News Brynn Teakle signs with North Melbourne

Remove this Banner Ad

Janus said:
View attachment 1685170

Here's the question you need to ask:

Is the offensive output of Hayes putting 3.3 extra hitouts to advantage and generating 0.7 clearances per game making up for that lack of defensive output?

And just for comparison:

View attachment 1685174
Click to expand...




A) you’re really trying to minimise just how big the ruck discrepancy is between Hayes and teakle.

Hayes averaged way more hitouts, they were more effective and his best hitout games were numbers that teakle hasn’t come close to.

B) no. A few more tackles and pressure acts from a ruck don’t make up for that

C) trying to argue the defensive merits of a ruck that’s conceded monster best on ground performances nearly every week is a bit funny.




Maybe teakle becomes something in the future (I have strong doubts)
Maybe you want to move on from the other options

But to argue teakle is something he is not is laughable


He’s nothing more than the rawest ruck prospect in the league with a decent ability to run around the ground who were picking because we’ve backed ourselves into a corner.

He’s not performing well defensively (teams rucks would be licking their lips come time to face him)
 
Statistically Teakle is currently the single worst player at defending his direct opponent in the league. Arguing that we should play him for his defensive prowess is like arguing that we should play Jake Neade for his height.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Comparison with performance against Bailey Williams is unfair as he announced himself as the dominant ruck of the next decade earlier this year.
 
backtozero said:
You're overlooking the point about not being fit enough.
Click to expand...

Everyone trots this out, post after post, yet there's no evidence other than " he had his hands on his hips and was walking".

Go back and watch his AFL games last year, he was always at the ruck contest when he was supposed to be and was often around the ball when you would expect him to be. His problem was he wasn't confident to be the link up guy. That's because his coach doesn't want him there.

People making up that he's not fit this year when he's clearly beyond frustrated.... Even against Norwood, when he was playing in a fwd pocket for 90% of the game, when put into the ruck he was clearly a level above and the best ruck on the ground. Had more disposals and marks than Visi too.
 
Jason K said:
Everyone trots this out, post after post, yet there's no evidence other than " he had his hands on his hips and was walking".

Go back and watch his AFL games last year, he was always at the ruck contest when he was supposed to be and was often around the ball when you would expect him to be. His problem was he wasn't confident to be the link up guy. That's because his coach doesn't want him there.

People making up that he's not fit this year when he's clearly beyond frustrated.... Even against Norwood, when he was playing in a fwd pocket for 90% of the game, when put into the ruck he was clearly a level above and the best ruck on the ground. Had more disposals and marks than Visi too.
Click to expand...
It's not made up. The guy looks cooked midway through the first ... sadly checked out now too.
 
Jason K said:
Everyone trots this out, post after post, yet there's no evidence other than " he had his hands on his hips and was walking".

Go back and watch his AFL games last year, he was always at the ruck contest when he was supposed to be and was often around the ball when you would expect him to be. His problem was he wasn't confident to be the link up guy. That's because his coach doesn't want him there.

People making up that he's not fit this year when he's clearly beyond frustrated.... Even against Norwood, when he was playing in a fwd pocket for 90% of the game, when put into the ruck he was clearly a level above and the best ruck on the ground. Had more disposals and marks than Visi too.
Click to expand...

As I said before, it's not 1988. He's not stuck in the forward pocket and he doesn't have to stand there and wait for the ball. He can drift back and get involved in the play anytime he wants, especially in a Magpies team that struggles to score.
 
I think it's obvious we are going to have to lose a game of football for Teakle to be dropped.

Winners generally only make forced changes, losers often throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's been a constant theme in AFL selection across all teams for as long as I can remember.
 
Macca19 said:
What the * has Hinkley have to do with anything?

Am i not allowed to change my opinion from rating someone, to not, after watching him walk around an sanfl field all year not giving two shits, 6 years into his career?

I agree 100% that he should have played earlier and should have played more. 100%. But it didnt happen and quite simply that doesnt matter right now. If we were to select a small in the form that Hayes is in right now, this place would ******* melt, as its done 50 times before. In fact it did melt after we selected McEntee after a poor game earlier this year.

I dont even rate Teakle all that highly, but i dont want to see Lycett again, Hayes is in s**t form and cant or wont run and Visentini is not quite ready. Though i’d be alright with Dante debuting. If Hayes was in any sort of decent form, i’d be standing right alongside you. He’s not.

So as it stands Teakle is what we have. This board, you included, has spent more than a decade blasting the club for its treatment of developing talls and how we don’t back them in. So all i’m saying is why don’t we give this 204cm athletic guy a stretch of games - more than 3 - to see if he can develop and improve.
Click to expand...
Visentini is just as ready as Teakle is.
 
Powerade 08 said:
Poor guy, stuck up forward all game doing nothing on an opponent 20cm shorter. Really hard done by.
Click to expand...

I don’t think he’s been particularly good in the position either, but he’s kicked a goal nearly every week and is one of our leading goal kickers despite swapping into the ruck and being hidden in a pocket so we can play lord , Mitch Scully etc as our kf targets.

For what it’s worth, the goal kickers ahead of him are Georgiades, evans (both way above sanfl level) and Scully (young tyro)

So playing out of position, in a spot Ladhams was no better at, while by no means is he playing good, but he’s not doing “nothing” either.

Nearly a goal a game then dominates when switched into the ruck.

Or to put it another way, on his way out the door he’s playing no worse than teakle did to get selected into the afl side for an extended run.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Coobk001 said:
Visentini is just as ready as Teakle is.
Click to expand...


I think Dante is a better prospect, we don’t have to teach him football. I think Dante is more physical and competitive.

But I think teakle is more ready from a fitness and running pov to play first ruck.



I don’t think teakle is ready to play afl.

I don’t think Dante is ready to play as a first ruck (as a 2nd ruck - like how most rucks start out would be the go with him)
 
Schulzenfest after seeing Goldstein's 61 SC point first quarter.

Picard.jpg
 
Sunshine81 said:
We need to give our talls a reasonable run of games before we make a call on them.
Click to expand...
Apparently we've made a call on Hayes after 7. Teakle has played 6 and they were significantly worse than Hayes' 7.
 
backtozero said:
Goldstein has been their best player for 10 years. They don't have anyone else.
Click to expand...
Goldstein already has his highest Supercoach score of the season and it's not even three quarter time yet.
 
He’s slower than Lycett, I didn’t think it was possible!

How is his engine considered better than Hayes?

Easy to run all day if you don’t get faster than a walk.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

News Brynn Teakle signs with North Melbourne

Similar threads

Ford Fairlane
News Quinton Narkle signs with Fremantle
15 16 17 18 19
Replies
466
Views
35K
Willsy10
Willsy10

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top