Mitch Clark v Tyrone Vickery (Most Goals 2012)

[Ron The Bear]

Clarke being Melbournes number one key forward (do the Dees supporters agree?) then its Clarke v Reiwoldt, then its Vickery v Watts? and Miller v who?

Bate? Probably as out of favour as Miller was in his final days at Melbourne.

Melbourne has the talented mid-sized forwards we lack in Sylvia and Howe. There really is a lot of potential there if they can get it to click.

^^ Edit: completely forgot about Jurrah.

 

[lamaros]

Clark I reckon is a bit like Ryder, a ruckman who has been played out of position and hit with the "versatile" tag, truth is he's a ruckman who gets lost anywhere else.

Ryder kicked 21 & 27 goals in the first two years (~20/15 HOs a game) he's been played as a ruck who goes forward.

Mitch Clark kicked 7 and 9 goals as a ruck/forward (~22/11 HOs a game).

Clark is far less accomplished as a forward than Ryder is.

Is it true that Ryder's natural position is CHB? If so, that is intriguing given they have two other capable ruckmen yet they suffered injuries to key backs last year, yet Ryder still played ruck regularly.

Ryder's natural position is ruck.

He was picked up as a 17 year old kid and started in defence while getting used to the AFL and building up his body. (Most young ruckmen start forward or back at AFL level, very few go into the ruck as teenagers). He moved into the ruck as a 20 year old, and is learning more about forward play now, as the coaches want to get more out of him there.

 

[matty lloyd the champ]

Vickery only because Clark is a natural ruckman rather than a forward. I just don't understand why clubs are so insistent on playing him there when he had his career best season as a lone ruck for Brisbane. His back half of the 2009 season was absolute quality and his play would have rivalled that of Cox near his prime.

 

[Richo83]

As with Ottens (remember "Leave him alone...all of you!"), always felt he was destined for the ruck and wouldn't make a career forward. He'll cope for a while, but I don't see him improving markedly on the 36 he kicked last year or ever being dominant up front. However the longer he does a serviceable job and we can delay the transition to full-time ruck, the better for him and us.

But if he shows the same improvement as he did in 2011, I'll have to eat my words.

Agreed with that. Griffiths seems to be the long term hope CHF wise especially as people like quigley see Griffiths as a more natural forward anyway. So it seems like Vickery is going to have a Ottens type career where he's a promising forward early and becomes a ruck later on. Hopefully he doesn't have Ottens' injury problems.

Re Melbourne...viewed individually, they have a talented forward line and Clark may be used as a long target to bring the ball to ground for the likes of Davey, Green and Sylvia, with Watts being the preferred option only when he's advantaged.

Yeah, the presence of genuine smaller forwards leads me to believe that Melbourne wont expect a whole lot from Clark and that he'll be part of a team of forwards. Ergo, he'll probably be relied on less than a typical forward. That said, I think they'll still hope he kicks say 40 or so, given the coin he's on, the draft pick they traded and the lack of other key forwards.

Clarke being Melbournes number one key forward (do the Dees supporters agree?) then its Clarke v Reiwoldt, then its Vickery v Watts? and Miller v who?

Surely they'd have to be. Clark may be a lesser natural forward than Watts but he's still much older, much bigger and he's been brought in to play as a CHF type.

As for comparisons, the reason why this comparison has sprung up is because they're both ruck/forward types who are playing forward, ergo the comparison. I'm not sure whether it's fair and I do think Melbourne and Richmond expect and hope different things from their respective players. Given how much each are being paid though, Melbourne would be a little disappointed if Vickery outpoints him, especially as Clark has a good 30 or so months on him. It may just prove that Clark is not a natural forward which poses problems for Melbourne.

Clark versus Riewoldt is an unfair comparison. Riewoldt is a natural forward whereas Clark probably isn't. Riewoldt can't play ruck either. Watts has never played pure forward which is something Vickery did last year either. So they don't make great comparisons, but it shouldn't be surprising that two forwardlines don't directly compare to each other given forwardlines often vary in nature. It's better to give an overall account of forwardlines and due to Melbourne's presence of smaller forwards like Sylvia/Howe/Jurrah/Green compared to Martin/King/Nahas I like Melbourne's forwardline better. That may change as the season progresses though.

 

[markm106]

On the miller issue there is no doubt he is good as a 2nd or 3rd option. A Melbourne he was too often option 1 and he never got to that level despite showing promising signs early. Has played well at richmond relishing the role he has.

 

[Richo83]

Vickery only because Clark is a natural ruckman rather than a forward. I just don't understand why clubs are so insistent on playing him there when he had his career best season as a lone ruck for Brisbane. His back half of the 2009 season was absolute quality and his play would have rivalled that of Cox near his prime.

It's because Melbourne already have Martin and Jamar who are a good pairing whereas their only talls are players like Watts and Cook who are undeveloped. Ergo, their forward needs are bigger than their ruck needs. Furthermore, Melbourne were dealing with limited resources of the trading period.

 

[cotter101]

Vickery only because Clark is a natural ruckman rather than a forward. I just don't understand why clubs are so insistent on playing him there when he had his career best season as a lone ruck for Brisbane. His back half of the 2009 season was absolute quality and his play would have rivalled that of Cox near his prime.

Well we didn't because leuy is a better ruckman, And Clark and Clark's manager said that he wanted to play Forward.

 

[Tas]

Seriously, 9 pages on Clark vs Vickery. BF people would waste the days away arguing over which snail is slower if it had a different set of colours painted on the shells.

 

[Bazzar]

Seriously, 9 pages on Clark vs Vickery. BF people would waste the days away arguing over which snail is slower if it had a different set of colours painted on the shells.

Upset because we arnt talking about relocating to Ballarat are we.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Seriously, 9 pages on Clark vs Vickery. BF people would waste the days away arguing over which snail is slower if it had a different set of colours painted on the shells.

Change your settings to show 30 posts per page and it'll seem more palatable.

 

[Tas]

Upset because we arnt talking about relocating to Ballarat are we.

There are different threads for that, it is just bizarre there is so much heated debate about two guys who have to date delivered little to date. Nobody has any basis of fact to support an argument either way, it should just be state what you feel and move on but the same peanuts page after page argue away like this is some kind of battle to win.

 

[MightyTiger]

There are different threads for that, it is just bizarre there is so much heated debate about two guys who have to date delivered little to date. Nobody has any basis of fact to support an argument either way, it should just be state what you feel and move on but the same peanuts page after page argue away like this is some kind of battle to win.

I'm sorry, but when Hansen had his little run in the forward line in 2010 NM supporters were telling us how much greater he is then pretty much every other Forward in the game and how he has the next 10 Colemans in the bag.

Vickery for a 3rd year 200CM Ruck/Forward had an amazing year when counting all factors, still undersized and under developed he played with a maturity beyond his years and although being the #2/3 Forward line target kicked almost 40 goals, which ever way you look at it he had a fantastic year in which not many players his size and age have achieved.

If you don't like the thread and it's content, don't post in it, simple.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Rubbish. Go back when Clark was spruiking for the highest bidder and check the comments on the Tiger board. We would have taken him only if he was 200k cheaper.

And as for Miller, thanks, he is the perfect big bodied foil for Jack and Big Vick.

You can't seriously believe that.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

If Clark can kick 40+ I'll be pleased.

I'd think it's possible Vickery will play as a second ruck/forward; obviously that would effect his goal tally.

 

[MightyTiger]

You can't seriously believe that.

How is it hard to believe? We grabbed him for basically nothing, has excellent leadership qualities, trains hard and has shown he is good for a goal or 2 a game, laugh as much as you want but the recruitment of Miller has proven to be a very good one.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Is he the 'perfect' big bodied foil for Reiwoldt and Vickery?

No.

He's done a nice job and I wish him all the best, but I seriously doubt he's going to be a long term Richmond player.

 

[Tigerbob]

Is he the 'perfect' big bodied foil for Reiwoldt and Vickery?

No.

He's done a nice job and I wish him all the best, but I seriously doubt he's going to be a long term Richmond player.

Well he is 28 now, so don't know how it is possible he was ever going to be long term and why that is the basis of his success?

The guy has done a remarkable job, is well loved at the club and helped the development of our young talls, whilst also being a very serviceable player. All for nothing. Going to functions and listening to the likes of Riewoldt, Cotchin, Deledio and Vickery speak about the influence of Brad Miller is great for us.

In effect, considering the price he cost us, he has been the perfect foil for our young talls. On and off the field.

Bringing Pia to functions is an added bonus. That's why he is loved.

 

[MightyTiger]

Is he the 'perfect' big bodied foil for Reiwoldt and Vickery?

No.

He's done a nice job and I wish him all the best, but I seriously doubt he's going to be a long term Richmond player.

Most definitely is the perfect big bodied foil we needed, cost us a rookie pick, will most likely be hired as a coach when his time is up as a player and has a few years left in him, lets not also forget that he provides our young list with some maturity around the place, trains hard and is a perfect example to the young kids of how you should prepare yourself as a professional AFL player.

Miller may not be the most talented player in the AFL, but he is most certainly an excellent guy to have around a club, leadership of his qualities are hard to find, so to waste it just because he doesn't have the word 'potential' labelled on him doesn't mean he isn't perfect for what we need. In fact dare I say Melbourne could do with a Miller type atm.

 

[Bazzar]

If Clark can kick 40+ I'll be pleased.

I'd think it's possible Vickery will play as a second ruck/forward; obviously that would effect his goal tally.

PMSL.. 40 goals for how much again?

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

That's irrelevant IMO; we have numerous players capable of contributing in the forward line and it's generally accepted that a greater spread of goal kickers is better than having one or two avenues.

And for the record I never said Miller wasn't a good pickup, nor that he had no good qualities... but please jump to all possible assumptions.

The assertion he was the 'perfect' pickup for Richmond is wrong.

Doesn't mean he wasn't a good pickup.

 

[Bazzar]

Puppets back... time to move on.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Winner, winner....

 

[MightyTiger]

That's irrelevant IMO; we have numerous players capable of contributing in the forward line and it's generally accepted that a greater spread of goal kickers is better than having one or two avenues.

Spin it however which way you want it.

And for the record I never said Miller wasn't a good pickup, nor that he had no good qualities... but please jump to all possible assumptions.

No jumping the gun here my friend.

The assertion he was the 'perfect' pickup for Richmond is wrong.

No, he was the perfect pick up, mature age recruit, with excellent leadership qualities, is able to 'coach' the younger players in a non formal coaching role, protects the younger kids with his mature frame, he gives kids like Griffiths and Elton the time to develop in the 2s whilst developing there bodies and maturing, and is still good for a goal or 2 whilst also still being quite good defensively.

So, yes he is the, perfect pick up, not bad for a rookie spot don't you think?

Doesn't mean he wasn't a good pickup.

The 'Perfect' pick up one could say.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

A good rookie pickup.

 

[DerpWerls]

Back on topic ladies...
Dees fans would hope Mitch Clark kicks more goals than Vickery, didn't he basically leave Brisbane because he wanted more opportunity up forward and less ruck time?
He is 3 years older and probably 5 kilos heavier than Vickery which is important for 2m tall blokes.
Both teams have a good spread of goal kickers so that should be irrelevant to the thread... Forget the #1 defender stuff too.