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

[_RT_]

Hey PTF, rather than go around in circles, how about this. If Tuck Jackson & Grigg play 15 games each then we say that they were integeral parts of the side in 2011, if they don't then we'll say that they weren't and that we have moved on. Sound like a fair deal?

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Hey PTF, rather than go around in circles, how about this. If Tuck Jackson & Grigg play 15 games each then we say that they were integeral parts of the side in 2011, if they don't then we'll say that they weren't and that we have moved on. Sound like a fair deal?

No actually thats never been something I've questioned, I think they all will play a role during the year, but I hope by seasons end that all 3 aint in our best side, as it will mean our younger players have developed as expected and we haven't gained significant injuries.
Maybe my expectations are to high, but it's what I hope and I think will be a good barometer ?

 

[HKTiger]

Brett Kirk and Cameron Ling played in premiership teams. Jackson kicks better than both of them. If you're going to argue about players with premiership medallions then look at the full 22's and actually see who has a medallion. Jackson with his endurance, speed, hardness and ability to win the ball would make any AFL team's best 22. The AFL characteristrics that he has are rare.

If they weren't rare then there would be 10 Michale barlow's every year. fact is ther aren't. One comes along every year or so.

The bit that is missing in this discussion is the 3 to 5 year build up to get to the AFL level and then get the ball in the maelstrom that is an AFL stoppage. Jackson (and Tuck) excel at that. It is a rare combination of size, skill, speed, fearlessnes, hardness etc. When you have that combination in one player, you don't let it go. (And don't bring up Dusty. It is acknowledged that he is a freak. The "experts" have openly stated that he is the best since Judd. So we have two freaks in ten years. If you need 5 to 7 insides per team then you need > 100 in the AFL. Two freaks in 10 years doesn't get you there.) Even more reason why Tuck and Jackson are here and here to stay. Thomson failed by not being able to get his body to the right place. It's hard, very hard to get the durability and skill set (not just disposal skill set but overall body skills) in one person. When you have it you use it.

Gotta laugh at one earlier comment (from ptf I think) about tuck have a sub-par handball. That really is taking the mickey and denying facts to try and argue your point to death. The one reliable thing about Tuck is is his handball. For evidence go watch the West Coast game. Two of Jack's 5 first quarter goals due to Tuck's accurate disposal. one kick, one handball. But that would blow holes in convenient broad, sweeping and dismissive statements.

 

[CeltDave]

Hey PTF, rather than go around in circles, how about this. If Tuck Jackson & Grigg play 15 games each then we say that they were integeral parts of the side in 2011, if they don't then we'll say that they weren't and that we have moved on. Sound like a fair deal?

I vote we buy Pace to Freeze & RT73 some jousting sticks "and no I am not dreaming" and we sort it out in a good old fashion duel!!!

Thoughts?

 

[Madtiger2006]

Brett Kirk and Cameron Ling played in premiership teams. Jackson kicks better than both of them. If you're going to argue about players with premiership medallions then look at the full 22's and actually see who has a medallion. Jackson with his endurance, speed, hardness and ability to win the ball would make any AFL team's best 22. The AFL characteristrics that he has are rare.

If they weren't rare then there would be 10 Michale barlow's every year. fact is ther aren't. One comes along every year or so.

The bit that is missing in this discussion is the 3 to 5 year build up to get to the AFL level and then get the ball in the maelstrom that is an AFL stoppage. Jackson (and Tuck) excel at that. It is a rare combination of size, skill, speed, fearlessnes, hardness etc. When you have that combination in one player, you don't let it go. (And don't bring up Dusty. It is acknowledged that he is a freak. The "experts" have openly stated that he is the best since Judd. So we have two freaks in ten years. If you need 5 to 7 insides per team then you need > 100 in the AFL. Two freaks in 10 years doesn't get you there.) Even more reason why Tuck and Jackson are here and here to stay. Thomson failed by not being able to get his body to the right place. It's hard, very hard to get the durability and skill set (not just disposal skill set but overall body skills) in one person. When you have it you use it.

Gotta laugh at one earlier comment (from ptf I think) about tuck have a sub-par handball. That really is taking the mickey and denying facts to try and argue your point to death. The one reliable thing about Tuck is is his handball. For evidence go watch the West Coast game. Two of Jack's 5 first quarter goals due to Tuck's accurate disposal. one kick, one handball. But that would blow holes in convenient broad, sweeping and dismissive statements.

I think Ling is a fair bit better by foot than Jacko

 

[HKTiger]

Ya reckon. Very up and under and can and does get intercepted. Looked absolutely shot against the Pies in the prelim. Ling can slow them down to make sure he picks a safe option.

 

[_RT_]

That answers it all, your happy to progress with players who have no likelyhood of playing in a premiership side , I think once it's established they aren't capable, moves should be made to have them replaced with someone who can, or is believed to have the ability to develop to that level !!!

No what I am happy to do is continue on with players that have shown that they can play at this level until such time that someone comes along and proves that they are better than the current crop.

Oh and you may be but I aint discussing if guys like Jackson Tuck and Grigg have a part in our best side for 2011. The discussion started after I stated words to the effect " That the inclusion or non inclusion of all 3 in our best side by seasons end will be a barometer of whether we have sustained injuries or players haven't developed as expected !!

Here is your first post:

If all 3 are in our best 22 by seasons end it will be a result of injury and/or lack of others development !
As a on baller I'd hope , Cotchin , Foley , Martin, Lids and even Conca are in front of all 3 by seasons end, whilst you'd hope on how they finished 2010 that Morton , Nason , Edwards or even Webberly continue their form or improve which will mean that they are better option than all 3 as a wingman !
Tuck and Grigg have had some affect off Half Back which may be an option but I'd hope Connors , Rance , Farmer or even MacDonald are showing more than these two have off half back by seasons end ?

While the first part discusses injury/development, the rest looks to me very much like you were discussing whether Tuck Jackson & Grigg have a place/are deserving of a place in our best side this year.

As for zones and set plays , if you actually understand zones and set plays, you would appreciate how silly some of your suggestions have been.

Are they really? Without Jackson & Tucks bigger bodies who is going to block and create space for Cotchin and Martin to break away from a pack. Without Tuck and Jacksons bigger bodies who is going to take up the slack when it comes to locking balls in at stoppages? Without Tuck and Jacksons bigger bodies which players are going to zone back and sit in the space in the oppositions forward line?

Thanks for your time and next time please read before jumping to conclusions, there is a huge difference between 1 and 3 and there is also a huge difference as to whether someone, " has a role to play within " a sides best side or is in that sides best side .

Like I said lets see how 2011 unfolds.

 

[CeltDave]

Ya reckon. Very up and under and can and does get intercepted. Looked absolutely shot against the Pies in the prelim. Ling can slow them down to make sure he picks a safe option.

The new around the stoppages holding rules has destroyed Ling's effectiveness. He is a very good kick for goal and generally not bad around the ground, however I would back Jackson; as he is faster has a bigger engine & similar around the ground disposal.

I stated in an earlier post, we need to balance the team and Jackson brings balance.

I really like Tuck as he has been a great servant of the club and will continue to be a good player, however I think he would know that if a young player starts to put pressure on his position, he will be at Coburg.

 

[_RT_]

No actually thats never been something I've questioned, I think they all will play a role during the year, but I hope by seasons end that all 3 aint in our best side, as it will mean our younger players have developed as expected and we haven't gained significant injuries.
Maybe my expectations are to high, but it's what I hope and I think will be a good barometer ?

Like I said lets see how 2011 pans out. If these guys are still in the 22 it doesn't mean that others haven't developed. It could simply mean that the form of Tuck Jackson & Grigg is better than the kids. If thats the case then that even better than them being replaced IMO, as it actually means that we're building some real depth.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Wenn alle 3 in unserer besten Seite sind bis Ende der Saison wird es zeigen unsere jungen Spieler haben sich nicht verbessert, wie erwartet oder wir haben erhebliche Verletzungen meiner Meinung nach hatte

 

[HKTiger]

Wenn alle 3 in unserer besten Seite sind bis Ende der Saison wird es zeigen unsere jungen Spieler haben sich nicht verbessert, wie erwartet oder wir haben erhebliche Verletzungen meiner Meinung nach hatte

I would debate your German, but that's just me.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Brett Kirk and Cameron Ling played in premiership teams. Jackson kicks better than both of them. If you're going to argue about players with premiership medallions then look at the full 22's and actually see who has a medallion. Jackson with his endurance, speed, hardness and ability to win the ball would make any AFL team's best 22. The AFL characteristrics that he has are rare.

If they weren't rare then there would be 10 Michale barlow's every year. fact is ther aren't. One comes along every year or so.

The bit that is missing in this discussion is the 3 to 5 year build up to get to the AFL level and then get the ball in the maelstrom that is an AFL stoppage. Jackson (and Tuck) excel at that. It is a rare combination of size, skill, speed, fearlessnes, hardness etc. When you have that combination in one player, you don't let it go. (And don't bring up Dusty. It is acknowledged that he is a freak. The "experts" have openly stated that he is the best since Judd. So we have two freaks in ten years. If you need 5 to 7 insides per team then you need > 100 in the AFL. Two freaks in 10 years doesn't get you there.) Even more reason why Tuck and Jackson are here and here to stay. Thomson failed by not being able to get his body to the right place. It's hard, very hard to get the durability and skill set (not just disposal skill set but overall body skills) in one person. When you have it you use it.

Gotta laugh at one earlier comment (from ptf I think) about tuck have a sub-par handball. That really is taking the mickey and denying facts to try and argue your point to death. The one reliable thing about Tuck is is his handball. For evidence go watch the West Coast game. Two of Jack's 5 first quarter goals due to Tuck's accurate disposal. one kick, one handball. But that would blow holes in convenient broad, sweeping and dismissive statements.

Give me a list of every sides 5-7 inside mids who are as inside biased as Tucky and Jacko , you do realise that at the time that Ling and Kirk won premiership medals, they were the elite taggers of the comp, who also were extremely good at getting the football to their outside mids ?
Anyone can pluck highlights for any arguement !

Effen weak way to duck the issue and not great German.

Why would you come onto a public forum, if you can't except that people have a opinion, play the ball not the man !

 

[CeltDave]

Give me a list of every sides 5-7 inside mids who are as inside biased as Tucky and Jacko , you do realise that at the time that Ling and Kirk won premiership medals, they were the elite taggers of the comp, who also were extremely good at getting the football to their outside mids ?
Anyone can pluck highlights for any arguement !


Why would you come onto a public forum, if you can't except that people have a opinion, play the ball not the man !

As a Mod you sound awefully like Ricky Ponting as the captain of Aus.

 

[HKTiger]

Give me a list of every sides 5-7 inside mids who are as inside biased as Tucky and Jacko , you do realise that at the time that Ling and Kirk won premiership medals, they were the elite taggers of the comp, who also were extremely good at getting the football to their outside mids ?
Anyone can pluck highlights for any arguement !


Why would you come onto a public forum, if you can't except that people have a opinion, play the ball not the man !

I am fully aware of who Ling and Kirk are. Hence why I made the point. they have a set of characteristics including reflexes, durability, speed or endurance, decision making that enable them to play AFL. Jackson and Tuck share some of those characteristics especially with respect of hardness, durability and the reflexes required to get the ball in traffic. every side has similar players (if pushed I'll go find inside players from other teams who have poor DE%) but that was not my point. Sportsmen (in this case AFL players) with the combination of capabilities/skills required, namely the combination of speed/endurance/durability/hardness/reflexes/ball handling skill are rare and take a long tome to develop. (And BTW; Dimma is one who has openly stated that Jackson is elite but needs to be on the field more.) If these capabilities were common there would be lots of players that had all aspects as elite. There aren't else we could all name 5 elite inside mids from 16 clubs. We can't.


I have no issue with your opinion and I accept your right to have it. I just disagree as I assume it is my right given your right to have an opinion. You won't accept RT's stats nor my examples. So what evidence is required.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

I am fully aware of who Ling and Kirk are. Hence why I made the point. they have a set of characteristics including reflexes, durability, speed or endurance, decision making that enable them to play AFL. Jackson and Tuck share some of those characteristics especially with respect of hardness, durability and the reflexes required to get the ball in traffic. every side has similar players (if pushed I'll go find inside players from other teams who have poor DE%) but that was not my point. Sportsmen (in this case AFL players) with the combination of capabilities/skills required, namely the combination of speed/endurance/durability/hardness/reflexes/ball handling skill are rare and take a long tome to develop. (And BTW; Dimma is one who has openly stated that Jackson is elite but needs to be on the field more.) If these capabilities were common there would be lots of players that had all aspects as elite. There aren't else we could all name 5 elite inside mids from 16 clubs. We can't.


I have no issue with your opinion and I accept your right to have it. I just disagree as I assume it is my right given your right to have an opinion. You won't accept RT's stats nor my examples. So what evidence is required.

No drama, everyones got an opinion.

 

[HKTiger]

No drama, everyones got an opinion.

Fair enough.

I place more value on what it takes to get players to an elite endurance/durability/speed/reflex capability and how rare that is.

 

[Rayzorwire]

OMG, most of what you have dribbled has already been answered to your alter ego.

LMAO...there's no conspiracy here ptf, why don't you take RT's advice, check it out and then maybe even have the decency to apologise once you realise you've been making false accusations?

...you have brought up that Tuck and Jackson are in the best 50 midfielders in the comp , why didn't clubs jump at Tucky when he was offered ?

He's getting on in years and he was obviously worth more to us than the offers fielded. The better sides have enough similar players already schooled in their gameplan (a crucial point when it comes to taking on older players and particularly Tuck with his hearing difficulties), the worse sides can't afford to take on a player his age at their stage of list development.

Tuck proved his worth all season and proved he can adapt as well as anyone to new roles and circumstances.

Why are they never tagged ?

The basic idea of a tag is to curb a player's influence on the game.

You can't really curb Tuck's influence on a game - whether you played a tagger on him or not he'd get similar numbers and have similar influence. You lay a tackle on him as soon as he gets the ball and he gets it out anyway, and there's very little point trying to physically punish him. On the other hand, if you tag Cotchin you can make sure he doesn't touch the ball for long periods of the game, as we saw on numerous occasions last year. In 17 games last year he failed to reach 20 possessions in nearly half of them and when Kirk tagged him he had 9 possessions. It's pretty obvious who the opposition coach can keep more quiet at this stage of Cotchin's career. If he ever evolves Ablett-like strength, pace and endurance, he won't get tagged anymore, there will be no point. Right now, he's a relatively easy target, which is part of the reason we want him more outside rather than getting beat up and shut down so often.

I'm not asserting that Cotchin's not more dangerous with the ball than Tuck (before you do your usual trick and invent my words to avoid arguing with the ones I actually wrote), I'm simply saying that there's no point tagging Tuck.

The very question 'why hasn't our no.1 tagger (Jackson) been tagged more often' speaks volumes about your ability to remember events and think clearly IMO.

For your benefit look at the amount of games over their careers where they have gotten over 25 disposals and still played in losing sides, quite often both of them have got around that mark and we've lost the game, alternatively the odds of winning the game with two of Martin, Lids,Cotchin or Foley getting 25 plus possessions increases significantly.

RT's pointed it out to you already, but you will apparently choose to live in ignorance regarding the fact that you need 6+ midfielders getting those kind of numbers to win games. If you only have 2-3, you'll very likely lose whether those 2-3 are Tuck/Jackson/Foley or Cotchin/Martin/Foley. We have an opportunity for the first time in a decade to put out a midfield which boasts four mids capable of regularly getting 25+ touches (Foley, Tuck, Jackson, Grigg) and IF Cotchin, Martin, Edwards and perhaps a couple of others can get theirs up to mid-20's range or above (they're all currently ~20 a game or below), THEN we'll have a very competitive midfield capable of linking defence and attack often enough for us to win games.

You say we traded Grigg directly for Collins, it was a very late call for AC to be traded, it wasn't some orchestrated plan months out from the trade period,could it also be that Grigg was traded for, to replace Bling as a mid, forward, back utility , AC was required to be traded to get the deal done ?

Grigg was worth more to us than Collins, dance around and bring in whatever tangent you please, but that's the bottom line and my only point on the subject.

Newman Gourdis Moore
Rance Astbury Connors
Morton Martin Nason
Taylor Griffith Edwards
Post Reiwoldt King

Foll :
Graham
Cotchin
Conca

Int :
Grigg Lids Foley

Sub : Pending who where playing whether we go tall or mid sized utility .
See you don't have to rotate smalls as inside mids, and keep in mind this whole debate , is by the end of 2011 season, not round 1 , before we start talking about players current injuries or lack of fitness .
Those highlighted are the only ones who I don't think have shown some ability to rotate through the midfield , whether that be as a defensive mid, outside mid, inside mid or able to perform both inside and outside roles.

You're oblivious to the fact that wingers have to be inside midfielders to at least some extent at non-centre square stoppages and times the ball is re-bounced - nobody knows which way the ball will spill and there's a dozen pairs of players or more at most stoppages. They also have to able to run out full games. Taylor can't keep up at training, so for you to suggest he could play 50-60 minutes on a wing, beat a decent senior opponent at stoppages and then go 'rest' as a forward who needs to lead up, chase and put on pressure, is pure fantasy, beginning of the year or end.

Conca said only recently that he has a huge amount of work to do on strength and fitness before he catches up to our senior players. Oblivious to all that, you name him in as a first rotation midfielder based on your brief viewing of junior footy clips and expect people to take you seriously.

I could go on and on...

Oh and in relation to Thompson, you do realise he did start the season in front of Tuck and Jackson within the midfield and injured his groin, which inturn required surgery and has blown up again recently during pre-season with Sturt, which was always a risk ?

If he'd been forced out of the side by a groin injury, why did he play his last senior game against the Dogs on the 4th of April (a game where many said he'd proved he was clearly not up to it) and then line up for Coburg on the 11th of April? And he subsequently played five more games for Coburg after that with a groin injury that forced him out of the seniors?

He was dropped.

You're either suffering from very poor memory or something less forgiveable.

If you wish to replay to last season I'm more than happy to remind you of a few of your black and white statements, which where proven to be totally incorrect.

You would have leaped on them at the time and harped on for weeks about them if they actually happened. The best you came up with was overwhelming evidence that your literacy skills cause you to misinterpret a good 80% of what you read.

Also this is a public forum where users are permitted to provide there views on thread topics without threads having to be derailed for your benefit .

I read your pretty disgusting 'cannon fodder' remarks towards two very good servants of the club who are easily in our top-10 players at the beginning of the thread and chose to ignore them, preferring to post something that was positive and addressed Rusty's worthwhile topic.

It was you who quoted something I'd written and initiated this discussion (such as it is), so suggesting that I've somehow picked on you or derailed the thread really ranks right up there with your totally unfounded paranoid delusions that RT and I are the same poster - pure fiction.

 

[santa claws]

I think Ling is a fair bit better by foot than Jacko

you have that right not to mention decision making ability.

clearly the reason jackson and tuck have survived at our club for so long is primarily for one reason. a dearth of big bodies. we have been so deficient in this area for so long it has been men against boys in the main.geez we have just focused an entire draft on this problem. we even traded a very talented but skinny mid to get a bigger body in grigg.

damn right tuck and jackson have been important because without them a terrible situation was made abundantly worse without those bigger bodies.
decision making and ball usage has always been and always will be a huge problem for these two blokes.

if winning games and finishing mid table was the be all end all you would play them and any other bloke who you thought could achieve this end. make no mistake playing glass half fulls like jackson and tuck has led to low finishes and the odd 9th on a regular basis.
clearly this is not where we are at and playing and getting games into youngsters who potentially will be far better rounded players than those two thus hopefully will take us in time past a mid table finish is exactrly where we are at.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Gotta laugh at one earlier comment (from ptf I think) about tuck have a sub-par handball. That really is taking the mickey and denying facts to try and argue your point to death. The one reliable thing about Tuck is is his handball. For evidence go watch the West Coast game. Two of Jack's 5 first quarter goals due to Tuck's accurate disposal. one kick, one handball. But that would blow holes in convenient broad, sweeping and dismissive statements.

I watched that game the other day HKT, both disposals were as good as any midfielder for the year. Tuck's had over 3000 disposals for us and you could find well over a thousand gems amongst them, at least in terms of effectiveness.

I've come to the very firm conclusion that for some people, stoppages are like the beginning of the New York Marathon - it's all a bit confusing and they only begin to pay real attention once the people they came to watch get clear of the 'chaos.'

Through that brain filter, Tuck and Jackson would look pretty ordinary.

 

[HKTiger]

you have that right not to mention decision making ability.

clearly the reason jackson and tuck have survived at our club for so long is primarily for one reason. a dearth of big bodies. we have been so deficient in this area for so long it has been men against boys in the main.geez we have just focused an entire draft on this problem. we even traded a very talented but skinny mid to get a bigger body in grigg.

damn right tuck and jackson have been important because without them a terrible situation was made abundantly worse without those bigger bodies.
decision making and ball usage has always been and always will be a huge problem for these two blokes.

if winning games and finishing mid table was the be all end all you would play them and any other bloke who you thought could achieve this end. make no mistake playing glass half fulls like jackson and tuck has led to low finishes and the odd 9th on a regular basis.
clearly this is not where we are at and playing and getting games into youngsters who potentially will be far better rounded players than those two thus hopefully will take us in time past a mid table finish is exactrly where we are at.

I'll agree to disagree on kicking ability. Jackson has a good record at shots at goal. But that's by the by.

You bemoan the lack of big-bodied hard at it midfielders. Please provide thoughts, ideas, knowledge on how to get them or where they are.

That's the bit I really don't get. Good, hard bodied mid-fielders are very rare. Most if not all have deficiencies. For crying out loud, Judd's DE% was 63% this year. We have two that fit in the upper 50% of their type in the AFL. They aint the problem. Or do I watch a different version of the AFL.

 

[santa claws]

Gotta laugh at one earlier comment (from ptf I think) about tuck have a sub-par handball. That really is taking the mickey and denying facts to try and argue your point to death. The one reliable thing about Tuck is is his handball. For evidence go watch the West Coast game. Two of Jack's 5 first quarter goals due to Tuck's accurate disposal. one kick, one handball. But that would blow holes in convenient broad, sweeping and dismissive statements.

lol by this i take it you think tuck an excellent user of the ball by hand and foot.

god knows how many times ive seen tuck get a hard ball but willy nilly handball over his head to the opposition. or how many times hes chased ball and left his opponrnt free or how many times when passing by foot hes just coughed it up.

you could take the best kick in the comp and in isolation pick a couple of howlers to make a case for them being shizenhousen kicks. apparently martin going by stats is a woeful kick but we all know that not to be the case.

alas the reverse is you can take a poor user and pluck out instances when they have used well.
by the way i think tuck by hand pretty good it is his bread and butter. his decision making though leads to many poor blunders.

 

[HKTiger]

lol by this i take it you think tuck an excellent user of the ball by hand and foot.

........ or how many times hes chased ball and left his opponrnt free or how many times when passing by foot hes just coughed it up.

.......

Where did I state that ? Once again putting words into a post that are not there. but you sweepingly disparage him and wont accept good disposal. What's that word or term. "Selective" though hypocrisy springs to mind.

On the second point exactly why he was dropped late in 2009 and in 2010. And he did less of it upon his return. It was highly noticeable that he didn't go ball hunting in 2010 but stayed out of packs and "minded his man". And if you didn't notice that then I pretty much rest my case on "selective".

 

[_RT_]

lol by this i take it you think tuck an excellent user of the ball by hand and foot.

god knows how many times ive seen tuck get a hard ball but willy nilly handball over his head to the opposition. or how many times hes chased ball and left his opponrnt free or how many times when passing by foot hes just coughed it up.

you could take the best kick in the comp and in isolation pick a couple of howlers to make a case for them being shizenhousen kicks. apparently martin going by stats is a woeful kick but we all know that not to be the case.

alas the reverse is you can take a poor user and pluck out instances when they have used well.
by the way i think tuck by hand pretty good it is his bread and butter. his decision making though leads to many poor blunders.

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.

What I really find interesting is that when stats like this are brought up when discussing supposed good ball users in Cotchin or Martin in isolation people are quick to throw up the excuse 'Oh but he plays inside midfielder so its only natural that his DE% would be so low'. Yet when you bring in the stats for supposed poor ball users in Tuck and Jackson, the excuse then becomes DE% stats are useless because they don't show this or don't allow for that or the arguement becomes anyone can pick a few examples at random and use that as an arguement to make someone look as good or as bad as they want. Well in this instance there is no picking out examples. The above stats are their numbers for the whole 2010 season.

So I wonder what excuse are posters going to throw up now for Cotchin and Martins poor DE%, as they can't really argue but they're inside mids so its only natural, because both Jackson & Tuck are also inside. As I said earlier in the thread, if people are going to make allowances for some players because of the position they play then they should make the same allowances for others who play in a similar position.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

LMAO...there's no conspiracy here ptf, why don't you take RT's advice, check it out and then maybe even have the decency to apologise once you realise you've been making false accusations?



He's getting on in years and he was obviously worth more to us than the offers fielded. The better sides have enough similar players already schooled in their gameplan (a crucial point when it comes to taking on older players and particularly Tuck with his hearing difficulties), the worse sides can't afford to take on a player his age at their stage of list development.

Tuck proved his worth all season and proved he can adapt as well as anyone to new roles and circumstances.



The basic idea of a tag is to curb a player's influence on the game.

You can't really curb Tuck's influence on a game - whether you played a tagger on him or not he'd get similar numbers and have similar influence. You lay a tackle on him as soon as he gets the ball and he gets it out anyway, and there's very little point trying to physically punish him. On the other hand, if you tag Cotchin you can make sure he doesn't touch the ball for long periods of the game, as we saw on numerous occasions last year. In 17 games last year he failed to reach 20 possessions in nearly half of them and when Kirk tagged him he had 9 possessions. It's pretty obvious who the opposition coach can keep more quiet at this stage of Cotchin's career. If he ever evolves Ablett-like strength, pace and endurance, he won't get tagged anymore, there will be no point. Right now, he's a relatively easy target, which is part of the reason we want him more outside rather than getting beat up and shut down so often.

I'm not asserting that Cotchin's not more dangerous with the ball than Tuck (before you do your usual trick and invent my words to avoid arguing with the ones I actually wrote), I'm simply saying that there's no point tagging Tuck.

The very question 'why hasn't our no.1 tagger (Jackson) been tagged more often' speaks volumes about your ability to remember events and think clearly IMO.



RT's pointed it out to you already, but you will apparently choose to live in ignorance regarding the fact that you need 6+ midfielders getting those kind of numbers to win games. If you only have 2-3, you'll very likely lose whether those 2-3 are Tuck/Jackson/Foley or Cotchin/Martin/Foley. We have an opportunity for the first time in a decade to put out a midfield which boasts four mids capable of regularly getting 25+ touches (Foley, Tuck, Jackson, Grigg) and IF Cotchin, Martin, Edwards and perhaps a couple of others can get theirs up to mid-20's range or above (they're all currently ~20 a game or below), THEN we'll have a very competitive midfield capable of linking defence and attack often enough for us to win games.



Grigg was worth more to us than Collins, dance around and bring in whatever tangent you please, but that's the bottom line and my only point on the subject.



You're oblivious to the fact that wingers have to be inside midfielders to at least some extent at non-centre square stoppages and times the ball is re-bounced - nobody knows which way the ball will spill and there's a dozen pairs of players or more at most stoppages. They also have to able to run out full games. Taylor can't keep up at training, so for you to suggest he could play 50-60 minutes on a wing, beat a decent senior opponent at stoppages and then go 'rest' as a forward who needs to lead up, chase and put on pressure, is pure fantasy, beginning of the year or end.

Conca said only recently that he has a huge amount of work to do on strength and fitness before he catches up to our senior players. Oblivious to all that, you name him in as a first rotation midfielder based on your brief viewing of junior footy clips and expect people to take you seriously.

I could go on and on...



If he'd been forced out of the side by a groin injury, why did he play his last senior game against the Dogs on the 4th of April (a game where many said he'd proved he was clearly not up to it) and then line up for Coburg on the 11th of April? And he subsequently played five more games for Coburg after that with a groin injury that forced him out of the seniors?

He was dropped.

You're either suffering from very poor memory or something less forgiveable.



You would have leaped on them at the time and harped on for weeks about them if they actually happened. The best you came up with was overwhelming evidence that your literacy skills cause you to misinterpret a good 80% of what you read.



I read your pretty disgusting 'cannon fodder' remarks towards two very good servants of the club who are easily in our top-10 players at the beginning of the thread and chose to ignore them, preferring to post something that was positive and addressed Rusty's worthwhile topic.

It was you who quoted something I'd written and initiated this discussion (such as it is), so suggesting that I've somehow picked on you or derailed the thread really ranks right up there with your totally unfounded paranoid delusions that RT and I are the same poster - pure fiction.

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 !

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

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.

What I really find interesting is that when stats like this are brought up when discussing supposed good ball users in Cotchin or Martin in isolation people are quick to throw up the excuse 'Oh but he plays inside midfielder so its only natural that his DE% would be so low'. Yet when you bring in the stats for supposed poor ball users in Tuck and Jackson, the excuse then becomes DE% stats are useless because they don't show this or don't allow for that or the arguement becomes anyone can pick a few examples at random and use that as an arguement to make someone look as good or as bad as they want. Well in this instance there is no picking out examples. The above stats are their numbers for the whole 2010 season.

So I wonder what excuse are posters going to throw up now for Cotchin and Martins poor DE%, as they can't really argue but they're inside mids so its only natural, because both Jackson & Tuck are also inside. As I said earlier in the thread, if people are going to make allowances for some players because of the position they play then they should make the same allowances for others who play in a similar position.

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 ?