VFL VFL v Box Hill Hawks. Sunday April 16th @ Box Hill Oval. 12pm.

[Jen2310]

Co-captain Campbell Hustwaite did his best to lift Collingwood with 33 touches, nine clearances and five entries, but he has been offered a two-match suspension (three if he fights and loses) from the Match Review Panel for rough conduct against Hawk Fionn O’Hara in the final quarter, with the charge graded as careless conduct, high impact and high contact.

Support came from Fin Macrae (29 disposals, nine tackles, seven entries), Josh Carmichael (28 disposals, five marks, nine clearances, nine entries) and Trey Ruscoe (24 disposals, seven marks, nine rebounds).

REVIEW: Smithy's VFL Round 4

Dolphins on the board; Lions claim bragging rights; Seagulls and Hawks continue rise

www.afl.com.au

 

[Kirby]

Stats after a tough day at the office in the wet.

VFL: Fin Macrae - 29 disposals. 9 tackles. 4 clearances
Carmichael - 28 disposals. 0.2, 9 clearances, 3 tackles
Ruscoe - 24 disposals. 7 marks
Murley - 13 disposals. 2 goals. 3 tackles. 3 clearances
Kelly - 12 disposals. 5 tackles
Steene - 11 disposals. 22 hitouts. 3 clearances
Reef - 7 disposals. 7 tackles. 1 goal
Harrison - 9 disposals. 9 tackles. 1 goal
Kreuger - 3 disposals. 1 goal. 5 hitouts. 2 clearances

felt Macrae was our best, but Carmy was close 2nd, very good as well.

Macrae, Carmy and Ruscoe were easily our best 3 and can hold their heads high.

 

[Bianconeri]

Richards is a small fwd - no upside, given we are well stocked for same.

Being well stocked in an area doesn’t mean he has no upside.

 

[cityslick1]

Macrae & Ruscoe to come in for Adams and Murphy. Josh Fraser

Josh Fraser

Age

42

Ht

202cm

Wt

100kg

Pos.

Ruck

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.1

4star

K

8.7

3star

HB

5.4

4star

CL

2.5

4star

HO

11.8

5star

No current season stats available

D

9.4

3star

K

6.6

3star

HB

2.8

3star

HO

8.6

5star

to come in for McStay............ sorry, I meant Nathan Krueger

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Macrae & Ruscoe to come in for Adams and Murphy. Josh Fraser to come in for McStay............ sorry, I meant Nathan Krueger

No room for Jordy?

 

[#23 Hill]

Macrae & Ruscoe to come in for Adams and Murphy. Josh Fraser to come in for McStay............ sorry, I meant Nathan Krueger

Adams is injured now?

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Adams is injured now?

Suspended

 

[cityslick1]

No room for Jordy?

yeah, he's in for WHE.....

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

yeah, he's in for WHE.....

Doubt WHE gets dropped. Need as many players who are used to our system as possible I would have thought, considering all the forced outs.

 

[cityslick1]

Doubt WHE gets dropped. Need as many players who are used to our system as possible I would have thought, considering all the forced outs.

Bring back Mayne then.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Bring back Mayne then.

Mayne has never played under Fly's system.

 

[Ugene41]

Per bolded - I said “developing” KPF’s which by definition means they couldn’t assist with our current predicament.
We cut McMahon, so clearly we no longer give talls 4 years.
Flag window is a moot digression to this debate - developing KPF’s is NOT a substitute for recruiting ready made talls, many clubs do both.

I think that's the issue with McMahon. What's the point of letting go of McMahon to just recruit another speculative 18 year old tall that is two years behind McMahons development and with lower upside.

 

[Fat Jesus]

I think that's the issue with McMahon. What's the point of letting go of McMahon to just recruit another speculative 18 year old tall that is two years behind McMahons development and with lower upside.

If you're talking about Steene, I think this kid is going to be a very good player.
A pity we cut Liam though. He deserved another year at minimum.

 

[Ugene41]

If you're talking about Steene, I think this kid is going to be a very good player.
A pity we cut Liam though. He deserved another year at minimum.

Nah not talking about Steene. Just saying that it makes sense why we didnt pick a speculative late tall (pretty much only Scully left) instead of picking up Richards given we let McMahon go.

I would've prefered we kept McMahon than to pick up Scully or Richards.

 

[No SPIN]

I think that's the issue with McMahon. What's the point of letting go of McMahon to just recruit another speculative 18 year old tall that is two years behind McMahons development and with lower upside.

You said 4 years to “waste” on a KPF - I pointed that’s no longer the case.
All lower picks are speculative it’s not restricted to talls.
The difference being the upside is substantial when you find one.
And we may have been to hasty in cutting McMahon if he keeps developing at his current rate.

 

[Fat Jesus]

Nah not talking about Steene. Just saying that it makes sense why we didnt pick a speculative late tall (pretty much only Scully left) instead of picking up Richards given we let McMahon go.

I would've prefered we kept McMahon than to pick up Scully or Richards.

Agree mate

 

[Ugene41]

You said 4 years to “waste” on a KPF - I pointed that’s no longer the case.
All lower picks are speculative it’s not restricted to talls.
The difference being the upside is substantial when you find one.
And we may have been to hasty in cutting McMahon if he keeps developing at his current rate.

I didn't say "waste" 4 years on a KPF. I said if we're picking a late speculative tall, we need to invest at least 4+ years of having them on our list before we see whether they can develop into anything. If we're only going to turf them after 2 years like we did McMahon, then it's a waste.

So yes, agree we were too hasty in cutting McMahon after 2 years as we would've drafted him knowing he was raw and wouldn't be AFL ready in that time. But we obviously did as we're currently in premiership contention and list spots are at a premium and we needed to make spots for experienced contributors. So where we are in the window definitely contributes to how many speculative late talls we can carry on the list vs targeting experienced talent.

 

[jc37]

I didn't say "waste" 4 years on a KPF. I said if we're picking a late speculative tall, we need to invest at least 4+ years of having them on our list before we see whether they can develop into anything. If we're only going to turf them after 2 years like we did McMahon, then it's a waste.

So yes, agree we were too hasty in cutting McMahon after 2 years as we would've drafted him knowing he was raw and wouldn't be AFL ready in that time. But we obviously did as we're currently in premiership contention and list spots are at a premium and we needed to make spots for experienced contributors. So where we are in the window definitely contributes to how many speculative late talls we can carry on the list vs targeting experienced talent.

In our current situation would you trust McMahon or Kelly as a key back right now? Id prefer McMahon which makes the situation frsutrating.

 

[Ugene41]

In our current situation would you trust McMahon or Kelly as a key back right now? Id prefer McMahon which makes the situation frsutrating.

Yea same. They would've been much of the same to me but the fact we're playing Kelly on the wing when this could finally be his opportunity to see what he can do as a KPD is mind boggling. When Murphy got his chance last year after years on the list he surprised on the upside.

Maybe with McMahon, they would've been less likely to play him on the wing.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Off the AFL site
I'm tripping obviously
Thought I was on the main seniors list

 

[sr36]

I didn't say "waste" 4 years on a KPF. I said if we're picking a late speculative tall, we need to invest at least 4+ years of having them on our list before we see whether they can develop into anything. If we're only going to turf them after 2 years like we did McMahon, then it's a waste.

So yes, agree we were too hasty in cutting McMahon after 2 years as we would've drafted him knowing he was raw and wouldn't be AFL ready in that time. But we obviously did as we're currently in premiership contention and list spots are at a premium and we needed to make spots for experienced contributors. So where we are in the window definitely contributes to how many speculative late talls we can carry on the list vs targeting experienced talent.

I didn't see enough of McMahon to have an opinion on him, but I think you can both recruit talls without expecting an AFL impact for 4+ years, yet also cut them after 2 if you think they're not developing well enough. I don't view it as a situation where once you've drafted a tall you must give them 4 years regardless of their progress.

 

[Fat Jesus]

I didn't see enough of McMahon to have an opinion on him, but I think you can both recruit talls without expecting an AFL impact for 4+ years, yet also cut them after 2 if you think they're not developing well enough. I don't view it as a situation where once you've drafted a tall you must give them 4 years regardless of their progress.

They obviously saw something in Liam they didn't like.

 

[Jen2310]

Fly is forming his own team and clearly didn't think McMahon suited the way we play I suppose. Poulter as well. Nobody will know all the reasons.

 

[sr36]

They obviously saw something in Liam they didn't like.

From the little bit I saw, he looked like a flanker without a flankers skillset.

 

[TradeDraft]

Fly is forming his own team and clearly didn't think McMahon suited the way we play I suppose. Poulter as well. Nobody will know all the reasons.

But what does he see in Kelly?