- Banned
- #51
Id rather blame toovey didak (for their terrible performances) and thomas shaw (for getting stupid suspensions and losing form) ect ect than jolly and reid who had to play and did their best with their injurys
-
LIVE: Geelong v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Cats at 54% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Roast Darren Jolly
- Thread starter Adz
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I have no problems with Jolly, and also thought he did well under the circumstances. Looked like he had his leg wrenched in the first qtr which didn't help, but he played out the game and had 34 hitouts. He didn't let Ottens dominate either. He played his role.
The Royal Sampler
Floreat Pica, Bitch!
There's no point comparing Beams to Reid/Jolly.
Midfielders/half-forwards we have cover for, ruckmen and key defenders we do not. Reid and Jolly would have been under pressure to get themselves right for the game. They did their best.
Side by side '12.
Midfielders/half-forwards we have cover for, ruckmen and key defenders we do not. Reid and Jolly would have been under pressure to get themselves right for the game. They did their best.
Side by side '12.
PieBeast
Brownlow Medallist
Yeah I applaud Jolly's courage to battle through the game and don't blame him for wanting to play, Mick's fault for playing him.
One other thing, when Wood didn't let Cox/NikNat duo dominate in rd 10 he still got rubbished. And my mail was Ottens wasn't right himself over the last few weeks and that was the only thing that stopped Jolly from being humiliated to the extent Reid did.
Jolly had zero impact on the game and anyone saying Wood wouldn't have done any better are lying to themselves.
TheFreshBanana
Hall of Famer
I'm surprised it says he only had 2 FA. I'm sure I saw him get more than that and that was only in the 1st quarter...
'Supporters' LOL. Why would you be blaming Jolly - Ottens did not dominate. Like Geelong - you could have played 2 genuine ruckmen. I never saw any evidence of Reid being restricted by injury. Why haven't the baggers decided to have a crack at Swan being down.
To the genuine Collingwood supporters - unlucky, 3 great quarters of football and 3/4's of a great season - it just went off the rails a little toward the end.
To the genuine Collingwood supporters - unlucky, 3 great quarters of football and 3/4's of a great season - it just went off the rails a little toward the end.
Is that you son?
- Aug 11, 2008
- 8,962
- 12,263
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I just don't see the logic behind Mick telling us all year on YouTube, the importance of playing the whole list and developing players for September (especially Wood and Goldsack) then they opt for an unfit (whether it be injury or matchfit) Jolly and Reid?
Oh well, I'm sure they'll learn from that.
Cause he was beaten fair and square. Reid was not up to it and while people are obsessing over "hitout" statistics with Jolly, unfortunately wasn't able to perform around the ground up forward and providing some presence and even a few goals. Was clearly underdone.
Doesn't matter anyway as it wouldn't have affected the result I'd imagine as Geelong are so good, but pissed off at the logic displayed here.
I just don't see the logic behind Mick telling us all year on YouTube, the importance of playing the whole list and developing players for September (especially Wood and Goldsack) then they opt for an unfit (whether it be injury or matchfit) Jolly and Reid?
Oh well, I'm sure they'll learn from that.
Cause he was beaten fair and square. Reid was not up to it and while people are obsessing over "hitout" statistics with Jolly, unfortunately wasn't able to perform around the ground up forward and providing some presence and even a few goals. Was clearly underdone.
Doesn't matter anyway as it wouldn't have affected the result I'd imagine as Geelong are so good, but pissed off at the logic displayed here.
Where is your logic - what makes everyone so sure Wood and Goldsack (not automatic 22 players) would have played good/better games
Had to play Reid - no choice. We lost it by not selecting Goldsack. He would have provided cover down back and could have played defensive forward on Scarlett who was throwing Didak around like a rag doll.
Too many small players in the team up against the hard nuts of Geelong.
TheFreshBanana
Hall of Famer
Because it only works on the players that are outside the best 15. Or outside the 15 key players.
If we were to lose Krakeour, Blair, Fasolo, Sidebottom, Wellingham, Didak then they are easily replacable. But Reid and Jolly are one of our most important players in the side apart from Cloke so doesn't matter how far your depth goes you can't replace those players.
The Royal Sampler
Floreat Pica, Bitch!
It's logical because despite all the development we've put into him, Wood is still shit because he provides no physical presence whatsoever. I agree with playing the whole list and getting as much development into the players 26-38 as possible, but that doesn't mean they're all at the same standard come September.
PieBeast
Brownlow Medallist
Wood was our in form ruckman at the time he got dropped.
And all of you clueless fanbois have explained that decision by Jolly having history of performing in the finals.
Guess what...he failed, just like your assertions.
No offence but if in form means he was averaging less hit outs and disposals than Jolly then it hardly matters. Also would playing Wood over Jolly have made a difference in the Grand Final? I don't see Wood kicking goals or having many possessions around the ground anyway, and Jolly competed well in the ruck so he wouldn't have made a difference there.
Jolly had 38 hit outs in the GF. He is generally credited with having kept Ottens reasonably honest, though on the day, Ottens beat Jolly. Wood has a very poor hit out record. In all his games, not once did he dominate the ruck or get more hit outs than his opponent. Even the worst stand-in ruckman beat him. Unless he sprouts an extra 5 cms, he will struggle to impact a game in the manner which we expect a ruckman to do.
So even a semi-fit Jolly was considered preferable to Wood. To omit Jolly is folly when Wood is no good.
So even a semi-fit Jolly was considered preferable to Wood. To omit Jolly is folly when Wood is no good.
PieBeast
Brownlow Medallist
There was a lot more chance of Wood kicking goals than Jolly if you go by their leading up form, there was also a lot more chance that Wood would have been able to actually kick the footy and would have been ten times more mobile than Jolly.
Like I said earlier, my mail was that Ottens wasn't right himself over the last couple of weeks and that prevented Jolls from being a laughing stock, as it stands he simply had zero impact on the game.
PieBeast
Brownlow Medallist
Hit out stats are useless, our mids got smashed in the clearances yesterday.
And there has been plenty of occasions when we lost the ruck battle and still won the take-aways. Wood would have been able to contribute a lot more around the ground than a clearly lame Jolly.
We won the clearances 51 to 50! Also interesting to read that Jolly had the 3rd highest percantage of hit outs to advantage out of the top ruckmen over the season.
Anyway I won't go on about this. I don't think Wood would have made the difference, but I do think he'll keep improving. I hope has a solid preseaon and gets a bit more physical with his attack on the ball next year.
