Preview Round 1 team

[PatrickBateman]

I'd like to use him as a marking forward while we try to find a big key player for the future, cause Mitch Brown isn't advanced enough for the job, unfortunately.

I'll tell you why this opinion is flawed with regards to Mackie. His weakness(and it's a HUGE one at that) is his ability to contest the footy. This obviously includes marking contests. Forwards are always manned, ALWAYS. Mackie's saving grace has been playing a role down back that allows him to float around getting handball receives and setting up play, often without an opponent at all. The least responsible position on the ground in other words, which has kept him out of the spotlight with fans in a negative respect for years. Up forward, Mackie would get destroyed. He'd get out-bodied at every contest, he goes to ground more than anyone I've ever seen, squibs more contests than most, he's not a great kick... the list goes on.

He has had a good run playing with the best defenders many have seen in 20 years... A player of his type would never of stood up on his own without the Scarletts, Harleys, Taylors, Milburns etc. Lucky is the word that comes to mind. The guy has always been arrogant, this has blinded him from the fact that hard work could have made him into a much better player IMO.

 

[Cataholic]

Umm joining date December 2009 are you Kane Tenace

Ah, I see what you did there. Good one!

Nah, I'm too old and too slow to be Tenace, but I reckon I could near kick the ball as good!

 

[Partridge]

Taylor Hunt could never replace the likes of Mackie, he's almost a head shorter than him to start, I thought Mackie got alot of the ball last week, and his ariel work is vital to our defence, especially with no Taylor.

Except that Taylor will be there in Round 1. In my opinion Taylor Hunt could comfortably replace Mackie. Although he hasn't starred in the two NAB Cup games he wasn't terrible either. He didn't squib any contests like Mackie did, that's for sure.

I'd like to use him as a marking forward while we try to find a big key player for the future, cause Mitch Brown isn't advanced enough for the job, unfortunately.

Interesting you mention Mitch Brown, what's the difference in weight between the two players? I wouldn't think Mackie would be much heavier. He's far from a physical powerhouse, that's for sure.

 

[Cataholic]

Except that Taylor will be there in Round 1. In my opinion Taylor Hunt could comfortably replace Mackie. Although he hasn't starred in the two NAB Cup games he wasn't terrible either. He didn't squib any contests like Mackie did, that's for sure.



Interesting you mention Mitch Brown, what's the difference in weight between the two players? I wouldn't think Mackie would be much heavier. He's far from a physical powerhouse, that's for sure.

2kg's - if the club's website stat's are to be believed!

But I think the key difference is that Brown needs more weight to endure the constant body contact he'll suffer up forward, while Mackie, although he must be able to contest body on body, needs to be fleet of foot to run off the backline.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Because of our weakness in the big man dept, Hawkins will have to make do with Josh Walker this weekend.
Probably not a bad thing for young Josh, throw him in the deepend, but gee it sure underlines our want of power forwards and tall defenders.
At least Tomahawk won't be left on his own as happened last week against the monster Saints defence, playing a ruck up forward is to throw a bandaid at the problem, its no answer, we need to find some big guys not just skinny kids like Mitch Brown.
I hope Mitch develops futher this year.

As for Round 1.
Taylor Hunt could never replace the likes of Mackie, he's almost a head shorter than him to start, I thought Mackie got alot of the ball last week, and his ariel work is vital to our defence, especially with no Taylor.
I'd like to use him as a marking forward while we try to find a big key player for the future, cause Mitch Brown isn't advanced enough for the job, unfortunately.

I think you will find given that we are playing three ruckmen this week, that Hawkins will be supported by West down forward, and also Ben Johnson. Josh will probably spend most of the match on the bench.

As for Mackie, if he played to his height, you'd be right, but he doesn't. As a back or forward, he shouldn't be in the side.

If everyone else who can play tall forward is injured for round 1, then West will play CHF, people should accept that instead of plumping for undeveloped kids like Brown, or guys who are not tall forwards like Mackie.

 

[turbo0010]

This will get beaten down no doubt, but I think i would prefer for them to go small, rather than put talls there because that's the norm. A ruckman can rest down there, but we just seem to get beaten when that happens. We seem to get lost with makeshift forward lines.

Hawkins can just be the lead up the ground target and break from there, with pace inside 50 and the focus on defensive pressure. We have enough mid/small forwards/mids to create a bit of trouble.

If they bomb it in all night, this will fail badly, but it's also round 1, better to lose playing fowards in the forward line, than ruckmen, who are not going to be there after rd 1.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

This will get beaten down no doubt, but I think i would prefer for them to go small, rather than put talls there because that's the norm. A ruckman can rest down there, but we just seem to get beaten when that happens. We seem to get lost with makeshift forward lines.

Hawkins can just be the lead up the ground target and break from there, with pace inside 50 and the focus on defensive pressure. We have enough mid/small forwards/mids to create a bit of trouble.

If they bomb it in all night, this will fail badly, but it's also round 1, better to lose playing fowards in the forward line, than ruckmen, who are not going to be there after rd 1.

But they will be there after round 1, thanks to the new rule the second ruckman will have to play mainly forward, so if we have no Pods or Mooney why not put a West or Vardy or Dawson forward. Yes it will be a slightly different role as a 2nd tall compared to the third (which they will be most of the year) but it will still be very good learning for them for that reason.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

But they will be there after round 1, thanks to the new rule the second ruckman will have to play mainly forward, so if we have no Pods or Mooney why not put a West or Vardy or Dawson forward. Yes it will be a slightly different role as a 2nd tall compared to the third (which they will be most of the year) but it will still be very good learning for them for that reason.

Blake Caracella has already hinted that we will go in with just the 1 ruckman, with a few pinch hitting when Ottens has a spell. I think you will find one of West, Simpson, Vardy or Blake becoming the Sub for the majority of the season. Barring injuries of course.

 

[maxy87]

Blake Caracella has already hinted that we will go in with just the 1 ruckman, with a few pinch hitting when Ottens has a spell. I think you will find one of West, Simpson, Vardy or Blake becoming the Sub for the majority of the season. Barring injuries of course.

If we go in with primary ruck and have him assisted by pinch hitters I doubt that the sub will be another ruckman. Having the pinch hitters in the side is enough to allow the sub to be more versatile in case of injury and general fatigue. I'd say someone in the high 180s to low 190s (ala Corey, Menzel types) would be more ideal as the sub.

Re: Mackie. Granted he needs to lift his game after last season and deserved to be dropped but calling him soft is a pretty big call to make. His numbers have been excellent and even weren't that bad last year. He was put in defence to play a particular role as a running, free flowing rebounder and played that role very well for us between 2007 and 2009. Not every player had to be a burly bash and crash contested ball winner and he was found wanting a lot last year because our defensive structure was broken down by the better sides IMO. Rather than address the obvious deficiencies in our defensive structure, Bomber used Mackie as a scapegoat. Also, his foot skills are not woeful, they're actually quite good and he is quick and his height (192cm) makes him a versatile option.
He hasn't played as a true forward for 5 years and as another post pointed out, we were rubbish when he played down there.

I can't really speak for his attitude though.. I'm merely expressing my opinion on what I've seen. If his attitude is poor then that will need to change if he is to add a bit contested ball and contested marking to his game.

Seriously, some posters should start a thread entitled "top 10 most resented Geelong footballers" despite the fact we have won 2 flags in the last four years

 

[geelong12]

Have been away over the summer so I'm playing catchup with the all the news. Before I left I was feeling flat about this season but now I'm back I think there is a fresh feel to the club and it will be good to see a change. Guys like Duncan are ready to seriously fight for starting spots and the sooner we start finding future 200+ gamers the better.

Only worry at this stage is our big men stocks. If we have problems with those guys then I fear we might fall a bit harder than we think.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

If we go in with primary ruck and have him assisted by pinch hitters I doubt that the sub will be another ruckman. Having the pinch hitters in the side is enough to allow the sub to be more versatile in case of injury and general fatigue. I'd say someone in the high 180s to low 190s (ala Corey, Menzel types) would be more ideal as the sub.

Re: Mackie. Granted he needs to lift his game after last season and deserved to be dropped but calling him soft is a pretty big call to make. His numbers have been excellent and even weren't that bad last year. He was put in defence to play a particular role as a running, free flowing rebounder and played that role very well for us between 2007 and 2009. Not every player had to be a burly bash and crash contested ball winner and he was found wanting a lot last year because our defensive structure was broken down by the better sides IMO. Rather than address the obvious deficiencies in our defensive structure, Bomber used Mackie as a scapegoat. Also, his foot skills are not woeful, they're actually quite good and he is quick and his height (192cm) makes him a versatile option.
He hasn't played as a true forward for 5 years and as another post pointed out, we were rubbish when he played down there.

I can't really speak for his attitude though.. I'm merely expressing my opinion on what I've seen. If his attitude is poor then that will need to change if he is to add a bit contested ball and contested marking to his game.

Seriously, some posters should start a thread entitled "top 10 most resented Geelong footballers" despite the fact we have won 2 flags in the last four years

Thats where picking the sub can become tricky. If a tall gets injured during the game eg: Ottens(which is likely) or Hawkins, it will be much harder to cover with a small/medium as sub, than say a midfielder/defender getting fatigued or injured. In theory if they play 1 ruckman with Hawkins and Podsiadly as the starting forwards, Mooney will more than likely play off the bench, so the sub like you said will probably be a medium/small.

 

[meto]

Didn't anyone notice Mackie running back with flight only to get dumped by a pack, comment on courage was forthcoming from the commentary!

I'd play him HFF, next to Pods.
Quick, can mark, likes a goal, swap one flank for the other.

That means we've got 2+3/4 talls up forward, 3 over 190cms.
Hawkins Pods and Mackie.

 

[maxy87]

Didn't anyone notice Mackie running back with flight only to get dumped by a pack, comment on courage was forthcoming from the commentary!

I'd play him HFF, next to Pods.

Yeah I did notice that. It did take me by surprise a little! In the Sunday paper in Adelaide they had a list if the top 20 AFL players from SA. I think Mackie came in at 13 or so.. Enright 5 I think

 

[you pick one]

Didn't anyone notice Mackie running back with flight only to get dumped by a pack, comment on courage was forthcoming from the commentary!

I'd play him HFF, next to Pods.
Quick, can mark, likes a goal, swap one flank for the other.

That means we've got 2+3/4 talls up forward, 3 over 190cms.
Hawkins Pods and Mackie.

You can bet they all did metro, but doesn't suit there argument.

 

[PatrickBateman]

Didn't anyone notice Mackie running back with flight only to get dumped by a pack, comment on courage was forthcoming from the commentary!

I'd play him HFF, next to Pods.
Quick, can mark, likes a goal, swap one flank for the other.

That means we've got 2+3/4 talls up forward, 3 over 190cms.
Hawkins Pods and Mackie.

With an opponent(one-on-one), Mackie is just plain embarrassing. Defenders are generally the largest guys in the team, he would get nudged out of contests/beaten far too easily. He's better off hidden in the least contested role in the team, where he has always been... loose in defense. He's not quick either... that's rubbish! Just because you see him running down the flanks all alone in front of a paddock doesn't make him quick.

If he has shown courage in the NAB Cup it's because he has no choice. But, I'm not the only one on here who saw him pull out of multiple contests in both NAB games. I don't give a damn about the obvious(commentated) things he does, take a harder look my friend... he squibs when it's less noticeable to the average idiot, but I don't miss it. Usually in pack situations. His lack of size and hight center of gravity is pathetic, his own doing(lack of training) and to his detriment. He was consistently questioned with regards to his ability to cut off leads in defense and put any physical pressure on opposition forwards in 2010... he failed after obvious continual badgering by Thompson.

Funny I didn't see him strutting around town with his skin tight size 'S' t-shirts for those licorice arms after he was dropped. The guys arrogance $hits me.

 

[vinum coupe]

Great ! Just what this forum needed. Another poster with a chip on his shoulders

 

[PatrickBateman]

You can bet they all did metro, but doesn't suit there argument.

No actually. Many of us have played/watched football and attend games. Our eyes don't only follow the ball and we don't rely on commentators to tell us who is courages and who is squibbing contests.

Josh Hunt is a classic example of the opposite. Pulled out of a contest, which looked dreadful years ago against the Saints. It was made a HUGE deal of by the media, so everyone jumps on board and before long he's universally known as soft... which actually isn't the case at all. Hits packs and tackles VERY hard.

The more foolish the individual, the easier he/she is influenced by the media.

 

[CatFan79]

Re: Mackie. Granted he needs to lift his game after last season and deserved to be dropped but calling him soft is a pretty big call to make.

It's not the fact he doesn't hit packs hard that makes him soft, its his inability to lay a tackle to stop/slow opposition ball movement by hand and the fact that he cannot ride a tackle. These are 2 skills that are crucial in our game plan. If you haven't noticed his deficiency in these areas then look harder.

I can't really speak for his attitude though..

He was told continuously last year to work on parts of his game but didn't, which is why he got dropped.

He obviously hasn't ever really had a crack at building himself up. Its not coincidence that the guys that work hard on the ground have the best physiques usually because they're the hardest workers off the ground also.

Ever been to training? Mackie often looks lethargic and disinterested.

Even though theres a few guys in this category so I cant single him out but he struts around town like he owns it..

 

[turbo0010]

For me it's when the pressure is on, that's when he crumbles. Yes the team did as well, but i think the guy doesn't have a good enough brain to work through those situations. Things like always giving off a handball before assessing if the guy is even in a better position - a few others are responsible for this as well.

He did also lay a good tackle on the weekend, stopping one of the young st kilda players in the pocket, think it was the ranga. But on those marks, he was going to ground every time, if he doesn't get the mark, or a free kick, he's out of the play. Better off spoiling it to the boundary like Milburn would do -15 rows back.

It probably also shows, he's been told to work harder or you may not be playing.

Remember last year against st kilda (first final i think?), when he was in a pack and just kicked it off the ground, which resulted in a st kilda goal. I believe that's the moment Thompson had probably had enough and me too. That would get you benched in under 15's.

As for the topic, the round 1 team, they are still saying Mooney will play next week, but who knows. I think giving guys like vardy/west/simpson time forward to learn is good, they need it, but I don't think using one as the CHF for a game is a good idea. Vardy - yes, as he is more likely to be a forward/ruck than ruck/forward.

I'm just worried St Kilda will run the ball out easily as has been happening, so I thought maybe going smallish, would provide us with more mobility and at worst, make it really difficult for them to get it out. Whether we score goals from that, I don't know.

 

[Cataholic]

For me it's when the pressure is on, that's when he crumbles. Yes the team did as well, but i think the guy doesn't have a good enough brain to work through those situations. Things like always giving off a handball before assessing if the guy is even in a better position - a few others are responsible for this as well.

He did also lay a good tackle on the weekend, stopping one of the young st kilda players in the pocket, think it was the ranga. But on those marks, he was going to ground every time, if he doesn't get the mark, or a free kick, he's out of the play. Better off spoiling it to the boundary like Milburn would do -15 rows back.

It probably also shows, he's been told to work harder or you may not be playing.

Remember last year against st kilda (first final i think?), when he was in a pack and just kicked it off the ground, which resulted in a st kilda goal. I believe that's the moment Thompson had probably had enough and me too. That would get you benched in under 15's.

As for the topic, the round 1 team, they are still saying Mooney will play next week, but who knows. I think giving guys like vardy/west/simpson time forward to learn is good, they need it, but I don't think using one as the CHF for a game is a good idea. Vardy - yes, as he is more likely to be a forward/ruck than ruck/forward.

I'm just worried St Kilda will run the ball out easily as has been happening, so I thought maybe going smallish, would provide us with more mobility and at worst, make it really difficult for them to get it out. Whether we score goals from that, I don't know.

We simply haven't seen enough of Vardy for his selection to be justified in Round 1. It would be a bold and wildcard selection if he gets a spot in the side.

In Pods and Moons (likely) absence, I think they simply have to play West as their CHF, and 2nd ruck. He has the size to contest the position, and if nothing else, should be capable of bringing it to ground for the small forwards.

I think he's shown enough in the practice games to earn a spot for the first game at least.

 

[maxy87]

I'm glad you mentioned that others were guilty of the aimless handpass for the sake of a handpass last season, turbo. You can throw our whole defence into that category and even a few midfielders. This is where our plan fell to pieces at numerous times last year so let's not get too hasty with hanging Mackie out to dry. Yes, he has relied upon receiving up to this point which he has done very well in. Look at his numbers. It's s chicken and egg scenario. If you're starved of quality ball from your teammates then you're gonna look pretty lost aren't you?

Was he in actual fact continuously told to improve last year? How about 2007, 2008 and 2009? He fitted in very nicely to a well organised back six. Collingwood and St Kilda finally find a way to stop our movement from defence and we blame it all on Mackie. How about Bombers refusal to make changes to our style?

Patrick Bateman, you can't just make judgement calls about someones intelligence just becausr they disagree with you. It's the first sign of a poorly constructed argument. Watching football on TV is often the best way if seeing how guys are going IMO

I agree with you though that he may come across as arrogant and indifferent and I have heard this before.. But what does this have to do with being 'soft'? Yes it could equate to him being lazy but that again doesn't equate to 'soft'.

Re: when the pressure is on Mackie crumbles.. He played pretty well in all three GFs we played in. Also statistically he still had quite a good year last year and correct me if I'm wrong but his best games for contested possessions were against the bulldogs and collingwood.

Cut the guy a little bit of slack. I'm not saying he's perfect but some of the things written on here are pretty harsh

 

[cynical]

Mackie should be cruising around on the wing.

The way you beat the saints is with pace and by having an accountable forwardline.

Depending on matchups I'd have a defensive forward on gilbert maybe someone like enright.

I'd have T hunt and Wojo both in the backline.

If stokes is playing i'd have him in the middle cos he gets monstered by the saints backline.

West 2nd ruck/forward, can get away with only having 3 talls(2 rucks 1 ff) as long as we dont bomb it forward.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Blake Caracella has already hinted that we will go in with just the 1 ruckman, with a few pinch hitting when Ottens has a spell. I think you will find one of West, Simpson, Vardy or Blake becoming the Sub for the majority of the season. Barring injuries of course.

Doubt it. If the sub is anything other than a running player the coaches are utterly stupid, and they aren't, it involves wayyy too much risk.

I think you'll find Caracella's 'one ruckman' comment is not as literal as you interpreted it, he means we will go in with one traditional ruckman (Ottens, or someone else if he's not fit), plus a mobile support act-meaning one of West, Vardy, or god forbid Hawkins. Effectively he's saying we won't play Ottens and Blake in the same side.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Thats where picking the sub can become tricky. If a tall gets injured during the game eg: Ottens(which is likely) or Hawkins, it will be much harder to cover with a small/medium as sub, than say a midfielder/defender getting fatigued or injured. In theory if they play 1 ruckman with Hawkins and Podsiadly as the starting forwards, Mooney will more than likely play off the bench, so the sub like you said will probably be a medium/small.

I agree to this point, but the problem is if you get no injury, your sub provides no extra run because you replace a tall for a tall in the third quater when your opposition is replacing a tall or a medium with a small,so they get extra run and run you off your feet which is why almost all clubs will go small with the sub.

I think you'll find what will happen (I noted Primus speaking on this yesterday) is that tall players in the side who have injury concerns won't play (i.e. Ottens is a good example) where they previously would have played if it was a marginal call, because it's now loaded with too much risk.

 

[vinum coupe]

And the other side to the coin is this PO.
If you play West (for example) and have Menzel as a sub you lose the potency, ball winning ability of Menzel whilst West is on the ground. So what is that for ? Maybe 75% of the game?

However, I agree they have to go to a smaller sub for safety.
There are far more running players than talls in a game of footy. So the odds are a running player is going to get injured first.