Duration within the game broken down to five minutes segments.
Position of possessions, full back line, half back line, midfield, half forward line , full forward line and each of those broken down within the middle 3rd or outside 3rd.
how close was a opponent when giving the disposal.
was the possession gained from a contested possesion or not
if contested did the contest result from a spilt mark , skill error, boundary throw won by which sides ruckman, centre bounce again won by which ruckman,
at a contested situation was it an even balance of players from both sides.
the games played weight and height , by the players who were from their side and the oppsoing side at the contest.
what effort had they player put in before the disposal.
how long had they been on the ground before the disposal.
tackles and sheppards before disposals.
conditions wet/dry breakdown.
ground breakdown. MCG SCG ETC
distance gained directly from disposal.
effectivenes of the following 1,2 and 3 possessions and distances gained

Thats a start, as you can see it's not just as simple as DE % being the sole indication of indentifying someones use of the football. It is a very broad stat that is unable to be controlled or disected enough to be used as the sole indicator of ones ability to use the football !

 

[santa claws]

If Cotchin and Martin are such good ball users why are the DE% numbers equal to or lower than supposed poor ball users? That was the question I asked, which you ignored, much like you did earlier in the thread. Any chance of you answering it anytime soon?

without going into a long winded reply simply put martin is regularly attempting to pull of much harder kicks.
you read the stats how you like but without all relevant info they are not worth two bob.
andrew raines had a high efficiency rating his whole career it did not take into account the number of helicopter kicks that went to a 50/50 that at the least should have gone to a team mates advantage.

or how about the number of sideways disposals that go 20 metres there are lots of variations that make some stats totally irrelevant.

luke mcguane apparently has a good efficiency rating no wonder he doesnt have the confidence or skill to attempt a 50 metre pass that has to travel quickly and dead accurately to a teammate. when he does attempt a long kick it is invariably a 50/50 at best and hes credited with a good kick.
there is no rating for a player stopping and propping and losing a golden opportunity to hit a team mate in the clear or team mates running out of position because of it. which is a regular occurence for jackson . hes an enigma when it comes to kicking can drill a 50 metre pass lace out but miss a teammate in the clear with time on his hands 30 metres away.

as i said to hk if you want to kid yourself and insult everyones intelligence by implying tuck and jackson are better users and thinkers than martin and cotchin because you can throw up some insignificant stat in a way to suit your argument well and good just dont expect too many people to fall for the gobbldygook.

tuck in particular does some very good inside work and is worth a game because of it. his outside work is poor.

oh finally to label cotchin and martin solely inside players is an absolute nonsense. they are such highly rated players and went so early because they are well rounded.

finally on grigg most are talking him up as a big bodied inside player sheesh to me hes more of a running type more outside imo. his fault is hes one sided and has a tendency to run himself into trouble.

 

[HKTiger]

........
as i said to hk if you want to kid yourself and insult everyones intelligence by implying tuck and jackson are better users and thinkers than martin and cotchin because you can throw up some insignificant stat in a way to suit your argument well and good just dont expect too many people to fall for the gobbldygook.
.........

Once again with the baseless and unsupported accusations. Can you actually read. I made no such statement. I just highlighted two disposals that indicate that Tuck can dispose the ball well. No comparison no discussion about type of disposal. No implication. Can you comprehend that. Don't read stuff that isn't there.

Apparently stats are not usable. Neither are actual facts. So I'll ask again what concepts/items/evidence is allowed to be used to have a discussion ? BTW this is the point I've now requested you to answer twice without a response.

All we get is sweeping statements and derision. Selective or what (Hypocrisy) ????

 

[DoItForCaptBlood]

finally on grigg most are talking him up as a big bodied inside player sheesh to me hes more of a running type more outside imo. his fault is hes one sided and has a tendency to run himself into trouble.

I watched over the weekend a few of the high possie games Grigg and Houli had last season and wondered if Grigg can even use his other foot. His natural foot, although accurate and well weighted from what I saw, is not that smooth either, which is odd! Houli had a great game vs the Aints, and then a shocker the very next round.

 

[Rayzorwire]

All of what you are rumbling on about has already been flogged to death and proven , which you are extremely aware of, if you wish for me to remind you pm me . Back to the topic !

What has been proven is that...

a) You feel it's acceptable behaviour to falsely accuse people then not acknowledge your mistake or apologise.

b) You feel it's acceptable behaviour to initiate a discussion then cry like you've been attacked, when it's just been a simple case of several people disagreeing with you after you first disagreed with them.

c) You feel it's acceptable behaviour to outright invent point after point, debate after debate, then when you're conclusively proven wrong, rather than admit it or even try to address the point in some meaningful way, you fire out another dozen ridiculous points of your own and let out your patented hypocritical wail if the other person doesn't address every last one.

d) None of the above does anything to promote worthwhile football discussion in this forum.

e) You'll be watching Tuck, Jackson and Grigg for years to come.

 

[folester41]

we definitely need to upgrade tuck and jackson, but we have plenty of time.

really good big bodied midfielders are hard to find.

 

[_RT_]

Never once have I said that Jackson and Tuck are as good a disposer of the ball as Cotchin and Martin. What I have argued is that they are as effective with the ball as Cotchin and Martin. So what if they don't try and hit up the more dangerous teammate by holding onto the ball. In some cases its better giving the ball off to the first option rather than hanging on to the ball and either getting caught or turning it over because you take slightly too long to get rid of it.

Its interesting when looking at stats like kicks to advantage, goal assists, score assists and score involvements which are areas which you would expect Cotchin and Martin to excel at given their better ball skills they still averaged similar numbers to Tuck and Jackson who are supposedly shockingly skilled.

And yet despite how great Cotchin and Martins disposals look they still averaged similar numbers when it comes to things like skill errors, critical errors, turnovers and kicks directly to opponents which are all stats that Tuck and Jackson constantly get criticised for.

This is what I have been trying to point out all along and that is for all their supposed faults, they aren't nearly as bad as posters on here like to make out.

 

[Rayzorwire]

All of what you are rumbling on about has already been flogged to death and proven , which you are extremely aware of, if you wish for me to remind you pm me . Back to the topic !

What has been proven is that...

a) You feel it's acceptable behaviour to falsely accuse people then not acknowledge your mistake or apologise.

b) You feel it's acceptable behaviour to initiate a discussion then cry like you've been attacked, when it's just been a simple case of several people disagreeing with you after you first disagreed with them.

c) You feel it's acceptable behaviour to outright invent point after point, debate after debate, then when you're conclusively proven wrong, rather than admit it or even try to address the point in some meaningful way, you fire out another dozen ridiculous points of your own and wail if the other person doesn't address every last one.

d) None of the above does anything to promote worthwhile football discussion in this forum.

e) You'll be watching Tuck, Jackson and Grigg for years to come.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Never once have I said that Jackson and Tuck are as good a disposer of the ball as Cotchin and Martin. What I have argued is that they are as effective with the ball as Cotchin and Martin. So what if they don't try and hit up the more dangerous teammate by holding onto the ball. In some cases its better giving the ball off to the first option rather than hanging on to the ball and either getting caught or turning it over because you take slightly too long to get rid of it.

Its interesting when looking at stats like kicks to advantage, goal assists, score assists and score involvements which are areas which you would expect Cotchin and Martin to excel at given their better ball skills they still averaged similar numbers to Tuck and Jackson who are supposedly shockingly skilled.

And yet despite how great Cotchin and Martins disposals look they still averaged similar numbers when it comes to things like skill errors, critical errors, turnovers and kicks directly to opponents which are all stats that Tuck and Jackson constantly get criticised for.

This is what I have been trying to point out all along and that is for all their supposed faults, they aren't nearly as bad as posters on here like to make out.

I appreciate what you are saying RT , however there is way to many variables to make a correct assesment or comparison of a players ability to use the football based solely on stats provided from games !
Within the controlled environment that the draft camp combine offers, these facets are still not considered to be able to be assessed sufficiently !

 

[Rayzorwire]

without going into a long winded reply simply put martin is regularly attempting to pull of much harder kicks.

Right, so despite the fact Jackson averages more I-50's than Martin or Cotchin (Tuck is also ahead of Cotchin), Martin's attempting many more much harder kicks to be efficient at?

Would you care to make an argument that Martin and Cotchin attempt more long kicks than Jackson? Can you guess how that one ends too?

You moan about stats solely because they prove how great the difference between reality and your perceptions are all too often.

 

[santa claws]

Once again with the baseless and unsupported accusations. Can you actually read. I made no such statement. I just highlighted two disposals that indicate that Tuck can dispose the ball well. No comparison no discussion about type of disposal. No implication. Can you comprehend that. Don't read stuff that isn't there.

Apparently stats are not usable. Neither are actual facts. So I'll ask again what concepts/items/evidence is allowed to be used to have a discussion ? BTW this is the point I've now requested you to answer twice without a response.

All we get is sweeping statements and derision. Selective or what (Hypocrisy) ????

and i pointed out just because a player makes two good disposals out of 25 does it make him a good kick. you pointed out 2 disposals and made them sound like hes a really good user of the ball all of the time . and you accuse me of being selective. you wanna talk disposal and decision making how about we talk their entire careers which is what im on about not two poxy possesions..

and damn right you imply just by mentioning tuck and jackson in the same breath as martin and cotchin that they are on a par and not as bad as people think. they are not in the same ball park when it comes to comparing their respective ball skills.

finally stats are not useable not unless they encompass all of the information.
you know as well as i any fool can make a stat suit what ever argument he wishes just by omission.

you want to have a discussion how about we all use just a bit of common sense and not be so precious.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

What has been proven is that...

a) You feel it's acceptable behaviour to falsely accuse people then not acknowledge your mistake or apologise.

b) You feel it's acceptable behaviour to initiate a discussion then cry like you've been attacked, when it's just been a simple case of several people disagreeing with you after you first disagreed with them.

c) You feel it's acceptable behaviour to outright invent point after point, debate after debate, then when you're conclusively proven wrong, rather than admit it or even try to address the point in some meaningful way, you fire out another dozen ridiculous points of your own and wail if the other person doesn't address every last one.

d) None of the above does anything to promote worthwhile football discussion in this forum.

e) You'll be watching Tuck, Jackson and Grigg for years to come.

Firstly to others I apologise if you deem this off topic,
Rayzor, once again you have made an assumption of another due to your own beliefs and in a bid to cover up your own wrong doings you accuse others, you may think your clever but you've picked the wrong target !

You continually are unable to identify the difference between a suggestive comment , opinion and a statement , whilst you also are unable to except others right to a opinion and expression of that upon a public forum.

There is a very good example within the below link and the thread it links to I beleive , in regards Shane Tuck being tried last season off half back .
You may want to keep an open mind on certain assumptions you make ?
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16877567&postcount=17


I'd suggest you consider when posting something or responding to a post you consider whether something is a statement , suggestive or an opinion.

 

[_RT_]

and i pointed out just because a player makes two good disposals out of 25 does it make him a good kick. you pointed out 2 disposals and made them sound like hes a really good user of the ball all of the time . and you accuse me of being selective. you wanna talk disposal and decision making how about we talk their entire careers which is what im on about not two poxy possesions..

I posted the following this morning:

In 2010:
Tuck averaged 25.7 disposals, with 18.2 effective which equates to 68.1% DE.
Jackson averaged 22.3 disposals, with 14.8 effective which equates to 66.3% DE.
Martin averaged 20.5 disposals, with 13.8 effective which equates to 67.3% DE.
Cotchin averaged 20.3 disposals, with 12.8 effective which equates to 63.2% DE.

Its not selective stats where a handful of examples are pulled out its the only season where all 4 have played together and what was the excuse I got in return, something about how Martin attempts to pull of much harder kicks, and how without all the relevant info stats aren't worth 2 bob. Well sorry Claws but when you're looking at an entire season worth of stats they are worth something, because you can't fudge the figures to make things look better or worse than they actually are.

and damn right you imply just by mentioning tuck and jackson in the same breath as martin and cotchin that they are on a par and not as bad as people think. they are not in the same ball park when it comes to comparing their respective ball skills.

Again I've never said they are as good as Cotchin or Martin when it comes to how their disposal looks, what I have argued is that for all their deficiencies they are just as, if not more effective, than what Cotchin and Martin are.

finally stats are not useable not unless they encompass all of the information.
you know as well as i any fool can make a stat suit what ever argument he wishes just by omission.

The stats I posted above as mentioned do cover all relevant information, afterall its the numbers all 4 put up for the 2010 season. No sugar coating, no leaving out things to make things appear better or worse and yet they still get dismissed as being meaningless.

Why is that? Is it because it doesn't show Cotchin and Martin to be that accurate by hand and foot? As I've said I acknowledge that they have probably suffered because they are trying to deliver the footy while also trying to break out of a pack.

Hence the reason for me saying that perhaps its in our best interest to keep guys like Tuck and Jackson in the side so that better disposers of the ball like Cotchin and Martin can get free and use their skills to greater effect.

Interestingly since Deledio moved to the HBF his DE% went from around 67% in 2009 to 72% this year, amazing what can happen when you give your better skilled players a little bit of room to move. Now imagine how much more potency our midfield would have if Cotchin and Martin were also able to make that sort of improvement.

 

[_RT_]

I appreciate what you are saying RT , however there is way to many variables to make a correct assesment or comparison of a players ability to use the football based solely on stats provided from games !

How are there variables, all the players are competing under the same conditions. Oh thats right you want to know when, where, how & why players got their possessions, as well as how close the game was as well. Well given I don't intend spending the 2011 season rewatching the 2010 season so I can give you those stats I'm just going to have to go with what their end of season totals tell me and that is that when it comes to effective disposal of the footy, 'poorly' skilled players like Tuck and Jackson are just as effective if not slightly better than Cotchin and Martin.

Within the controlled environment that the draft camp combine offers, these facets are still not considered to be able to be assessed sufficiently !

Yet when you hear/read every club talk about their picks after the draft you'll invariably hear/read we picked him because his disposal is just elite or at the very worse they'll be described as quite good. Why even bother having a combine then if the results can't be sufficiently assessed?

 

[santa claws]

I posted the following this morning:

Its not selective stats where a handful of examples are pulled out its the only season where all 4 have played together and what was the excuse I got in return, something about how Martin attempts to pull of much harder kicks, and how without all the relevant info stats aren't worth 2 bob. Well sorry Claws but when you're looking at an entire season worth of stats they are worth something, because you can't fudge the figures to make things look better or worse than they actually are.


Again I've never said they are as good as Cotchin or Martin when it comes to how their disposal looks, what I have argued is that for all their deficiencies they are just as, if not more effective, than what Cotchin and Martin are.


The stats I posted above as mentioned do cover all relevant information, afterall its the numbers all 4 put up for the 2010 season. No sugar coating, no leaving out things to make things appear better or worse and yet they still get dismissed as being meaningless.

Why is that? Is it because it doesn't show Cotchin and Martin to be that accurate by hand and foot? As I've said I acknowledge that they have probably suffered because they are trying to deliver the footy while also trying to break out of a pack.

Hence the reason for me saying that perhaps its in our best interest to keep guys like Tuck and Jackson in the side so that better disposers of the ball like Cotchin and Martin can get free and use their skills to greater effect.

Interestingly since Deledio moved to the HBF his DE% went from around 67% in 2009 to 72% this year, amazing what can happen when you give your better skilled players a little bit of room to move. Now imagine how much more potency our midfield would have if Cotchin and Martin were also able to make that sort of improvement.

im sorry RT we arent usually that far apart on most things which even i begrudgingly admit. but on the stats thing we are miles apart.

i have already given examples of where a players stats not just for a game but entire careers can be misleading.

ya know when it comes to stats i rarely use them unless they are definative.
my eyes in most cases have served me pretty well for a good while now.

again rather than get on a roundabout with you (i dont have the patience to rehash and then rehash again) better to say once again we agree to disagree.

 

[Azzleberry]

Why don't we base our opinions on actually 'watching' games of football rather than reading stats of players???
You think recruiters just base information off statistics? No, they attend games and watch games first hand to judge a player's ability! Suggest you all do the same....

 

[DoItForCaptBlood]

my eyes in most cases have served me pretty well for a good while now.

Agree with that....turnovers are unique to each situation. But when the same players when you're watching have you thinking 'WTF...why didn't he....', and other players turn it over and you're thinking simply 'he was lucky to have got that out of there just in time', you know some can make good decisions and others can't. So often it is not skill level, but footy smarts.

Game after game a pattern emerges and the different players may have about the same number of errors as per the stats, but how different the situations were, and the end results could have been.

 

[santa claws]

while im on this thread might as well say this here.

for us who acknowledge we have players who are poor when it comes to ball use and decision making heres a little alternative to the way the rfc went in the trade/ draft period.

the aim of the club this yr during trade/draft period was clearly to add size strengtrh and versatility to the midfield. i would have thought adding long term value to the talls would have been high on the agenda as well. oh well

now we have just had a debate about the worth of mids tuck and jackson. the club has clearly gone out of its way to target big bodied players in other areas as well.

we traded a very promising well rounded player with good skills whos only real fault was hes skinny. sheesh what a lack of patience. we traded him for a bigger bodied player who maybe can play inside but is more outside and ideally suited to a wing where he can buy a little time to assist his average disposal skills. you all know the players and clearly size has become important to the club. pity it counted for little in the lead up to the 09 draft.

anyway this draft we took a mid at 6 more outside but can get a bit inside. at 183 and 79 he is no bull, but is it seems pretty well rounded with footskills a stand out. at 51 we take a kid called macdonald to ease a pressing lack of medium sized forwards.

at 30 we take a big bodied medium defender batchelor. having taken the yr before dea and had the rookie orielly show good signs. top that of with farmer a small also showing good signs.

now i had three players i wanted at 6 caddy atley or heppell. and i considered that just maybe gaff would slip.
as far as list management goes i reckon caddy was the go. before i go furthjer the idea for this thinking comes from another site. its something that was written that just makes a lot of sense and was down similar lines to my own thoughts.

why caddy especially in relation to list managment.
simply put he would have solved our outside mid dilemma the area the club suggested we needed to work on. how? simple caddy was a big bodied very physical inside player with outside capabilities.very good skills while primarily a mid a very good medium sized forward. he solves our outside problem by freeing up one of martin or cotchin to play exclusively outside with more time to hurt. but wait a min martin and cotchin are shit when it comes to efficiency.
he also alleviates the need to take macdonald a forward.
so as far as the list managment pros go caddy would have.
1 solved our outside mid problem to a big degree.
2 he solves that problem by releasing one of martin or cotchin to a more outside role. i dont believe cotchin in particular should be playing inside but we are forced into it atm.
3 he adds to midfield depth.
4 to a degree he solves the medium sized for problem despite him being primarily a mid.
5 he enables us to do away with one of tuck or jackson.

now pick 30 sheesh we took a flanker and overlooked some really good talent.
for me if we were not taking a tall at 30 pat mccarthy anyone, we had to take another mid. for me that mid is hallahan.
really tough inside lots of courage finds lots of ball a penetrating kick on the prefered side with really clean hands to top it off he tackles well and often.

as far as needs go did we have to take batchelor. seeing as we didnt take a caddy type i would have thought a player of hallahans ilk even more important to target.

finally we failed to take any talls apart from miller lol. the club has admitted it wanted lycett at 30 so surely failure to utilise our compo pick has hurt.

anyway just some food for thought. and before the ferals start bleating like pigs i am always looking to see if we caould do better. caddy and hallahan would have solved a fair few problems and given us an option to two players who continue to be maligned and questioned by many.
utiliseing our compo pick would have given us access to a tall player we were apparently pretty keen on.
ah hindsight coulda shoulda woulda.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Rayzor, once again you have made an assumption of another due to your own beliefs and in a bid to cover up your own wrong doings you accuse others, you may think your clever but you've picked the wrong target !

So you didn't make false accusations, you didn't complain because people have merely argued strongly against your assertions, and I've been committing 'wrongdoings' by simply pointing out that many things you've written are wildly unrealistic?

whilst you also are unable to except others right to a opinion and expression of that upon a public forum.

Assuming you meant 'accept'...as RT has already pointed out to you, nobody has denied your right to an opinion now or ever, simply disagreed with it.

There is a very good example within the below link and the thread it links to I beleive , in regards Shane Tuck being tried last season off half back .
You may want to keep an open mind on certain assumptions you make ?
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16877567&postcount=17

I'm afraid you've lost me as to the relevance of linking to one of your many posts where you write one thing, it gets read by me in its original form, then you go back hours later, completely change what you wrote and work on your next complaint about MY conduct.

Seeing you're determined to avoid addressing the dozen or so points about football I've made, I won't be commenting any further.

for me if we were not taking a tall at 30 pat mccarthy anyone, we had to take another mid. for me that mid is hallahan.
really tough inside lots of courage finds lots of ball a penetrating kick on the prefered side with really clean hands to top it off he tackles well and often.

How interesting, that's almost exactly how most people other than you would describe Jackson.

 

[The Rusty Trombone]

while im on this thread might as well say this here.

for us who acknowledge we have players who are poor when it comes to ball use and decision making heres a little alternative to the way the rfc went in the trade/ draft period.

the aim of the club this yr during trade/draft period was clearly to add size strengtrh and versatility to the midfield. i would have thought adding long term value to the talls would have been high on the agenda as well. oh well

now we have just had a debate about the worth of mids tuck and jackson. the club has clearly gone out of its way to target big bodied players in other areas as well.

we traded a very promising well rounded player with good skills whos only real fault was hes skinny. sheesh what a lack of patience. we traded him for a bigger bodied player who maybe can play inside but is more outside and ideally suited to a wing where he can buy a little time to assist his average disposal skills. you all know the players and clearly size has become important to the club. pity it counted for little in the lead up to the 09 draft.

anyway this draft we took a mid at 6 more outside but can get a bit inside. at 183 and 79 he is no bull, but is it seems pretty well rounded with footskills a stand out. at 51 we take a kid called macdonald to ease a pressing lack of medium sized forwards.

at 30 we take a big bodied medium defender batchelor. having taken the yr before dea and had the rookie orielly show good signs. top that of with farmer a small also showing good signs.

now i had three players i wanted at 6 caddy atley or heppell. and i considered that just maybe gaff would slip.
as far as list management goes i reckon caddy was the go. before i go furthjer the idea for this thinking comes from another site. its something that was written that just makes a lot of sense and was down similar lines to my own thoughts.

why caddy especially in relation to list managment.
simply put he would have solved our outside mid dilemma the area the club suggested we needed to work on. how? simple caddy was a big bodied very physical inside player with outside capabilities.very good skills while primarily a mid a very good medium sized forward. he solves our outside problem by freeing up one of martin or cotchin to play exclusively outside with more time to hurt. but wait a min martin and cotchin are shit when it comes to efficiency.
he also alleviates the need to take macdonald a forward.
so as far as the list managment pros go caddy would have.
1 solved our outside mid problem to a big degree.
2 he solves that problem by releasing one of martin or cotchin to a more outside role. i dont believe cotchin in particular should be playing inside but we are forced into it atm.
3 he adds to midfield depth.
4 to a degree he solves the medium sized for problem despite him being primarily a mid.
5 he enables us to do away with one of tuck or jackson.

now pick 30 sheesh we took a flanker and overlooked some really good talent.
for me if we were not taking a tall at 30 pat mccarthy anyone, we had to take another mid. for me that mid is hallahan.
really tough inside lots of courage finds lots of ball a penetrating kick on the prefered side with really clean hands to top it off he tackles well and often.

as far as needs go did we have to take batchelor. seeing as we didnt take a caddy type i would have thought a player of hallahans ilk even more important to target.

finally we failed to take any talls apart from miller lol. the club has admitted it wanted lycett at 30 so surely failure to utilise our compo pick has hurt.

anyway just some food for thought. and before the ferals start bleating like pigs i am always looking to see if we caould do better. caddy and hallahan would have solved a fair few problems and given us an option to two players who continue to be maligned and questioned by many.
utiliseing our compo pick would have given us access to a tall player we were apparently pretty keen on.
ah hindsight coulda shoulda woulda.

That is a great post Santa and very well articulated but the only thing it is missing is patience. We can't recycle for 10 years under Frawley and Wallace and then all of a sudden decide to go to the draft and build a premiership team over 2 draft pools. It simply can't happen like that.

Caddy is an impressive player and very versitile but so is Conca. They will both have great careers. I myself thought we might go tall with pick 30 or use the compo pick to get a tall but the club has obviously made the decision to use our first pick next year on a tall which really does make sense because that pick could be anywhere from pick 8 to 16.

Drafting a tall between picks 8 and 16 compared to between picks 28 and 30 is a huge difference Santa and even you must realise that unless your a John Cleese fan and just love an arguement for nothing. The club is building a solid foundation and doing things right.

As for the compo pick. We would of been mad to use it last year. That sucker is a little gem we can use for the next few years either in an uncompromised draft or as trade bait. My guess is that it will be used as trade bait as there are players everywhere starting to want to come to Richmond.