Toovey was an embarassment

[shawthing09]

Re: What worries me

Story goes that Mick insisted on drafting Toovey, even though Hine didn't think we should.

I think Mick still wants to justify his pick.

I would really hope we are more professional then that, and if that is the case its more of a mick likes the way he plays then an ego thing

 

[smiddaz123]

Re: What worries me

Who said that?

It's just a story that's been floating around for a while.

Not sure if it's true or not.

 

[DanGerous]

Yeah fair enough they have to earn the spots available in the 1s, but guys like Stanley, Clarke, Holland etc whom are consistently in the best for the reserves and are overlooked, and Toovey has a good game and then promoted is a little disappointing. But if Toovey is one of our worst on the list we are in a strong position i think.

Holland looks shot, he is not over the achilles problem yet and it looks like threatening his career.

Clarke is improving but his awareness has to get much better before you would consider him.

Stanley needs to impose himself on a game more, he's a bull of a kid but let's face it he is competing with Burn's and O'Bree for a spot as an extractor.

To a certain extent everything fell Toovey's way in that he is a perfect replacement for Goldsack and happened to be BOG the week Goldy didn't get up. But the kid still had to put his hand up and he did.

So now it is up to the Wellingham's and Stanley's to put their hand up and make themselves impossible to ignore rather than just elevating them to aid development.

 

[Thommo 42]

Re: What worries me

He was an AA u/18 wasnt he? So he must of at least shown something in the Carnival at least. But i still dont like him playing instead of a few other guys ive listed in another thread..

He was AA U/18 as an underage player and wasn't drafted despite nominating and going to draft camp.

He wasn't AA the following year, but was VC of WA U/18s and again wasn't drafted, many saw this as a surprise and we grabbed him as a rookie.

 

[Pie eyed]

Given the skill level of most of this team (admitedly against 2nd rate oppo) not good enough was he? Repeated clangers around centre wing. Frustarting because we would all like to think that this team has potential to get into a GF, but as was shown last year, you only do that without having to carry passengers.

What a totally undisguised lot of crap.

While you could argue that another player may have come up, to say he was an embarrassment is tripe.

He was serviceable without being outstanding.....you know like most young players trying to forge a place in an AFL side.

We have been "spoiled" by the great debuts and ongoing games of so many of our young fellows over the last two years that you have forgotten how most players start out.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Re: What worries me

I really don't understand the selectors' decisions regarding Toovey. That's all I have to say at this juncture.

 

[bucksisbest]

Re: What worries me

I think it's a worry when Toovey's picked in front of anyone.
I really like aspects of Stanley's game and would like to see if he is up to it or not through the midfield , where he is best suited.

 

[Godfrey Jones]

Re: What worries me

Stanley is probably the unluckiest player on the list at the moment. Very consistent at VFL level (Which is a lot more contested than AFL), and in his previous AFL games was played out of position. He is probably one of my favourite playerson the list (Early i know but i like the way he attacks the ball) , but he never gets an opportunity when a guy like Toovey does.

look, in the end...i have full trust in the coaches and the selection panel for the teams they put out each week. Whoever they choose to be in our 22 obviously deserve to be there

...and you must remember, from all accounts, Toovey has been regularly amongst our best in the VFL.

Then again, VFL level is so much different. Look at Ben Davies, he regularly starred down at Willie but couldnt crack it amongst the big guys

 

[bucksisbest]

Re: What worries me

Then again, VFL level is so much different. Look at Ben Davies, he regularly starred down at Willie but couldnt crack it amongst the big guys

The way Davies gathered his possessions and his disposal of them never looked AFL standard.

 

[shawthing09]

What a totally undisguised lot of crap.

While you could argue that another player may have come up, to say he was an embarrassment is tripe.

He was serviceable without being outstanding.....you know like most young players trying to forge a place in an AFL side.

We have been "spoiled" by the great debuts and ongoing games of so many of our young fellows over the last two years that you have forgotten how most players start out.

That's about where it stands actually. He looks bad in comparison to some of our outstanding youngsters who have hit the ground running such as Brown, Clarke and Goldsack.

The other two problems we have here are people are judging his preformance off what the others who missed out "could have done." and I agree that there may have been better options but he wasn't that bad.

The other thing is people are judging today as the whole Toov package some repeat errors in decision making etc from his last stint in the seniors, while he was not horrible, terrible or incredibly bad he did not do enough to dispell the judgement that many of us have made that he is not up to afl footy

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Quite simply, Stanley is the better footballer and has just had lack of opportunity's which is no fault of his own, he is consistently in the best for the 2's and should be played predominately in the middle, not in the back or up forward as MM seems to want to do with him.

This point harks back to my recent thread on the midfield rotation system, which to my mind demands that players are able to play in multiple positions, in keeping with the Dutch idea of "total football" in the world game.

It seems that it's not enough to be a midfielder only any more, now if Stanley wants to get time in the midfield, he has to also be able to play as a back (which hasn't proven successful, including Robbo's 2 goals on him) or as a forward (which has been more successful, eg. playing CHF against Sandy in the VFL semi-final last year).

I wonder if we do get a genuine midfielder, will we screw him up by forcing him to play another position? Furthermore, is this why we looked at McCarthy? Inside Football listed him as a medium forward, and MM/Hine have talked about playing him across half-back.

 

[Pie eyed]

This point harks back to my recent thread on the midfield rotation system, which to my mind demands that players are able to play in multiple positions, in keeping with the Dutch idea of "total football" in the world game.

It seems that it's not enough to be a midfielder only any more, now if Stanley wants to get time in the midfield, he has to also be able to play as a back (which hasn't proven successful, including Robbo's 2 goals on him) or as a forward (which has been more successful, eg. playing CHF against Sandy in the VFL semi-final last year).

I wonder if we do get a genuine midfielder, will we screw him up by forcing him to play another position? Furthermore, is this why we looked at McCarthy? Inside Football listed him as a medium forward, and MM/Hine have talked about playing him across half-back.

You make a good point regarding versatilty, but there are always going to various degrees in individuals.
I am just saying Toovey was not terrible and he could well be one of those players who you purser veer with until he finally "gets it" and before you know it every second kid has his number on his back.
We took this kid and we owe it to Collingwood and him that he gets a fare go.
The other option is write him off and we have an expensive 2nds player for another year.

 

[donnie5]

Re: What worries me

Toovey really isnt that bad. He just needs to work on his disposal, i think he tries hard and gives 100%, which should result in some development from Toovey. Also i realised that he has some pace to go with his size which is encouraging.

 

[Jabso]

Re: What worries me

Toovey played his role well and his disposal which is often criticised was very good. We can go on and on about what Stanley might have done but it's a moot point. Toovey showed today that he actually does belong at AFL level IMO. I think it shows how people get blinded by reputations. Anthony, Wellingham, Clarke, Stanley, Cox are the golden boys while Toovey, Egan, Iles, R.Shaw (for some) have to do it all to impress you. If Anthony played the same game Toovs did you'd be in love with him talking him up. Trust me when I say I'm not a Toovey fan and thought he wasn't up to it, but I saw a lot of promise in todays game.

 

[Jabso]

Given the skill level of most of this team (admitedly against 2nd rate oppo) not good enough was he? Repeated clangers around centre wing. Frustarting because we would all like to think that this team has potential to get into a GF, but as was shown last year, you only do that without having to carry passengers.

The thread title is a much bigger embarrassment. Talk about exaggeration.

 

[pipeline]

Re: What worries me

Toovey played his role well and his disposal which is often criticised was very good. We can go on and on about what Stanley might have done but it's a moot point. Toovey showed today that he actually does belong at AFL level IMO. I think it shows how people get blinded by reputations. Anthony, Wellingham, Clarke, Stanley, Cox are the golden boys while Toovey, Egan, Iles, R.Shaw (for some) have to do it all to impress you. If Anthony played the same game Toovs did you'd be in love with him talking him up. Trust me when I say I'm not a Toovey fan and thought he wasn't up to it, but I saw a lot of promise in todays game.

Golden boys???? WTF? Take Clarke out and the "Golden boys have had three games between them. How many have Toovey,Egan, Isles had? You're just going a bit too far in your squaring up.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

I wonder if we do get a genuine midfielder, will we screw him up by forcing him to play another position? Furthermore, is this why we looked at McCarthy? Inside Football listed him as a medium forward, and MM/Hine have talked about playing him across half-back.

Really, are O'Bree/Burns/Pendlebury/Swan/Rhyce spending extensive time playing either forward or back? And regardless, do they have any kind of special ability to do it that others don't? I'm sure any player could rotate through the forward line as effectively as O'Bree or Rhyce would do, even though they don't actually do that.

The whole point of the interchange system is that they rotate through the bench as well - That's why we use so many of them.

 

[Jabso]

Re: What worries me

Golden boys???? WTF? Take Clarke out and the "Golden boys have had three games between them. How many have Toovey,Egan, Isles had? You're just going a bit too far in your squaring up.

There seems to be an attitude in footy that the untried is better than the tried. Toovey has got games for a reason. There is just as much upside in Toovey thant he others, how many AFL games he's played has nothing to do with it as the amount of games is minimal. He may well not make it, and I suppose it's better to have these players being bagged rather than dubbed players of the future when we were quite mediocre and hailing the likes of Shackleton, Nixon, Morrison, Rowe after their first few games.

The golden boys comments may have been taking it a bit too far, but people complain about MM having his favorites, the Collingwood internet community is much the same.

Another thing is that he IS on our list right now, so if he is playing well in the VFL and can do a role at AFL then he needs to play. The coaching staff obviously made a decision last year that he was up to it. I myself thought he should have been delisted but we can't effectively delist him like some of you are saying after 1 game, let alone 1 that was at the very least reasonable, let alone this early in the season.

 

[pipeline]

Re: What worries me

There seems to be an attitude in footy that the untried is better than the tried. Toovey has got games for a reason. There is just as much upside in Toovey thant he others, how many AFL games he's played has nothing to do with it as the amount of games is minimal. He may well not make it, and I suppose it's better to have these players being bagged rather than dubbed players of the future when we were quite mediocre and hailing the likes of Shackleton, Nixon, Morrison, Rowe after their first few games.

The golden boys comments may have been taking it a bit too far, but people complain about MM having his favorites, the Collingwood internet community is much the same.

I'm not complaining about Tooves. I like him and have been a supporter when everyone wanted him dead and gone. My complaint was about the "Golden Boys" bit. And Stanley for example did nothing wrong in his 2 games but was dropped and never given another chance - this despite endless bests in the twos since. Tooves, God bless him, hasn't been anywhere near as good or consistent. Wellingham hasn't even got off the rookie list and Coxy has deserved a run for some time - certainly he's been a more damaging player than Tooves despite his BOG last week. (which was debatable).

I'm happy to see Tooves get his chances, but don't pretend that the other boys are somehow privileged because a few supporters here rate them as better.

 

[Jabso]

Re: What worries me

I just think that Stanley needs to show a lot more than just being a big body and being servicable (this could be seen as being harsh), Cox needs to do more defensively or at least get more of the ball, Cook is much like Stanley (although even more vanilla), Anthony is coming along alright and I haven't seen enough of him to comment but there was an uproar when Toovey was selected before him, we all know how good Clarke is but he had a shocker in his first game, it was worse than Toovey's game yesterday. Toovey needs work on minimising errors but he can do a shutdown job on players. Toovey is at the same level as Anthony, Cook, Stanley and Cox and he gets "favorable treatment" because unlike the others he has shown he can play a role in our side (Anthony could be excuse through inury obviously). Like those others he has his strengths and weaknesses.

And TRS McCarthy was drafted as an inside mid who may be introduced through the backline in true MM style. I think he was listed as a medium forward just because he kicked a few goals and would go forward a bit but that's not his ideal AFL role.

 

[Professor Knowall]

The title of this thread is an embarrassment. Sure, Toovey is far from the best player on our list, is a fringe player at best (as was Ryce Shaw for ages, as was even Dayne Swan for quite a while, yet look at them now), but some of the crap put on him here says more about the posters than the player.

Toovey was OK yesterday. Whether he should've been selected is a moot point. He obviously did enough beforehand to satisfy the match committee of his credentials, and I trust their judgement more than anyone here (including myself). After last years horror game he had against the Tiges, I thought it was a good psychological move to get him "back on the horse" in the next rematch. The club obviously values his character and can see potential for improvement (as they did with Ryce Shaw and Dayne Swan).

He wasn't terrific, made a couple of bad blues, but he did his job, and was mostly OK. With Goldsack to return next week, and possibly Reid, he will be dropped again. He can be fairly criticised on facets of his game that need improvement, but he doesn't deserve the embarrasing garbage some here put on him by some here.

 

[MarkT]

Re: What worries me

Silly to call Toovey and embarrassment but he isn’t good enough at anything to play AFL footy. He might improve but I can’t see him improving enough to make it as a top line player. If someone wants him at the end of the year then trade him but it is more likely he will be delisted.

There seems to be an attitude in footy that the untried is better than the tried.

To point it is. If the tried isn’t going to be top end then the untried represent hope. The reality is we have short list and a compulsory cull and draft every year. If you have no outright duds and insufficient retirees then you have to cut reasonable players. Toovery, Iiles, Cox and Cook are in the gun. Stanley, Dawes, Wellingham, Dyas etc have actually done less at AFL level but have some chance of being good players because they haven’t shown they aren’t.

 

[pipeline]

Re: What worries me

I just think that Stanley needs to show a lot more than just being a big body and being servicable (this could be seen as being harsh), Cox needs to do more defensively or at least get more of the ball, Cook is much like Stanley (although even more vanilla), Anthony is coming along alright and I haven't seen enough of him to comment but there was an uproar when Toovey was selected before him, we all know how good Clarke is but he had a shocker in his first game, it was worse than Toovey's game yesterday. Toovey needs work on minimising errors but he can do a shutdown job on players. Toovey is at the same level as Anthony, Cook, Stanley and Cox and he gets "favorable treatment" because unlike the others he has shown he can play a role in our side (Anthony could be excuse through inury obviously). Like those others he has his strengths and weaknesses.

And TRS McCarthy was drafted as an inside mid who may be introduced through the backline in true MM style. I think he was listed as a medium forward just because he kicked a few goals and would go forward a bit but that's not his ideal AFL role.

Jabso, I think you're letting your prejudices out for a gallop too, just like the rest of the "Collingwood internet community".

To take your points in order:
Stanley: Has rarely (if ever) been out of the bests since he went back to the two's, so he's been a little more than "servicable". He got bugger-all from Gotch (remember the attempt to drop him in last years finals - only prevented by MM's intervention), and in his 2 games so far is averaging 25 posessions and more importantly, about 90% effectivene with his disposals.

Cox: Needs to get more of the ball? If he got much more nobody else in the backline would be getting a touch. Yes, his defensive game could lift but it's not as bad as "the Collingwood internet community" make out. Plus, he has skills which could take him to the midfield, wing, forward line and they're far superior to Tooves.

Cook: Much like Stanley? Jabso, you need to get out more, like to a few seconds games. He's not even remotely like Stanley. He's a light, outside runner/receiver with virtually no overhead capacity but a huge tank. he will never play a Stanley type game.

JA. Yes, he is coming along alright and will continue to do so. For his first game though, he gets played up forward, not where 95% of time to date has been spent, ie, the backline.

Clarke. Good point - he did play a shocker in his first game - but he was persevered with, unlike Stanley who didn't play a shocker in his first.

It seems that the argument you're making is that Tooves is as good, or has as much potential, as any of the above - and that's plain nonsense. He's a good, honest kid who'll always give his best but he's not the player any of these others are - as I suspect you agree.

I repeat, I'm not complaining about Tooves and I hope he gets a few games to show his stuff but your criticism of the other boys is mean-spirited and yes, "could be seen as being harsh". Most unlike you Jabso.

 

[Lawboy]

Couldn't agree more with the headline. He doesnt run he gallops and twice when we were streaming forward he just gave up the ball by not running hard enough. Simple kicks under no pressure into the man on the mark. Generally running around like a headless chook out of position and being of no assistance to the ball carrier. I noticed many times in the second half when he did make space the pies player with the ball ignored him, especially when kicking out from fullback.
What do Iles or Stanley do to be ranked behind this bloke on the pecking order?
He has the Matty Lokan/Richard Cole MM Free pass.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Given the skill level of most of this team (admitedly against 2nd rate oppo) not good enough was he? Repeated clangers around centre wing. Frustarting because we would all like to think that this team has potential to get into a GF, but as was shown last year, you only do that without having to carry passengers.

Toovey was pretty good, I thought. Still prone to disposal errors: kicked into the man on the mark; turned the ball over by hand once in the middle; and may have burned it one other time by foot. But on the positive side, he really does give us a lot of run, and he's pretty solid one-on-one when in defence.

With Goldsack returning (presumably), he may be pushed out. But not through bad form.