- May 14, 2017
- 12,487
- 14,641
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- West Adelaide
That 'disagree' emoji always looks harsh to me, so I wanna explain why I disagree:
That's obviously the case, since they have not played a half of footy.
Ned has no special attributes in the 'high-energy' or 'fresh' factors.
It's true that he had impact vs. Collingwood and St. Kilda but those games are exceptions, not the norm.
McHenry is usually a low-impact player.
He huffs and he puffs, but he doesn't blow anybody's house down.
Just, NO.
For starters, do you think McHenry would have snapped the winning goal, as Berry did?
Not a snowflake's chance in Hell.
If I was a selector (and I'm not, so it's moot) I'd pick Berry ahead of McHenry every time, but we can agree to disagree about that.
Look at McHenry vs. Carlton last week, when not as sub, well-summarised by this:
McHenry is awful many, many more times than he is good.
When I read the sentence in red bold above, I wondered if you were serious.
30-40m out in front, would you trust McHenry to kick that?
I would not, in fact I doubt he'd make the distance of 40m.
McHenry is a dud; a total bust.
For a first-round pick to be relegated to role-player as sub is embarrassing because it tells us that he is just not good enough to positively impact a full game. He's an embarrassment to the recruiters who chose him.
McHenry? Cream on top? Nonsense.
McHenry is a dead, lead weight, an albatross curse around Nicks' and the recruiters' necks.
They might be terrific young men, but are not AFL-standard;. Neither add positive game-changing impact.
Neither will take the Crows anywhere, especially not "further".
Every player who comes on as sub, say, after half-time, comes on with fresh legs and high energy.Honestly sick of the hate towards Ned.
He has 2 roles which he plays where he's great.
Sub - He's a high energy individual, which is amazing coming off the bench. As others are fatiguing, he can come on and run everyone off their legs. We saw it vs Collingwood last year where he had 16 touches in a half. And we saw it vs St Kilda where he had 13 touches and a goal in a quarter.
That's obviously the case, since they have not played a half of footy.
Ned has no special attributes in the 'high-energy' or 'fresh' factors.
It's true that he had impact vs. Collingwood and St. Kilda but those games are exceptions, not the norm.
McHenry is usually a low-impact player.
He huffs and he puffs, but he doesn't blow anybody's house down.
No.What we got from Berry on the weekend was no different then what we've seen from McHenry as the sub.
Just, NO.
For starters, do you think McHenry would have snapped the winning goal, as Berry did?
Not a snowflake's chance in Hell.
Again, no. It's clear to most of us in here that Soligo is a gun, Pedlar has a big future.In fact, McHenry has been more consistent than Soligo/Berry/Pedlar who have all played as the sub in past seasons.
If I was a selector (and I'm not, so it's moot) I'd pick Berry ahead of McHenry every time, but we can agree to disagree about that.
Look at McHenry vs. Carlton last week, when not as sub, well-summarised by this:
McHenry was awful.Seriously the dropped marks .the miss from 25 out, the over runs , the missed tackles and allowing players to run past you as [if] not there , and of course lets not forget finally getting one of his big 23 metre kicks out of D straight to Carlton player for a goal .
McHenry is awful many, many more times than he is good.
Well, Dawson/ Soligo/ Rankine/ Tex, for starters, are all much better kicks than McHenry.But, if we are to play him from the start, the only role that works for him is a FP who doesn't go beyond 75m out from goal. There is no other player in our team since Tom Lynch left who I trust more with ball in hand 60-75m out for that final i50 kick. He doesn't blaze away to the top of the square. He lowers his eyes and hits up a good lead to 40m out.
When I read the sentence in red bold above, I wondered if you were serious.
30-40m out in front, would you trust McHenry to kick that?
I would not, in fact I doubt he'd make the distance of 40m.
Oh, please .McHenry in one way is a massive bust. For a first round pick to be relegated to role player? Embarrassing, this is what you expect from a 3rd round or rookie pick. However, he has those 2 above roles (impact sub/final i50 kick) which play to his strengths and make the team better, and could very well be the cream on top which takes a team from a challenger to a premiership winning team.
McHenry is a dud; a total bust.
For a first-round pick to be relegated to role-player as sub is embarrassing because it tells us that he is just not good enough to positively impact a full game. He's an embarrassment to the recruiters who chose him.
McHenry? Cream on top? Nonsense.
McHenry is a dead, lead weight, an albatross curse around Nicks' and the recruiters' necks.
McHenry and Sholl are Nicks' mysterious yo-yos, in and out of the side.You don't build a team around him, but if you're pushing for finals, or higher. You keep them, because he is the type of player which will take you further.
They might be terrific young men, but are not AFL-standard;. Neither add positive game-changing impact.
Neither will take the Crows anywhere, especially not "further".