Player Watch Charlie Dixon - Part 2

[TeeKray]

It's not even that mate it's confusing the idea of Dixon with where he's realistically at physically it was completely unprofessional to pick him tonight.

And yet he still gave us more than the other two, doesn't say much for them.

 

[JimmyBC]

And yet he still gave us more than the other two, doesn't say much for them.

I'd have gone smaller tonight as soon as Dixon is in the side they go long bomb happy, it was never really that effective even when he was younger.

 

[MrMeaner]

And yet he still gave us more than the other two, doesn't say much for them.

I particularly like how he made us much more structurally sound up forward tonight.

 

[TeeKray]

I'd have gone smaller tonight as soon as Dixon is in the side they go long bomb happy, it was never really that effective even when he was younger.

You realise we were down Marshall, Finlayson and Powell-Pepper and the only two forwards who have ever played at AFL level who didn't get picked tonight were McEntee and Lord, both of whom average about 5 disposals and less than a goal a game?

I get the frustration with Dixon but pretending there were alternatives is just wilful ignorance.

 

[b0ydman Jr]

Somewhat unpopular opinion, but I honestly think that moving on from the Dixon era is even more important than sacking Hinkley.

It'll just turn into "bomb it to georgiades"

 

[JimmyBC]

You realise we were down Marshall, Finlayson and Powell-Pepper and the only two forwards who have ever played at AFL level who didn't get picked tonight were McEntee and Lord, both of whom average about 5 disposals and less than a goal a game?

I get the frustration with Dixon but pretending there were alternatives is just wilful ignorance.

Wilful ignorance is playing a completely cooked player who will be delisted or retire in a few weeks I would've thought.

 

[TeeKray]

Wilful ignorance is playing a completely cooked player who will be delisted or retire in a few weeks I would've thought.

Just tell us who you would've played instead so you can put your name to the player you thought was going to do better than Dixon (12 disposals, 3 marks, 1 goal) tonight.

 

[Portology]

Just tell us who you would've played instead so you can put your name to the player you thought was going to do better than Dixon (12 disposals, 3 marks, 1 goal) tonight.

Possibly Esava without Dixon crashing into him repeatedly for most of the first half. IDGAF how many actually useful touches Dixon’s replacement got, would all have been upside compared to the predictable shambles we got. But hey “who ya gonna get?” and all that fallacy. The old saw about not playing the lame or the injured in finals is no fallacy.

 

[DaTBird187]

Just tell us who you would've played instead so you can put your name to the player you thought was going to do better than Dixon (12 disposals, 3 marks, 1 goal) tonight.

 

[backtozero]

Just tell us who you would've played instead so you can put your name to the player you thought was going to do better than Dixon (12 disposals, 3 marks, 1 goal) tonight.

I would have played Lord, for the sole reason that he might have a future and Dixon does not.

 

[JimmyBC]

Just tell us who you would've played instead so you can put your name to the player you thought was going to do better than Dixon (12 disposals, 3 marks, 1 goal) tonight.

JED!! Jeezus you are gonna die on this hill fukc me

 

[JimmyBC]

Campo & Ginever calling out the Dixon selection, perhaps get TeeKray on the blower.

 

[Incarnate]

Thanks for your service Charlie. Genuinely wish you all the best in your future endeavours.

 

[Shaucob_Burjan]

Just tell us who you would've played instead so you can put your name to the player you thought was going to do better than Dixon (12 disposals, 3 marks, 1 goal) tonight.

Tfw when Lord in last year's finals played better than any of Dixon's finals.

 

[Harlott]

Just tell us who you would've played instead so you can put your name to the player you thought was going to do better than Dixon (12 disposals, 3 marks, 1 goal) tonight.

Them are some big junk time stats to back up your argument. I guess he looked ok for a bit when they put him in ruck.
I don’t blame him. I blame the selectors for changing a winning forward line from last week to give a whole new dimension this week that didn’t work.
It really puzzles me when even though we’re aware of individual limitations of some of the players involved last week, it was still a winning formula. It wasn’t the only reason we lost tonight but why you would want to **** around with a line up that won a super intense final the week before, I just don’t know.

 

[Chrizzt]

The problem was playing both Rat and Dixon in the same forward line. Just absolutely clogged up space for zero impact in the air.

 

[JimmyBC]

Them are some big junk time stats to back up your argument.
I don’t blame him. I blame the selectors for changing a winning forward line from last week to give a whole new dimension this week that didn’t work.
It really puzzles me when even though we’re aware of individual limitations of some of the players involved last week, it was still a winning formula. It wasn’t the only reason we lost tonight but why you would want to **** around with a line up that won a super intense final the week before, I just don’t know.

The pressure meter across the board was always gonna drop when you insert Dixon & for that matter Burton as well, it's inserting two weak links on that metric straight off the bat.

 

[gbear]

Retire already you Selfish campaigner.

 

[JUSTWORK]

Campo & Ginever calling out the Dixon selection, perhaps get TeeKray on the blower.

Clearly shouldn't have been picked.

 

[Vagabond0]

Thanks for your service Charlie. Genuinely wish you all the best in your future endeavours.

Admittedly if asked about him in the future only high lights I'll probably remember is his 2017 EF game and



Maybe as a memory of his time at Ports his next tat should be a frilled neck lizard

 

[Schulzenfest]

Just tell us who you would've played instead so you can put your name to the player you thought was going to do better than Dixon (12 disposals, 3 marks, 1 goal) tonight.

It's not about his individual stats. Against Geelong we bombed the ball in long and high and got belted. Against Hawthorn we lowered the eyes and hit up targets and won. Against Sydney we bombed the ball in long and high and got belted. This isn't a coincidence.

This isn't even entirely Charlie's fault; it's partly down to coaching, it's partly down to the mids getting too comfortable and falling into old habits, and it's partly down to Ratugolea just being a worse version of the same player (carrying one is bad, carrying two is disastrous). But the pattern has been undeniable for several years. Our forward line is less than the sum of its parts when Dixon plays.

 

[TeeKray]

It's not about his individual stats. Against Geelong we bombed the ball in long and high and got belted. Against Hawthorn we lowered the eyes and hit up targets and won. Against Sydney we bombed the ball in long and high and got belted. This isn't a coincidence.

This isn't even entirely Charlie's fault; it's partly down to coaching, it's partly down to the mids getting too comfortable and falling into old habits, and it's partly down to Ratugolea just being a worse version of the same player (carrying one is bad, carrying two is disastrous). But the pattern has been undeniable for several years. Our forward line is less than the sum of its parts when Dixon plays.

I don't think people quite get that Marshall and Finlayson being out just meant our hands were tied. Even the absence of SPP gave us less flexibility as going small would've meant playing all three of Evans, McEntee and Narkle. It was either Dixon or Lord and they backed Dixon.

We will see a very different looking forward line next year, it will look much more mobile. Georgiades with some combination of Lord, Finlayson, Marshall (pending concussion) and Lukosius (pending possible trade).

 

[Schulzenfest]

I don't think people quite get that Marshall and Finlayson being out just meant our hands were tied. Even the absence of SPP gave us less flexibility as going small would've meant playing all three of Evans, McEntee and Narkle. It was either Dixon or Lord and they backed Dixon.

I would've dropped Rat who is genuinely the single worst forward in the league before I dropped Dixon, but we'd honestly be better off playing a player down than playing both of them. It just utterly destroys our forward line.

 

[TazD]

Charlie Delist

 

[Peninsula Boy]

You realise we were down Marshall, Finlayson and Powell-Pepper and the only two forwards who have ever played at AFL level who didn't get picked tonight were McEntee and Lord, both of whom average about 5 disposals and less than a goal a game?

I get the frustration with Dixon but pretending there were alternatives is just wilful ignorance.

The options weren't great but a lot of it had to do with Hinkley persisting with dud forwards throughout the year.

The options were an out of form but young Lord who has shown up in a final and not much else, Visentini and double down on dominating ruck and get less as a forward, the Hornet as a 3rd tall, CHF type who robs Peter to pay Paul or go small and bring in a mid, whatever, Lorenz, Jackson, Anastasopoulos and play smaller and faster.

Difficult options brought upon itself and injuries.