Mega Thread What Shane Tuck Does

[_RT_]

Thats very much a fanboy approach to supporting a club. Not that there is anything wrong with that. We all do what we can to cope with losing every week.

Did you have the same blinkered view with walls, gieschen, frawley and wallace? I'm sure a lot of fans could have done better jobs coaching the club.

There may be a reason why tuck isn't playing, but I can assure you it will have nothing to do with winning a game of football. Which is what I expect from my club, week in week out. That they have a real crack at winning and don't pretend that losing will somewhere turn the club into a bunch of winners in some distant future alternative reality.

This year was never about winning it was about developing the players first and foremost. Now before posters jump up and down it doesn't mean that they haven't gone out and had a crack every game, even in the games played over the last month, it just means that the primary goal this year was getting the players to further understand the gameplan and find players that are capable of delivering it as well.

FWIW, I actually think that Tuck will still be at the club next year as I have no doubt that its been explained to him why he has been seemingly overlooked this year. I also believe that he has accepted that he is no longer a walk up start for the 22 each week.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

I am plain TUCK ered out calling for his selection in the side...

 

[NQTIGER]

No I didn't, nor did I edit any posts.



How do you know that Hardwick wasn't referring to those 3 and Tuck as being those sort of players seeing as he was talking about our inside midfielders? Then again that wouldn't sit well with the arguement you guys are putting forward now would it if it was.

So tuck is now in your top 4, why wasnt he playedbefore Hislop, or dare i say in front of Hackson, or maybe even serial turnover merchant edwards, and IIRC even farmer got a gig in the guts.......

But tuck had to work on his deficiencies in the ressies.

Well guess what he was burning it up at coburg when these spusd were carving it up in the seniors, and i dont recall farmer and co doing that at coburg.

 

[_RT_]

So tuck is now in your top 4, why wasnt he playedbefore Hislop, or dare i say in front of Hackson, or maybe even serial turnover merchant edwards, and IIRC even farmer got a gig in the guts.......

But tuck had to work on his deficiencies in the ressies.

Well guess what he was burning it up at coburg when these spusd were carving it up in the seniors, and i dont recall farmer and co doing that at coburg.

No he isn't in my top 4 midfielders, he is one of our 4 inside midfielders competing with Cotchin Martin & Foley for a spot in the lineup.

 

[nut]

I wonder how "our best midfielders" feel about taking Tucks spot when they dont deserve it? Must be a hollow feeling being given an AFL jumper to wear when that jumper should be on someone else..... . The disappointing thing is given the chance and a huge backing from the coach they haven't grasped it.

 

[RECORDS!]

No he isn't in my top 4 midfielders, he is one of our 4 inside midfielders competing with Cotchin Martin & Foley for a spot in the lineup.

You are a funny little man

He replaced Grigg this week and played in the same team as the other three.

Forget what Dimma said, even though you have misquoted him too, and tell me you really believe what you have written there.

 

[Rayzorwire]

I haven't backflipped at all Rayz. There have been plenty of times where I have wanted Tuck in the side this season.

Yes, you have repeatedly picked him, while also stating on a near daily basis that he has nothing to offer because of his sub-standard ability, that he's well and truly past it, that he doesn't improve us in the slightest, and that you fully understand and endorse why the coaching staff have left him out all season, preferring to play others not fit to lick Tucky's boots clean.

These enormous - even daily - contradictions in your opinions may seem logical to you, but they aren't.

I just don't get suicidal and downright angry to the point of being aggressive when he's not picked like some do.

Suicidal? Spare us the hyperbole.

When something is wrong one of the few options available to a person is to protest. I have been.

I trust the judgement of our coaching panel over any internet forum poster every day of the week, including me.

Good for you, ignorance is bliss as they say. How is your trust in former coaching panels working out?

I didn't see his game as being outstanding last week as others did. I saw a man who kicked as short as he possibly could to avoid turning the ball over. Joel Bowden got lambasted on this board for doing the same thing in his final year. But Tuck escapes that scrutiny. I struggle to see why.

Because Bowden was primarily a designated kicking, rebounding half back, who was supposed to take the game on with his kicking, whereas Tuck is an inside-mid distributor, the best of which are often similar by foot to what he is.

The difference is very obvious.

We were competitive in the 2nd half purely because Geelong eased off the gas.

Yeah, so did Carlton.

Did you miss the part where it was mentioned that both Kelly & Corey spent much less time on the ground than Tuck did and yet finished with very similar stats?

They may have finished with similar raw stats to what Tuck did, but he was clearly way more effective, as shown by the fact he's ahead on stats which weight effectiveness.

As for using Supercoach rankings as a way to judge how well a player plays, lets just say it is almost as embarrassing as suggesting that Tuck would replace Corey and Kelly in the Cats lineup.

Why is it that all the best midfielders in the league are at the top of the Supercoach ratings if those ratings are not an excellent guide to the value of a players' game? Why are clubs spending huge amounts of money on CD style player game evaluation systems if they would be better off just asking your group-think sourced opinion?

Going by your logic Allen Christensen should replace Martin Foley & Deledio in our side because he scored the same or more than they did in Supercoach points.

Rubbish, I didn't see Christensen playing heavy time on the ball, so I wouldn't compare them any more than I'd say Ballantyne's Champion Data rating on a day when Freo whipped us meant he could replace one of our midfielders.

Looking forward to seeing you explain how Cotchin Martin & Foley aren't playing at a good enough level to be selected ahead of Tuck seeing as they are the players that were keeping him out of the side.

Leaving aside the fact that Tuck has clearly shown he can play other roles besides inside mid and your inane insistence otherwise, which part of us having only five wins, getting smashed in the centre much of the year, and getting humiliated in recent weeks, makes you think Cotchin, Martin and Foley ARE playing at a good enough level?

Clearly they're not.

Your standard for Newman getting moved on is that someone has to outplay him. When did Foley, Cotchin and Martin actually outplay Tuck over the course of a season?

Never, it hasn't happened yet according to their respective game ratings, and it probably wouldn't have happened this year if Tuck had been played.

And as for all the others rotated through our midfield, defence, forwardline and bench being better than Tuck, that's been shown to be a very amusing suggestion.

Thats a great spiel Ray but goes nowhere near answering the question...

It may as well have been a rhetorical question, I don't bow to anyone else's judgement on subjects I know enough about to form my own opinion.

Did we really? We were widely tipped...

Again with the 'Mike Sheehan said' popularity contest, group-think rubbish. Not even worth writing the word 'irrelevant.' Where did you and Mike and the group-think footballing public think the Eagles would finish?

Do you think Woosha cared?

Would he drag group-think expectations out to justify another year of failure?

These ARE rhetorical questions.

 

[RICHOLEGEND12]

Ok RT just repeat what some guy already said.


in the end. i dont give a ****. tuck played in the same team as martin, cotchin, foley on the weekend. and played well.

 

[Tzatziki_Man]

Will Tuck be in our 11th premiership side?

Doubt it, so why invest time in a 30 year old, when we are clearly 3-4 years off it. This ain't the 80's anymore, the game's faster nowadays, he would struggle to keep up with the pace of the game in a few years, it even affected guys like Cousins and Akermanis who are absolute champions.

 

[RECORDS!]

Will Tuck be in our 11th premiership side?

Doubt it, so why invest time in a 30 year old, when we are clearly 3-4 years off it. This ain't the 80's anymore, the game's faster nowadays, he would struggle to keep up with the pace of the game in a few years, it even affected guys like Cousins and Akermanis who are absolute champions.

I love this argument. I watched the game very closely on Sun and I can give you the players who MIGHT be in our next premiership side:

Cotchin, Martin, Conca, Jack, Rance and maybe Griffiths.

Maybe we can just name a 6 man team this week

 

[tigerfoxgurl]

I love this argument. I watched the game very closely on Sun and I can give you the players who MIGHT be in our next premiership side:

Cotchin, Martin, Conca, Jack, Rance and maybe Griffiths.

Maybe we can just name a 6 man team this week

Great post.

I don't see any benefit from a development perspective in fielding a weak team made up of youngsters who aren't ready or up to AFL football with no leadership or support from senior players. I see that as protecting and fostering a losing culture.

Its not the youngsters that are keeping Tuck out though. Its the senior footballers who should be leading the club that provide nothing week in week out. Jackson, Grigg, Edwards etc.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Will Tuck be in our 11th premiership side?

Doubt it, so why invest time in a 30 year old, when we are clearly 3-4 years off it.

For the exact same reason sides throughout football history have used players that age and older; to support the young players coming through and retain a competitive environment which allows for maximum growth and development.

Would you rather Cotchin played like Dal Santo/O'Keefe/Chapman, or Scott West?

This ain't the 80's anymore, the game's faster nowadays, he would struggle to keep up with the pace of the game in a few years, it even affected guys like Cousins and Akermanis who are absolute champions.

Both players who relied heavily on their burst speed and evasion, Nathan Brown fell into the same category, as does Chapman.

Tuck never has been and never will be that type of player who relies on burst pace and agility, he plays a different game altogether, he bounces off bodies instead of needing to dodge them and he'll very likely be in the later bracket of players who only lose their 'it' when the hand-eye coordination really starts to go.

 

[_RT_]

They may have finished with similar raw stats to what Tuck did, but he was clearly way more effective, as shown by the fact he's ahead on stats which weight effectiveness.

There is a difference between having effective disposals and having an effect on the outcome of the match. Tuck Corey and Kelly had 28-32 possessions each, Tuck rated higher in terms of SC points yet the Geelong pair played for a side that won by 10 goals after easing up.

Why is it that all the best midfielders in the league are at the top of the Supercoach ratings if those ratings are not an excellent guide to the value of a players' game? Why are clubs spending huge amounts of money on CD style player game evaluation systems if they would be better off just asking your group-think sourced opinion?

Wonder if it has anything to do with midfielders spending most of their time following the ball around and therefore having a much greater chance to rack up enough possessions to get such high SC points? Another way of showing you how flawed relying on SC points is, lets look at the Graham vs West battle in the ruck. According to you Graham soundly beat West and yet looking at the SC rankings for the game West scored higher than Graham, using your logic of SC ranking indicating how good a player is that must mean that West was the better player on the day. Now we both know there isn't a snowflakes chance in hell of you admitting that was actually the case.

Rubbish, I didn't see Christensen playing heavy time on the ball, so I wouldn't compare them any more than I'd say Ballantyne's Champion Data rating on a day when Freo whipped us meant he could replace one of our midfielders.

Again just highlights how stupid relying on SC points is to determine which players actually impact games and which ones just rack up meaningless stats.

Leaving aside the fact that Tuck has clearly shown he can play other roles besides inside mid and your inane insistence otherwise, which part of us having only five wins, getting smashed in the centre much of the year, and getting humiliated in recent weeks, makes you think Cotchin, Martin and Foley ARE playing at a good enough level?

Clearly they're not.

Newsflash Ray, last year with Tuck being a key part of the midfield setup and us winning the clearances and contested footy most weeks we still only managed to win 5 games. Yet you still insist that Tuck has a valuable role to play in our side going forward when results from last season would suggest that it clearly isn't the case at all.

Your standard for Newman getting moved on is that someone has to outplay him. When did Foley, Cotchin and Martin actually outplay Tuck over the course of a season?

Never, it hasn't happened yet according to their respective game ratings, and it probably wouldn't have happened this year if Tuck had been played.

And as for all the others rotated through our midfield, defence, forwardline and bench being better than Tuck, that's been shown to be a very amusing suggestion.

2007 Foley clearly outperformed Tuck over the course of the season. Averaged more possessions tackles contested possessions R50 1%ers and also finished well clear of him in the Jack Dyer Medal. In 2009 despite playing 4 fewer games than Tuck he still finished higher than Tuck in the Jack Dyer medal this was despite Tuck beating Foley in nearly every statistical catergory.

As for the other players that rotate through the other positions, no-one is suggesting that they are better players than what Tuck has been. I've specifically been talking about the 4 inside midfielders.

It may as well have been a rhetorical question, I don't bow to anyone else's judgement on subjects I know enough about to form my own opinion.

I'll just take that as you have chosen to ignore the question instead of answering it as the answer you would give isn't what you like.

Again with the 'Mike Sheehan said' popularity contest, group-think rubbish. Not even worth writing the word 'irrelevant.' Where did you and Mike and the group-think footballing public think the Eagles would finish?

Do you think Woosha cared?

Would he drag group-think expectations out to justify another year of failure?

These ARE rhetorical questions.

Nothing to do with what Mike Sheehan or any other 'expert' predicted. It is called having a clear understanding of what the list was capable of in a normal season where injuries hit and young players went through wild fluctuations in form. Its not my, or anyone elses, fault that some supporters chose to set the bar too high with regards expectations and then get all frustrated 3/4 of the way through the season when their expectations for the side aren't being met.

Because of this, those supporters now spend their days on here throwing around wild accusations and conspiracy theories about how the current coaching panel we have have little to no idea about what they are doing and are ruining the future of the club by persisting with a plan they put in place.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Will Tuck be in our 11th premiership side?

Doubt it, so why invest time in a 30 year old, when we are clearly 3-4 years off it. This ain't the 80's anymore, the game's faster nowadays, he would struggle to keep up with the pace of the game in a few years, it even affected guys like Cousins and Akermanis who are absolute champions.

Really...i would have thought completely the opposite...

With the modern games emphasis on a full press and forcing the game to be played in one half of the ground with contested ball a priority...

i would have thought Tucky was a natural for the modern game in 2011...

His strenght is winning the contested ball...a born extractor of the ball...

Hell if Lingy from the Cats can keep playing...tuck ia a shoe in...

What stopped Cousins was hamstring injuries...while aker just got too old while his mouth got faster at anoying the powers that be...

 

[santa claws]

its been a funny debate some good points and some silly points.

im in the pro tuck camp but unlike rasor i do acknowledge his deficiencies and i do think it important that we aim for better more well rounded players when possible.

age and age alone says tuck is not a part of the long term future. but his performances when compared to other senior players says he should definately be a part of the short term.

how does one put it, lets say at richmond 23 makes you a senior player, definately for mediums smalls mids flankers. if you havent clicked by then its likely you wont make it.

the list of 23 yr old plus, short term players with deficiencies as bad as tuck, is white, webberley, thursfield, nahas, morton, miller, mcguane, king, hislop, graham edwards, jackson and connors. they perform worse than tuck and are definately short term players imo we would not blink an eye if they went tomorrow thats the truth.

we can then throw in younger under performers and rookies like nason grigg houli all players tuck performs better than.

take your pick come seasons end 7 or 8 of all players mentioned could go plus 3 or 4 rookies. its not who its how many.
the other question is of that lot who do we keep in the short term to best help our kids
next yr and perhaps the yr after.

to me tuck easily out performs all of those mentioned and a fair few who werent. he brings experience a huge body and plays in a position and in a way we are clearly lacking in.

does the spurious argument of rt stand up. the one where he says yes tuck plays well but we lose so he has no influence. sheesh most games ive seen him play hes been pretty influential if doing your job is part of being influential.
we would not have won any more games if gary ablett was in the team because there are just too many holes. sheesh theres a question for ya is gary ablett inefectual at gc they keep on getting belted each week. i suppose simon black has been ineffectual for the last 6 or 7 yrs as brissie wallow near the bottom.

yep tucky is a short term solution but common sense says he should be longer term than many i have 8 to 12 in the gun for this yr and tuck is not one of them.

 

[tiggywigs]

its been a funny debate some good points and some silly points.

im in the pro tuck camp but unlike rasor i do acknowledge his deficiencies and i do think it important that we aim for better more well rounded players when possible.

age and age alone says tuck is not a part of the long term future. but his performances when compared to other senior players says he should definately be a part of the short term.

how does one put it, lets say at richmond 23 makes you a senior player, definately for mediums smalls mids flankers. if you havent clicked by then its likely you wont make it.

the list of 23 yr old plus, short term players with deficiencies as bad as tuck, is white, webberley, thursfield, nahas, morton, miller, mcguane, king, hislop, graham edwards, jackson and connors. they perform worse than tuck and are definately short term players imo we would not blink an eye if they went tomorrow thats the truth.

we can then throw in younger under performers and rookies like nason grigg houli all players tuck performs better than.

take your pick come seasons end 7 or 8 of all players mentioned could go plus 3 or 4 rookies. its not who its how many.
the other question is of that lot who do we keep in the short term to best help our kids
next yr and perhaps the yr after.

to me tuck easily out performs all of those mentioned and a fair few who werent. he brings experience a huge body and plays in a position and in a way we are clearly lacking in.

does the spurious argument of rt stand up. the one where he says yes tuck plays well but we lose so he has no influence. sheesh most games ive seen him play hes been pretty influential if doing your job is part of being influential.
we would not have won any more games if gary ablett was in the team because there are just too many holes. sheesh theres a question for ya is gary ablett inefectual at gc they keep on getting belted each week. i suppose simon black has been ineffectual for the last 6 or 7 yrs as brissie wallow near the bottom.

yep tucky is a short term solution but common sense says he should be longer term than many i have 8 to 12 in the gun for this yr and tuck is not one of them.

Spot on.

 

[_RT_]

does the spurious argument of rt stand up. the one where he says yes tuck plays well but we lose so he has no influence. sheesh most games ive seen him play hes been pretty influential if doing your job is part of being influential.
we would not have won any more games if gary ablett was in the team because there are just too many holes. sheesh theres a question for ya is gary ablett inefectual at gc they keep on getting belted each week. i suppose simon black has been ineffectual for the last 6 or 7 yrs as brissie wallow near the bottom.

There is a pretty big difference between Tuck Ablett & Black. With Ablett and Black they demand attention by the opposition, which in turn frees up other players, which means that still have an effect on the game either directly or indirectly.

On the other hand Tuck doesn't demand attention by the opposition they are seemingly quite happy to allow him to run around and rack up possessions at will as they know its not going to hurt them. The opposition still focus their attention on stopping the likes of Cotchin and Martin. Therefore even though Tuck has some effect on the match through racking up possessions he just doesn't impact the game in the same way they guys like Ablett & Black do.

 

[nut]

its been a funny debate some good points and some silly points.

im in the pro tuck camp but unlike rasor i do acknowledge his deficiencies .....

Still waiting for you to explain Rances deficiencies...

 

[Tzatziki_Man]

Really...i would have thought completely the opposite...

With the modern games emphasis on a full press and forcing the game to be played in one half of the ground with contested ball a priority...

i would have thought Tucky was a natural for the modern game in 2011...

His strenght is winning the contested ball...a born extractor of the ball...

Hell if Lingy from the Cats can keep playing...tuck ia a shoe in...

What stopped Cousins was hamstring injuries...while aker just got too old while his mouth got faster at anoying the powers that be...

Makes sense, but it takes endurance to get yourself to all these contested situations, will Tuck's tank be up to AFL standard in a few years time, I guess that's all speculation and guessed discussion. It has been a funny debate!

I still think Bowden could play the game, so maybe...

 

[santa claws]

There is a pretty big difference between Tuck Ablett & Black. With Ablett and Black they demand attention by the opposition, which in turn frees up other players, which means that still have an effect on the game either directly or indirectly.

On the other hand Tuck doesn't demand attention by the opposition they are seemingly quite happy to allow him to run around and rack up possessions at will as they know its not going to hurt them. The opposition still focus their attention on stopping the likes of Cotchin and Martin. Therefore even though Tuck has some effect on the match through racking up possessions he just doesn't impact the game in the same way they guys like Ablett & Black do.

oh i see despite doing a good job of finding plenty of contested ball and giving off which is his job shane tuck is no good because he doesnt warrant a tag.
tag or no tag if he gets plenty contested ball which he does more than any other player on our list hes worthy of a spot dont you think.

so lets see so far ive got hes no good because he has no influence in direct relation to wins.this despite him having an influence by doing the exact job we want him to do. and this despite it being shown top notch players like ablett and black fail to influence games or wins when theres gaping holes around them or massive inexperience.

then hes also no good because he doesnt get tagged unbelievable.
spurios is being far too kind id say your being just plain old silly.
on certain points you have backed yourself into a corner and your not prepared to admit your wrong hence the spurious sorry silly comments about influence and tags.

 

[santa claws]

Still waiting for you to explain Rances deficiencies...

oh grow up will ya. you dont need me to hold your hand go have a look for yourself.ive mentioned them enough times.

 

[NQTIGER]

oh i see despite doing a good job of finding plenty of contested ball and giving off which is his job shane tuck is no good because he doesnt warrant a tag.
tag or no tag if he gets plenty contested ball which he does more than any other player on our list hes worthy of a spot dont you think.

so lets see so far ive got hes no good because he has no influence in direct relation to wins.this despite him having an influence by doing the exact job we want him to do. and this despite it being shown top notch players like ablett and black fail to influence games or wins when theres gaping holes around them or massive inexperience.

then hes also no good because he doesnt get tagged unbelievable.
spurios is being far too kind id say your being just plain old silly.
on certain points you have backed yourself into a corner and your not prepared to admit your wrong hence the spurious sorry silly comments about influence and tags.

Thats it in a nutshell santa stop banging your head against teh wall, RT will simply deny he said that.

The oracle has spoken.......

 

[_RT_]

oh i see despite doing a good job of finding plenty of contested ball and giving off which is his job shane tuck is no good because he doesnt warrant a tag.
tag or no tag if he gets plenty contested ball which he does more than any other player on our list hes worthy of a spot dont you think.

so lets see so far ive got hes no good because he has no influence in direct relation to wins.this despite him having an influence by doing the exact job we want him to do. and this despite it being shown top notch players like ablett and black fail to influence games or wins when theres gaping holes around them or massive inexperience.

then hes also no good because he doesnt get tagged unbelievable.
spurios is being far too kind id say your being just plain old silly.
on certain points you have backed yourself into a corner and your not prepared to admit your wrong hence the spurious sorry silly comments about influence and tags.

Thats exactly my point, for all the ball that Tuck gets you would think that sides would be keen on stopping him from having that sort of impact but no sides seem quite happy for Tuck to run around week after week without any sort of effort being put into shutting him down. Reason being is that he just doesn't hurt sides with his possessions. Similar reason as to why sides aren't particularly fussed of late to see Nahas racking up 20-25 touches, they know its not going to hurt them either.

On the other hand even with Ablett and Black playing in poor sides the opposition still focuses on trying to curb their influence because they know that their disposals can and do hurt.

You talk about how we need to find upgrades on average players and replace them with better options, well in my opinion Tuck is nothing more than an average player who need replacing if we are to become better than we currently are.

 

[santa claws]

Thats exactly my point, for all the ball that Tuck gets you would think that sides would be keen on stopping him from having that sort of impact but no sides seem quite happy for Tuck to run around week after week without any sort of effort being put into shutting him down. Reason being is that he just doesn't hurt sides with his possessions. Similar reason as to why sides aren't particularly fussed of late to see Nahas racking up 20-25 touches, they know its not going to hurt them either.

On the other hand even with Ablett and Black playing in poor sides the opposition still focuses on trying to curb their influence because they know that their disposals can and do hurt.

You talk about how we need to find upgrades on average players and replace them with better options, well in my opinion Tuck is nothing more than an average player who need replacing if we are to become better than we currently are.

pppfffftttt.
at least we can say tuck is an average afl player far more than we can say about numerous duds who get games each week in front of him.
i dont believe i have ever said we should not be looking for a more well rounded player than tuck. but of all the bloody hacks and duds that we currently carry tuck is the better option of all of them.

and ya know what i agree most clubs would love to see tuck with ball in hand in open space and kicking but his value is inside where he actually does his job and its hard to stop.

 

[CamTinley]

pppfffftttt.
at least we can say tuck is an average afl player far more than we can say about numerous duds who get games each week in front of him.
i dont believe i have ever said we should not be looking for a more well rounded player than tuck. but of all the bloody hacks and duds that we currently carry tuck is the better option of all of them.

and ya know what i agree most clubs would love to see tuck with ball in hand in open space and kicking but his value is inside where he actually does his job and its hard to stop.

I'm sticking to Tuck being top bracket, not average. Tuck has 25 career Brownlow Medal votes which puts him in the Top 2% of players who have ever played VFL/AFL.

Top 2% is almost elite.