How much longer can Priddis be debated?

[Smotie]

You clearly don't. you've already tried to say that I said every journo etc rates his disposal, when I didn't mention his disposal at all, and asked how I justified his non-AA selection when I didn't mention that at all.

I didn't ask you to justify it, I asked what stopped him getting selected. And you berate my comprehension...

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Wrong.
"The Coaches" Implies all
"The umpires" Implies all
"his team mates" Implies all
"the journos in every paper" Implies all

"disagree with you" That I said he wasn't our best.

Whether you like it or not your post implied all of them.

In the same way that a statement that "Australians prefer Tony Abbott as PM" would imply that 100% of those polled gave that view?

You're being ridiculous. I never attempted to imply anything of the sort and no-one except you seems to have interpreted it that way.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I didn't ask you to justify it, I asked what stopped him getting selected. And you berate my comprehension...

While we're on the topic, the AA selection panel* rated him as our best midfielder as well, since no other midfielder was picked in the 40 man squad. Add them to the list.

*AS A GROUP, not necessarily each ****ing member of the ****ing panel, since apparently I have to make that crystal clear.

 

[Keys]

Wrong.
"The Coaches" Implies all
"The umpires" Implies all
"his team mates" Implies all
"the journos in every paper" Implies all

"disagree with you" That I said he wasn't our best.

Whether you like it or not your post implied all of them.

I'm sick of things being implied

 

[swannies]

This thread:

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Was your friend who reported on Simpsons comments re Priddis the same friend who said Glass had a falling out with Simpson?

Smotie?

 

[Smotie]

Smotie?

No it wasn't actually.

I don't see what point you are trying to make. Why would I as an Anti-Priddis poster give information that would show an opposition coach rated Priddis. It would be detrimental to my position wouldn't it? I can't confirm it was said as I wasn't there. Take it as you want, I am not saying it happened, I actually think its bullshit as I don't think Priddis is that highly rated by Clarkson as it is clear he lets him roam free as did most of the coaches except Roos this year.

I won't give you the West Coast members name that told me this although he states he was there at the meeting. And I don't give a shit of you don't believe it. It's a discussion board, If I hear something I think may be credible or relevant what's the issue with posting it even if it turns out to be false?

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Didn't ask for a name. Was just wondering whether it was credible at all, since others are apparently treating it as gospel

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Hawthorn dropping their sixth-best mid is a slightly less tough decision than us dropping our best-performed mid.

Sure. If you don't have the cattle you can't go dumping strong but limited contested ball players, either way you're screwed because you don't have the cattle to begin with.

"We need Priddis because we suck" is probably the strongest pro argument that exists.

 

[tesseract]

Sure. If you don't have the cattle you can't go dumping strong but limited contested ball players, either way you're screwed because you don't have the cattle to begin with.

"We need Priddis because we suck" is probably the strongest pro argument that exists.

It's a catch-22 situation; "We need Priddis because we suck", but suck because we have Priddis being used as the numero uno midfielder due to his lack of utility.

 

[placebo]

The "we need him because our midfield sucks" argument doesn't hold up for me when the player in question is a large reason the midfield isn't very good. If we're gonna suck either way, and we've already seen that our midfield looks much better anyway putting more ball through the likes of Shuey and Yeo around stoppages, then I'd rather suck short term in the attempt to build a genuinely competitive midfield, instead of continuing to suck long-term going with the same shitty set-up.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

The "we need him because our midfield sucks" argument doesn't hold up for me when the player in question is a large reason the midfield isn't very good. If we're gonna suck either way, and we've already seen that our midfield looks much better anyway putting more ball through the likes of Shuey and Yeo around stoppages, then I'd rather suck short term in the attempt to build a genuinely competitive midfield, instead of continuing to suck long-term going with the same shitty set-up.

And yet a few on these boards could see this play out 6 years ago.

What we've done is a Dayle Gartlett. Pissing in the wind with nothing to show for it.

 

[Eagle87]

Well that's the same argument that's been going on for 328 pages, isn't it.

To an extent. Based on somewhat silly posts like yours about 6th best v best performed it'll go on too ...

It would have been a tougher choice for Hawthorn if 7 years ago some dumb/desperate coaching panel had decided to build around Sewell ... They'd never have won a flag and they'd be ordinary...

Compounding that mistake because said mid is now seen as "critical" or irreplaceable is just .. err ... compounding that mistake.

Unless you start showing some capacity to grasp that you should drop out of the thread.

For clarity, your repeated comments about him being rated highly by others or by our own coaching panel are irrelevant. Let's say he is our best performed mid, so what?

He's average, he's limited and he's been a dead weight on our midfield moving to a higher level. He isn't our only midfield problem but his role is the key one for mine and has been for years.

Instead of arguing about him being best performed or good or whatever, the focus should be the end game - winning a flag. With Matt playing his current role we have zero chance and his lack of versatility rules out different roles. So we move past him.

All this best performed mid stuff is just an argument without proper context.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[footballfreak]

Must admit, I felt justified that Priddis didn't make the all-australian team. I'd have to say it's our fans who have over-rated him and his abilities. No doubt because he had to shoulder the load after Cuz and juddy left us over the years. But even in our prime 06-07, he was a benchwarmer at best in a premiership team. We won't improve as a midfield, unless he leaves us. As a specialist clearance player he is behind the likes of J Selwood, Watson, Kennedy, Swallow, Mitchell. The gap will widen as he heads towards his 30's

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

To an extent. Based on somewhat silly posts like yours about 6th best v best performed it'll go on too ...

It would have been a tougher choice for Hawthorn if 7 years ago some dumb/desperate coaching panel had decided to build around Sewell ... They'd never have won a flag and they'd be ordinary...

Compounding that mistake because said mid is now seen as "critical" or irreplaceable is just .. err ... compounding that mistake.

Unless you start showing some capacity to grasp that you should drop out of the thread.

My post was in response to someone lamenting that Hawthorn made the "tough decision" to drop Sewell this weekend but our panel don't have the balls to drop Priddis, and simply making the point that it was a much easier decision for Hawthorn to drop someone on the fringes of their best 22 than it would be for our match committee to drop the reigning B&F winner.

You can go on about what might have happened seven years ago all you like, but it's got **** all to do with my post frankly.

 

[Eagle87]

My post was in response to someone lamenting that Hawthorn made the "tough decision" to drop Sewell this weekend but our panel don't have the balls to drop Priddis, and simply making the point that it was a much easier decision for Hawthorn to drop someone on the fringes of their best 22 than it would be for our match committee to drop the reigning B&F winner.

You can go on about what might have happened seven years ago all you like, but it's got **** all to do with my post frankly.

In context it does.

It's a thread about Priddis and continuous references about him being best performed or reigning B&F winner etc etc are only relevant if you add some context. I mean it's also true that our midfield is poor and key reasons for that are its like of skill, speed, damage (hurt factor)... Priddis is a the centre of our midfield and he is at the centre of all those flaws.

There is no doubt he is consistent, he's a ball magnet and he's highly durable. Those 3 traits are handy in garnering attention from casual or semi-engaged observers. They are also all traits that coaches like.

But it doesn't alter the fact that he was part of a midfield that was highly predictable and largely built to enable him to focus on his strength. Simpson has been modifying that with varying degrees of success. Regardless, I've reckoned for several years that our best midfield doesn't involve him starting in the middle, because of his lack of pace, skill and any sort of hurt factor.

So yeah, in terms of consistency, he's our best performed mid AND we aren't going anywhere with him in his current role.

You focus a lot on the first half, without adding the caveat. Which perpetuates the argument ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I was answering a specific point about dropping him for a big game.

There's 330 pages of context and caveats here, I'm not going to include every argument and observation about what might have been or what might be.

 

[Smotie]

Priddis is the standard.

He is the reigning B&F.

It's an average standard. Poor disposal, poor options, poor kicking, no pace, no manouverability.

No wonder the rest of the midfield is below him if he is set as the standard.

It isn't hard to understand that if he is removed then the standard can be raised.
With him there and his team mates knowing his deficiencies they have every right to have an attitude of "piss off coach, Priddis' disposal is shit so why should my disposal be any better"

I struggle to understand why a mod in this board can't understand it.

If Sewell was dropped because of a specific reason (lack of pace) it shows up our coaching staff who are blatantly aware of our supreme lack of pace but won't drop the slowest bloke in the country.

Eric the Eel can swim faster than he runs.

 

[The Dodger]

My post was in response to someone lamenting that Hawthorn made the "tough decision" to drop Sewell this weekend but our panel don't have the balls to drop Priddis, and simply making the point that it was a much easier decision for Hawthorn to drop someone on the fringes of their best 22 than it would be for our match committee to drop the reigning B&F winner.

You can go on about what might have happened seven years ago all you like, but it's got **** all to do with my post frankly.

But its not about his standing...they didn't just drop him because he was 6th best in line. They don't think he will be better than adding a half backer who can go through the midfield for him. It's not like Suckling is no.5 on the mid list at the club therefore no. 6 must sit out. Its to do with his strengths and weaknesses (which are similar to our thread subject) and them thinking they don't make them a better club. Which all I have heard is that contested possessions win you finals as its a scrap.
But this year more than any other (other teams like Port are catching on to the Hawks) that efficiency and speed with the ball once you have clean ball, which is like gold in finals, outweighs any one individuals ability to scrap at the bottom of the pack.

 

[WCErevival]

Priddis is the standard.

He is the reigning B&F.

It's an average standard. Poor disposal, poor options, poor kicking, no pace, no manouverability.

No wonder the rest of the midfield is below him if he is set as the standard.

It isn't hard to understand that if he is removed then the standard can be raised.
With him there and his team mates knowing his deficiencies they have every right to have an attitude of "piss off coach, Priddis' disposal is shit so why should my disposal be any better"

I struggle to understand why a mod in this board can't understand it.

If Sewell was dropped because of a specific reason (lack of pace) it shows up our coaching staff who are blatantly aware of our supreme lack of pace but won't drop the slowest bloke in the country.

Eric the Eel can swim faster than he runs.

That may be a good argument if a players sole goal is to win their clubs B&F. I think they play for a bit more than that though. Having Priddis in the team doesn't stop the ability of anyone else.

 

[Godfather32]

That may be a good argument if a players sole goal is to win their clubs B&F. I think they play for a bit more than that though. Having Priddis in the team doesn't stop the ability of anyone else.

It does prevent other players from having the opportunity to have time in the middle though as he clogs up a spot there for 90% of the game because of his inability to play any other position on the ground.

 

[Eagle87]

I was answering a specific point about dropping him for a big game.

There's 330 pages of context and caveats here, I'm not going to include every argument and observation about what might have been or what might be.

And in so doing you cause others to add said caveats and perpetuate the thread.

Which you then complain about ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Sorry, clearly in addressing a particular point about Brad Sewell I should have also extensively yet concisely summarised the entire argument for and against over the previous 320 pages so comprehensively and elegantly that it made any further comment nugatory and brought the entire discussion to an end.

 

[Eagle87]

Sorry, clearly in addressing a particular point about Brad Sewell I should have also extensively yet concisely summarised the entire argument for and against over the previous 320 pages so comprehensively and elegantly that it made any further comment nugatory and brought the entire discussion to an end.

Now you're just being a smartarse ...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kernel Sanders]

It does prevent other players from having the opportunity to have time in the middle though as he clogs up a spot there for 90% of the game because of his inability to play any other position on the ground.

Any he doesn't play his one position well either.

Not when he's a selfish ball hog with no hurt factor whatsoever. Not when his team-mates are charged with covering his man.