Yeah yeah, you think i'm very biased against TDK, i get it. I disagree, but you would expect me to say that. Its hard to keep track of a particular posters thoughts on an issue on here, ironically, similar to your take on here. Observation - some posts you might not read. Some posts you might not comprehend, or at least not fully understand....and part of that could be on me for not explaining well enough.
Statistics - a lot of 'negative' posts by me gets attention, but thats because they end up in a thread of arguments because there might be a lot of people who disagree. Whereas the positive stuff gets glossed over because its the same as everyone else.
Bias - Similar to the above, but you look for the negative and ignore the positive, or at least focus on that more.
Its funny, the whole TDK debate took 2 shapes. 1. Pittonet > TDK in pure rucking ability. 2. TDK < Silvagni (or others) around the ground.
1. People debated that 1 didn't matter. So Pittonet shouldn't play as hitouts don't matter. 2. People ignored the fact that Silvagni (or others) did better around the ground.....although slightly less in the ruck.....which people decided didn't matter anyway.
People wanted it both ways. Its why the argument kept going round in circles.
All of this was off the back of my contention that the team only needs 1 ruck to reach peak performance. Some disagreed with that, which is fine, but results seem to prove otherwise (when taking opponent into account).
You're clever in your arguments but myself and MBB kept saying that if we only play one ruckman it should likely be TDK in a tandem with Silvagni.
That's moot now.
We couldn't afford to lose a ruckman last season and TDK's emergence doesn't change that, it's still true. Which is why we picked up another youngster mid season.
If he does 1 good, athletic, eye-popping thing a game, and goes missing for the rest of it, is that because he hasn't reached his potential or he isn't consistent? I'd say its potential.
If he has 1 solid game 1 week and a nothing game the next week, i'd say that is consistency.
He may have put together the odd solid game over his career, but he hasn't earned himself a 3 brownlow vote game in the way Nic Nat did. He is capable of it.....which is why its been frustrating.
Previously, people have seen glimpses, and extrapolate that out to a good performance. When you break it down, the rest of the performances have usually been very much sub par. He is remembered for the 'almost' mark of the week attempts, and not for going missing for 20 minutes at a time. This is why i went to great depth to show people perceptions of what he was doing, was out of whack with what he was actually doing. Opposite was true with Pittonet/Silvagni.
NOW he is starting to find some more consistency and using his gifts we all knew he had. Taking some marks. Getting some ground balls. Sticking some tackles. Kicking some goals. This should be the norm from him, not the exception.
I said all along, i've got no issue with him, but he needed to perform, not just get a gig based on potential. He is starting to perform and we should keep it that way.
My only worry is that he is peforming now because he is fit and healthy. After getting banged up week in and week out, he may not be able to perform in the same way. Won't be able to jump as high, run as fast and pressure in the same manner due to niggles/injury. THEN it may become an issue.
I still maintain we run with 1 ruck, and he is my preference for now. Maybe switch him out for Pittonet if he starts to carry a niggle, but don't play both.
No. He was playing better than that. He wasn't a highlight reel player, he was just rucking well for a quarter or two and taking a strong mark every week that was eye popping. Then there is the fact that he hits the scoreboard, and genuinely creates panic when he drifts forward because he's athletic and can actually play as a forward.
We had 4 rucks on the list this time last season. 2 raw and tagged with potential. One developing nicely who is as much a forward who can ruck as a ruck than push forward, and one 24/7 meat and potatoes ruckman in pittonet who is solid but unspectacular and could easily disappear into anonymity. Talk of de koning going last year was fanciful.
Also he wad playing to his potential what people were moaning about was consistency.
Charlie is a gun and whilst he showed signs early he wasn't really ready to take the scruff of the neck of games until a few years back. Harry similar. Only smalls are consistent early on, even then they don't develope consistency until they get continuity.
Docherty missing from the defence (even though he's been playing further upfield) means we may not have a 'general' back there while Weitering is missing. Still you would think with the experience of Saad, Newman, Williams and McGovern someone else would be taking up that 'role'. Anyone stand out as the 'director' in Weitering's absence?
My thoughts exactly, we never got out of that scrappy pattern and it made it very frustrating to watch.
I've never been a McGovern fan but tonight he was one of our better players for the whole match. In the last, some of our better players like Hewitt & Cerra had a lot more influence on the game which turned it around.
Lewis Young worries me, the Tigers players broke through too many of his soft tackles.
I keep hearing Boyd is elite by foot but he was woeful, I don't understand what they see in him. The recruiting of Fantasia looks idiotic and Cuningham only seems to play well when we are really on top of the opposition.
Curnow needs a massive kick up the jaxy for that undisciplined brain-fade in the goal square. FFS, take the mark, go back and take some time off the clock and kick the simplest of goals. Had he done that, it would have given us a three-goal lead which was virtually unassailable. You can have all the big highlights you want but it's the 'bread & butter' stuff in the heat of battle that sets the really good players apart form the rest.
Kemp was terrific all night but that 'Mark of the Year' attempt on the last line of defense was also a massive brain-fade, it looks great when it comes off (Saad last week also tried it and came unstuck) but its too costly when it doesn't. Just do the team-orientated thing and give a defensive punch and follow it up on the ground.
DeKoning kicked a really important goal in the last but given he sprayed his first set shot left and then his second right, the odds were in his favour of splitting the middle with the third.
I was really hoping someone would clean-up Bolton, he is a massive show-pony/lair week after week who needs to be taught some humility & respect.
And our guys didn't pay attention to Maurice Rioli who always hangs around the man on the mark looking for a quick steal. It's smart play by him but you can't keep letting him do it.
The umpires really reamed us in the first half, it was embarrassingly poor from them, we should be making an official comlain it was that bad.
Two wins and a week's break to then face North & Freo after that isn't a bad place to be, just need to tidy up some of those really bad loose ends.
umpires had at least 4 score involvements to Richmond.
Attacked? Hardly. And sorry but it is nonsense to suggest there are separate rules for a particular player.
nonsense.
Stars get different treatment. Everyone knows it, they get a discount at the tribunal and they get away with things others can't because the afl likes the star factor. Some of them get harshly done by, in contrast. Not sure why it is but it's very subjective and everyone knows it.
When the umps were blowing heavily Brisbane's way they built a 46 point lead.
They are capable of influencing results. They evened it up a bit later on with them giving us a lot of leeway late in the game.
Just because you disagree with a sentiment doesn't make it nonsense, and dusty got away with head high contact fend off's for most of his career. It wasn't until eds larynx that people noticed.
Im not suggesting mistakes don't get made, they happen every week, human error. I think last nights game was good from an umpiring perspective. The bold bit is utter nonsense.
No it's not. You disagree with it. Nonsense is the way you've attacked someone else's opinion you disagree with.
I reckon the game was very well umpired last night. I thought we got the rub of the green and the ball bounced our way quite a few times also.
Adam saads drag in holding the ball was a gifted goal and he wasn't the one dragging it in. Neale has a separate set of rules, and our boys get pinged a lot for stuff others get away with.
Pleased to have won. Brisbane kicked something like 5 goals 11 after quarter time. Make it 7 goals 9 and they likely snuff out that comeback and they did miss a bunch of relatively easy shots along the way.
It's a swings and roundabouts game. We didn't play well but the effort was there.
Is Lachie neale a protected species or what? He holds scraps and hits off ball all the time and whilst opponents do it to him, he is happy to dish out. Watch George Hewett get a suspension for that hit.
So why is Owies picked? He has been barely able to muster up a gallop in the training vids that I have seen.
Because tonight is a free hit, and next week is what we need players for (including putting miles in the legs)?
Did you read the rest of what I wrote?
Maybe we are simply seeing whom is going to be better placed to help us win next week, and the question of Owies isnt one of why is he selected. Its why the other guy that could be playing in his stead wasnt, and thats probably got more to do with making sure players are ready for next week. When I say that I dont mean matt owies either.
Clearly our conditioning isnt where we want it to be.
This is a tactical experiment round for us. We face the Tigers in a week in what is effectively a must win game. If we lose to Brisbane, at the Gabba, it wont be a big deal, and its the perfect opportunity to get the miles in the legs. Round 1 is where our season truly starts. Most sides will lose to Brisbane at the Gabba this year. If we win tonight it would be great, but not if we cant back up next week.
