Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Jack Silvagni - The Ultimate Medical Sub (Read 41737 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Jack Silvagni - The Ultimate Medical Sub

Reply #30 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
I think it just needs time. Pittonet, DeKoning and Silvagni played together in the first few rounds, and it seemed to work quite well then. Maybe with injuries and the like they will take a while to get in sync. Or maybe the team just had a bad night.
On a nice 25 degree day with the track dry then you can go the extra tall to stretch the opposition but it has to be horses for courses and on a slow weather affected evening track we should have gone a bit smaller and Jack was ideal as the second ruck also giving us a taller midfielder type. Its not like the Crows play the dual specialist ruckman either so imho the club made a terrible decision both dropping Jack and playing 2 x specialist rucks and have to own it..

Re: Jack Silvagni - The Ultimate Medical Sub

Reply #31 –
Just in case more people think team balance doesn't matter, and that they can pick and play whichever favourites they like, it doesn't get much clearer than the attached timeline!

13:07 Corey Durdin off, sub on, .................... too top heavy, too slow, too much the same, game over, the run has left the building!

"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Jack Silvagni - The Ultimate Medical Sub

Reply #32 –
Yeah we looked great before he went off.

Durdin was dominating too. He finished with a supercoach score of 1.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: Jack Silvagni - The Ultimate Medical Sub

Reply #34 –
I'd have to say I'd be a little skeptical about the height imbalance theory - I'd say it was one factor among several, a minor factor IMO. If you're swapping out 2 or 3 smalls for talls, then yes, no doubt, but not 1.

Listening to Voss post game, he mentioned desire, ground ball and contested ball. He said we lost too many critical battles, and were out muscled by a side with greater desire and work rate. He didn't seem too concerned when questioned about 3 talls, height balance etc.

Re: Jack Silvagni - The Ultimate Medical Sub

Reply #35 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
I'd have to say I'd be a little skeptical about the height imbalance theory - I'd say it was one factor among several, a minor factor IMO. If you're swapping out 2 or 3 smalls for talls, then yes, no doubt, but not 1.

Listening to Voss post game, he mentioned desire, ground ball and contested ball. He said we lost too many critical battles, and were out muscled by a side with greater desire and work rate. He didn't seem too concerned when questioned about 3 talls, height balance etc.

Lets try it this way.
Who is more likely to win those contested ball and ground balls?
Tall slow players, or mids who have limited rotations??
or
Small faster, well rested players?

Pittonet, TDK and Jack are not going to be chasing down too many groundballs, whereas Hewitt, Durdin etc might.

Its not specifically about 'height' but the attributes that go along with it.

Re: Jack Silvagni - The Ultimate Medical Sub

Reply #36 –
Jack is good off the ground.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: Jack Silvagni - The Ultimate Medical Sub

Reply #37 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
Jack is good off the ground.
compared to other ruckman, yes.
Compared to other midfielders, not so much.

....and god forbid he has to chase down a loose ball, because speed wise, he won't get there first.

Re: Jack Silvagni - The Ultimate Medical Sub

Reply #38 –
People expect him to be his father....when he's probably closer to his grandfather in the way he plays.
That's still pretty useful.

Re: Jack Silvagni - The Ultimate Medical Sub

Reply #39 –
Quote from: Lods – on
People expect him to be his father....when he's probably closer to his grandfather in the way he plays.
That's still pretty useful.
Yep agree with that Lods.  Even when they call for him to go into Defense.  Aside from doing a job on Nat Fyfe, and pin hitting down back when hes followed a man down there, has he ever played back for Carlton in his career?  I cant remember it.

He is VERY much like Serge in the way he played.  Ben was supposed to be like the old man, but we cut him loose because he doesnt have the Silvagni ticker even though he got the ability. 
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Jack Silvagni - The Ultimate Medical Sub

Reply #40 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
I'd have to say I'd be a little skeptical about the height imbalance theory - I'd say it was one factor among several, a minor factor IMO. If you're swapping out 2 or 3 smalls for talls, then yes, no doubt, but not 1.

Listening to Voss post game, he mentioned desire, ground ball and contested ball. He said we lost too many critical battles, and were out muscled by a side with greater desire and work rate. He didn't seem too concerned when questioned about 3 talls, height balance etc.

I think Vossy has covered most of the reasons.  Did he also mention over-using the ball and not providing opportunities for handball receives?

Our small forwards are great at putting pressure on opposition defenders and helping out in the midfield and in defence, but they're not troubling the scorers.  When you have an advantage with your tall forwards, in terms of both quantity and quality, opposition defenders shouldn't be marking a lot of kicks inside 50; marking contests should be won by our talls or brought to ground.  Our small forwards aren't capitalising on those opportunities and it's generally Charlie or midfielders that do the crumbing.  In that context, playing Jack, Tom and Pitto is the best option ... but not necessarily an underdone Pitto.
"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

Re: Jack Silvagni - The Ultimate Medical Sub

Reply #41 –
Quote from: DJC – on
I think Vossy has covered most of the reasons.  Did he also mention over-using the ball and not providing opportunities for handball receives?

Our small forwards are great at putting pressure on opposition defenders and helping out in the midfield and in defence, but they're not troubling the scorers.  When you have an advantage with your tall forwards, in terms of both quantity and quality, opposition defenders shouldn't be marking a lot of kicks inside 50; marking contests should be won by our talls or brought to ground.  Our small forwards aren't capitalising on those opportunities and it's generally Charlie or midfielders that do the crumbing.  In that context, playing Jack, Tom and Pitto is the best option ... but not necessarily an underdone Pitto.

I don't recall Voss mentioning those. I think he was pretty grumpy about being overpowered at the contest, and that was the focus of his presser.

I've got nothing against Durdin (in fact I rather like him), but what we saw on Saturday night was an 18 man problem. Durdin would've made no difference.

I haven't watched much of the Crows, but what I saw on the weekend matches the word around the traps, which is that they are a tough, honest, blue collar team, who for once also looked polished as well. Their best game for the year, and our worst IMO.

Re: Jack Silvagni - The Ultimate Medical Sub

Reply #42 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
I'd have to say I'd be a little skeptical about the height imbalance theory - I'd say it was one factor among several, a minor factor IMO. If you're swapping out 2 or 3 smalls for talls, then yes, no doubt, but not 1.

Listening to Voss post game, he mentioned desire, ground ball and contested ball. He said we lost too many critical battles, and were out muscled by a side with greater desire and work rate. He didn't seem too concerned when questioned about 3 talls, height balance etc.

Precisely. What The Vossmeister identified was all about attitude. And we need look no further.

When you lose, and lose badly, you're too tall, too small, too slow, shizen game plan, too soft, too many spuds... etc. Symptoms of a slack attitude, to be blunt.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17
 

Re: Jack Silvagni - The Ultimate Medical Sub

Reply #43 –
This thread was started about 15 months ago, and it's interesting to see how things have changed.

There are, as best as I can tell, two main theories about the ideal sub : one, a fast, burst player, who can take advantage of a fatigued opposition, with pace, chase down and line breaking ability. And two, a utility player, who can play a variety of positions, creating minimal disturbance to structures. The former is more strategic, the latter is more contingency. Jack clearly falls into the latter category. The club generally plays him as 3rd tall or 2nd ruck, and I think Jack Martin and Tom De Koning respectively, are viewed by the club as being ahead of JSOS. And I agree. I read an article where Dermott Brereton stated that JSOS has no real home, and when combined with his limited mobility and athleticism, means he will be down the pecking order IMO. He is undoubtedly a solid handy footballer, but he is being eased out by better options. I think the sub role would suit him to a t.

It is a standard football truism that you need genuine, AFL level players beyond the best 22 to win a flag. This clearly means that in any premiership team, there will be worthy, deserving players that miss out. It sucks, and I wish it were different, but I can't see any other way.

In the overall narrative of our 2024 season, what happens with Jack Silvagni will be very much a minor plot line IMO, but also oddly intriguing.

Re: Jack Silvagni - The Ultimate Medical Sub

Reply #44 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
In the overall narrative of our 2024 season, what happens with Jack Silvagni will be very much a minor plot line IMO, but also oddly intriguing.
Yes largely agree, an intriguing distraction.

If our fate hinges on the rise or fall of SoJ we must truly be the child of the Cephissus' abuse of Liriope!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"