Mitch shafted by AA selectors.

[3KZ is Football]

Rolling Stones >>>>>> Beatles.

Photo finish, but The Beatles by a short half head for mine on the basis that they broke up at the right time and didn't release so many anonymous (1981 - to the present day) or forgettable albums as the Stones did after Exile on Main Street. Certainly in terms of broader cultural or counter cultural significance, you might go for The Beatles, but that's just my opinion. I loved the 90's version of this one ...

Blur better than Oasis!

Go Lions!

 

[Tassie4ever]

GC17 and GWS18 can't come quickly enough.

Nor can the relocation of the Demons to Tasmania.

Can't wait for the Victorian balance of power in the game to disappear, then the "interstate" sides will get a look-in for a change.

We agree.

Except it may not be Melbourne that relocates.

And then only when a fully-fledged, AFL standard ground is on offer in Hobart.

 

[POBT]

TBH, I'm not overly miffed with the notion of Swan being named on a HFF - in reality most sides really only play a 4 or 5 man forward line most of the time, so it's really the antiquated "position" setup that's at fault. Not that many teams have more than one specialist HFF.

I agree totally and Lethal makes the same point in his article on the AFL website. He recommends selecting 7 defenders, 6 forwards and 9 mids (including 1 starting ruck and 1 back-up 'follower"). I'd probably go a little further and give the selectors the option of selecting a midfielder who played a bit of half back (Goddard) as one of the defenders and a midfielder who played a bit of half forward (Chapman, Didak) as one of the forwards.

I think that the "6 lines of 3" model of selecting a senior football side went out a good 15 years ago. As Lethal points out, it is probably only perpetuated for the media and public to have a visual representation of an AFL side.

If I were picking a side based on the 22 man squad, rather than the 6x3 + 4 reserves traditional model (using only players from the 40 man squad), I'd go with something like:

B: Lake, Scarlett, Enright
HB: Goddard, Bolton, Gilbert
C: Montagna, Judd, Swan
HF: Chapman, Riewoldt, Johnson
F: Brown, Fevola, Le Cras
R: Sandilands, Hayes, Ablett

I: Clark, Dal Santo, Selwood, Boyd

Someone like Goddard might not have been as good on a half back flank as Maxwell, but is a better fit for a side than already has 5 genuine defenders in it. Similarly, Chapman - who spent significant portions of the year in the midfield, slots onto a half forward flank because the reality is that 1 or 2 of your named forwards will spend significant parts of the game onball. The beauty of my named forward line is that all 3 of the "smaller" forwards play in the midfield too, despite being better known as a forward. I think this is a worthy consideration even if the goal returns of Milne or Porps might be better.

 

[Zacisonfire]

I think the whole All Australian concept is a bit over-rated. Personally, I rate it alongside Mike Sheehan's Top 50 players list, which appears in the Herald Sun at the start of each season in terms of relevance. Like most lists, I suppose, they serve as talking points for a while and then you forget all about them. Really, to be selected as an All Australian player simply means that Demetriou, Anderson, Bartlett, Healy, Hird, Jakovich, Ricciuto and Walls rate you. That's about it really. We get a bit of froth and bubble and we all move on.

So Sandilands gets picked in the ruck before Clark ... big fizz. I don't think Clark will be losing any sleep over it. After all, in the long run, a player would much rather be a member of a Premiership side than an All Australian side and in that regard, Clark is much better placed than Sandilands ever will be while he is at Fremantle. For example, without looking it up on the AFL website or doing any research can anyone tell me who was in the 2003 All Australian side? I can certainly tell you who was in the 2003 Premiership team and I know which set of players would be happiest when they look back on their careers.

We just have to keep reminding ourselves, if the A.F.L. endorse it, it pretty much has to be crap.

Go Lions!

I have to tell you that does make be feel better about the situation! every year there are always going to be unlucky players to miss out doesn't take anything away from them as players tho I thought Sam Mitchell was also another unlucky one!

 

[BLPC08]

Eye-gouging dog ahead of Brown for the vice-captaincy.

What a massive Victorian circle jerk.

Pathetic.

Don't forget the "pressure point" backfire - and they're making this Dr Evil impersonator the vice Captain. F***king disgrace!!!

 

[Dylan12]

As someone else correctly posted earlier, the AA lost most of its credibility when Mal Michael was overlooked for a full back spot I think in 2001 for Matthew Pavlich, who if I recall didn't even come close to playing in that position throughout the season.

Secondly, the fact Browny has not been given the nod as captain of the side in either of his two nominations is ridiculous considering the unaminous acknowledgement by the AFL players themselves that he is the leagues best captain by a mile coupled with his Big V nod as captain.

There were a few years between 2005-2008 that I can completely understand why our club did not receive many nominations/selections, but even still, it is a joke that many selections over the years are always to the detriment of our players...but it is to be expected I suppose.

 

[Roger The Sheep]

I must be missing something.

Yes, it's either a pair of eyes or a brain.

Ouch! Some folk just don't handle being exposed to the truth very well!

 

[Lions4flag]

And who would that be?

obvioulsy you know nothing about football do you? I'll name them for you:

Michael Johnson
Zachery Clarke
Kepler Bradley
Adam Campbell

= 33 games

so obvioulsy there was always someone helping so he can have a 5-6 minute rest every quater

 

[greenred]

obvioulsy you know nothing about football do you? I'll name them for you:

Michael Johnson
Zachery Clarke
Kepler Bradley
Adam Campbell

= 33 games

so obvioulsy there was always someone helping so he can have a 5-6 minute rest every quater

If you consider those players ruckmen, it's no wonder you think Clarke is so good.

Johnson missed most of the season with injury, Clarke is a skinny 18 year old and Campbell is a forward. Bradley is merely a tall man they use to give Sandilands a rest.

In any case, if Sandilands had so much assistance in the ruck compared to Clark, why are his figures so much better? Just shows once again how superior Sandilands really is.

 

[Lace Out]

If you consider those players ruckmen, it's no wonder you think Clarke is so good.

Johnson missed most of the season with injury, Clarke is a skinny 18 year old and Campbell is a forward. Bradley is merely a tall man they use to give Sandilands a rest.

In any case, if Sandilands had so much assistance in the ruck compared to Clark, why are his figures so much better? Just shows once again how superior Sandilands really is.

It's getting boring now.

 

[__aria__]

Hello everyone

Most of you seem to think Mitch Clark was shafted here.

Was his year as good as Hamish McIntosh or better? I didn't watch every Brisbane game.

I thought Hamish was shafted massively in 2007 but I am not fussed this year because it looks like he and Clark were pretty close.

I think the AA selectors would have looked a lot at the stats and McIntosh's stats took a big hit when he started sharing the ruck with Goldstein.

I would have been very confused if he got selected ahead of McIntosh and I think anyone would have a extremely hard time arguing that Clark deserved it more than McIntosh but maybe I am wrong.

Thoughts?

 

[Snuka]

Hello everyone

Most of you seem to think Mitch Clark was shafted here.

Was his year as good as Hamish McIntosh or better? I didn't watch every Brisbane game.

I thought Hamish was shafted massively in 2007 but I am not fussed this year because it looks like he and Clark were pretty close.

I think the AA selectors would have looked a lot at the stats and McIntosh's stats took a big hit when he started sharing the ruck with Goldstein.

I would have been very confused if he got selected ahead of McIntosh and I think anyone would have a extremely hard time arguing that Clark deserved it more than McIntosh but maybe I am wrong.

Thoughts?

McIntosh I think got similar treatment in 07 to Clark this year, in that he hadn't been consistently a top ruckman in the years coming up to that one. The '2 year' theory seems to have struck again. It should only be judged on the current year but obviously not (not to mention all the other problems with the selectors such as them looking at the stats without watching games like you mentioned).

On Clark v McIntosh this year, I (and I imagine a lot of other Brissie supporters) am in the same boat as you in that I haven't watched enough of the latter to judge. On Clark though, he was thrown into the deep end in ruck solo early in the year and has not only swam but thrived and has won most duels in the ruck and around the ground.

Oh...and the hangers! If averaging about a speccie a week can't get you noticed, i'm not sure what will.

 

[Lions4flag]

If you consider those players ruckmen, it's no wonder you think Clarke is so good.

Johnson missed most of the season with injury, Clarke is a skinny 18 year old and Campbell is a forward. Bradley is merely a tall man they use to give Sandilands a rest.

In any case, if Sandilands had so much assistance in the ruck compared to Clark, why are his figures so much better? Just shows once again how superior Sandilands really is.

I know they are not good ruckman at the moment but when those players played it gave Sandilands a rest each quater. Obviously Sandilands is going to have a bit better figures than Clark because he s more fresh when he has spells each quater. If Sandilands tried playing 95% of a game he will not be able move after the game. You obviously didnt understand my point

 

[chopperduck]

Sandilands will always be a top ruck, and i dont think anyone could argue that Clark should have been picked ahead of him, but Clark should have been the 2nd ruck, hands down. Selectors are blind, i bet if Cox played 18-20 games he could have been picked as a 2nd ruck. The whole 'modern 1 ruckman footy' selection is complete BS. If anything Clark would have complemented Sandilands well as beening a more mobile ruckman. Would be a nightmare facing a team with those two as the ruck duo.

 

[Secular Bicep]

Come on. You all seriously can't de disappointed can you?

He may have had an alright season, but there are a lot of games where he did ordinary stuff. He isn't developed or matured as a ruckman and was never going to get all australian seclection. Sandilands is proven and he does a lot of stuff around the ground which is not ordinary.

Clark was not and is not All Australian material this year.

 

[konstas_87]

for those of you that don't venture onto the main board

[youtube]1X4R_IDP4aA[/youtube]

 

[Lions4flag]

^^^^^ LMFAO one of the funniest things i watched

 

[POBT]

Brilliant

 

[Zacisonfire]

That is awsome!

 

[luthor]

Only disappointment was that the Fuhrer didn't crack the shits over Clark's omission.

 

[Stocka]

Come on. You all seriously can't de disappointed can you?

He may have had an alright season, but there are a lot of games where he did ordinary stuff.

Rubbish. Clark would have had 2-3 "ordinary" games at the most. Even so, he still gave 100% effort in any games in which he wasn't dominant.

He isn't developed or matured as a ruckman and was never going to get all australian seclection.

Despite the fact that he was one of the very best, and arguably dominant, ruckmen in the league this year?

Sandilands is proven and he does a lot of stuff around the ground which is not ordinary.

If you think that Clark was not sensational around the ground this year then you are a poor judge of football.

Clark was not and is not All Australian material this year.

Rubbish. You need to go back into exile. Stop trying to justify your rubbish predictions with crap.

Your comments, to paraphrase Gordon Ramsay's comments about a restaurant, like "Piling crap on top of crap. So you have crap on crap."

 

[paulige]

Rubbish. Clark would have had 2-3 "ordinary" games at the most. Even so, he still gave 100% effort in any games in which he wasn't dominant.

Despite the fact that he was one of the very best, and arguably dominant, ruckmen in the league this year?

If you think that Clark was not sensational around the ground this year then you are a poor judge of football.

Rubbish. You need to go back into exile. Stop trying to justify your rubbish predictions with crap.

Your comments, to paraphrase Gordon Ramsay's comments about a restaurant, like "Piling crap on top of crap. So you have crap on crap."

I wouldn't pay any attention to SB's thoughts on Clark, from what I can recall he referred to him as a 'hack' and 'waste of space' on our list, April this year.

Must have some sort of Vendetta...

 

[Secular Bicep]

When and IF Clark plays like this next year for half a season and can keep the consistency up, then come back to me.

Until he does that you can't label him in the same mould as Sandilands, Cox etc.

Remember Des Headland? How did he turn out

Half a season does not make a player.

 

[Lehmo87]

When and IF Clark plays like this next year for half a season and can keep the consistency up, then come back to me.

Until he does that you can't label him in the same mould as Sandilands, Cox etc.

Remember Des Headland? How did he turn out

Half a season does not make a player.

That still doesn't justify the caning that you gave him. You're posts, to me, suggest you are trying to pre-empt a downfall next year.

Regardless of what happens in 2010, you can't take away what Clark did this year in such a difficult situation and he is getting the kudos he deserves.

 

[Secular Bicep]

Clark may have been good, but he wasn't great and he surely wasn't up to All Australian Quality against consistent performers like Sandilands.

All who think Clark was shafted is delusional and need to look at the bigger picture instead of having bias glasses on.