Really dumb to start getting into Jared after one game back anyway.

Let's just see how things unfold over the rest of the season before calling time on a player.

A number of players were poor on the weekend, not just Rivers...........Garland and MacDonald both looked average on Saturday too.

I agree. I'm just dumbfounded by this thread. Does everyone really believe this, or are you all just copying each other so you're part of the crowd. 4 weeks ago we apparently had barely a capable player, and an incompetent coach, and now all of a sudden Jared Rivers is surpless to requirements????? Get a grip people. He is immensely talented, and if he can get his body right (and I know that's a big 'if') his form will get better and better. He also needs to learn how to play with all of these guys who he has barely played with. It takes time to gel into a style of play.

Right now he needs to either:

A) Become stronger and take Warnock's spot as a genuine FB/CHB.

or

B) Watch some tapes of how Nick Maxwell/Harry O play, especially their tackling and what they do with the ball in hand. And get fitter and quicker to match.

He hasn't got the leg speed or agilty to be Maxwell or H O . He is more than a fair read of the play but hasn't the ammo these days to utilize it. The game is too fast mostly now forRivers

He won the rising star playing a loose man in defense with a mature body. He was never a key position player in those first couple of years. He had Nicolson Holland and Bizzell taking the talls, and Brown on the smalls. Like many players, his reputation grew when he was not on the field. He really has not done much on the field in the last few years.

His disposal really lets him down. Has great courage and can read the play, but not big enough to take a key forward, not fast enough to play on the small forwards and not skilled enough to be a running half back. His best attribute is being able to be the third man up, and his courage is second to none, but he continues to butcher the ball, blokes like Grimes and Garland have gone past him. I don't think he is in the best 22.

I agree. I'm just dumbfounded by this thread. Does everyone really believe this, or are you all just copying each other so you're part of the crowd.

...

He is immensely talented, and if he can get his body right (and I know that's a big 'if') his form will get better and better. He also needs to learn how to play with all of these guys who he has barely played with. It takes time to gel into a style of play.

I did alot of Rivers watching last year. He played 20 matches and most of them were average (as his B&F result shows). He couldn't cover a leading forward - usually falling many metres short of the contest. Mooney, amongst a number of others, smashed him in a game in which we were competitive around the ground. Luckily for Rivers Mooney missed 3 or more easy gets. His rebound game - I really didn't see any evidence of it. Link man? Neither.

With those 20 matches and a full pre-season (I believe) under his belt, surely his 'immense talent' should be showing? I would love Rivers to prove me wrong but last week he certainly didn't do himself any favours. Is a Sylvia-esque 're-build' required? Does he have time? Tick-tock.

I disagree.

I still think Rivers has a place in our future. He played badly this week, but it's only his first game back so he gets latitude.

I think we will play 4 talls going into the future:

- Warnock to take the big forward that plays closest to goal

- Rivers to take the 2nd big forward/ floating ruckman that goes forward

- Garland and Frawley can take the most dangerous forwards, whether that be small, medium or tall forwards. These two players' versatility is why our defense is so promising!

I think the guy that has to go is Joel MacDonald.

At the draft event at the end of last year, one of our assistant coaches made an interesting comment about Joel Mac. They said "you would want to have some back up in case Garland doesn't come up." Essentially what that means is that Joel MacDonald was drafted specifically for Garland's position in case he never recovered from his LTI. (That position being the versatile defender who has speed to take medium/small forwards, but is also capable of playing against taller opponents).

Garland is superior to Joel Mac is every way imho. Faster, better mark, more agile, better spoiler. As long as Garland keeps fit and keeps improving he should be a core part of our future. And I don't think Joel Mac is good enough of a rebounder to take the place of Grimes, Strauss, Cheney etc long term.

So, in summery, imo those 4 guys should be the players in our team long-term. Joel MacDonald, McNamara and perhaps even Stef Martin should be depth players who can come in and fulfill a role when we inevitably have injuries

Something wrong here - this is a positive post !!

Too many knockers on this site ready to give everyone over 23 the arse ! Rivers still has plenty to offer, just as there is a place for the more experienced leaders on the list

Too many knockers on this site ready to give everyone over 23 the arse ! Rivers still has plenty to offer, just as there is a place for the more experienced leaders on the list

It is tiresome to see people continually writing off 25 year olds when many don't reach their prime until they are 27-28.Rivers is an asset to the club - with the ability to be a key part of our defence for at least another 5 years.

Nobody has factored into their reasoning the possibility that Garland might move to forward in time. He is a terrific talent... who showed the ability to lead and take a contested mark.

It's funny. North's Scott Thompson was probably running around the VFL when Rivers won his Rising Star. Now he shows Rivers up for the better player he is.

Another one for the late maturers I guess.

GFL even.

I did alot of Rivers watching last year. He played 20 matches and most of them were average (as his B&F result shows). He couldn't cover a leading forward - usually falling many metres short of the contest. Mooney, amongst a number of others, smashed him in a game in which we were competitive around the ground. Luckily for Rivers Mooney missed 3 or more easy gets. His rebound game - I really didn't see any evidence of it. Link man? Neither.

With those 20 matches and a full pre-season (I believe) under his belt, surely his 'immense talent' should be showing? I would love Rivers to prove me wrong but last week he certainly didn't do himself any favours. Is a Sylvia-esque 're-build' required? Does he have time? Tick-tock.

Tick-tock???????

Have I been in a coma or is it, in fact, still only Round 7??????

Tick-tock???????

Have I been in a coma or is it, in fact, still only Round 7??????

Yes, we approach the one third mark of the season.

Yes, Rivers has only been selected twice.

Tick-tock is about Rivers working on his deficiencies. Or has he none?

If he has, how long do you think they'll take to remedy?

Edited May 4, 201015 yr by Trident

No need to be so selective with deliberatly misleading statistics.

You know full well Jared had a minor knee injury for 2-3 weeks which was why he wasn't selected.

I don't believe 'tick-tock' is really appropriate when he's had 1 game back from injury and there are 16 weeks of football left.

Of course he has deficiencies, every player in the competition does. Most of the realistic deficiencies that are being harped on about in this thread can be attributed, at least in part, to the way the game was played on Saturday where our opposition dominated the corridor and had a heavy supply of quality ball inside 50 which makes any defender look ordinary.

I did alot of Rivers watching last year. He played 20 matches and most of them were average (as his B&F result shows). He couldn't cover a leading forward - usually falling many metres short of the contest. Mooney, amongst a number of others, smashed him in a game in which we were competitive around the ground. Luckily for Rivers Mooney missed 3 or more easy gets. His rebound game - I really didn't see any evidence of it. Link man? Neither.

With those 20 matches and a full pre-season (I believe) under his belt, surely his 'immense talent' should be showing? I would love Rivers to prove me wrong but last week he certainly didn't do himself any favours. Is a Sylvia-esque 're-build' required? Does he have time? Tick-tock.

As did I and I agree with your synopsis.

What many supporters are forgetting, or not realising, is that Rivers was a very promising player in a different era. Whilst it may seem odd to say that a relatively young player played in a different era, the reality is he did.

He was at his best when he used his excellent reading of the play and zoned off his direct opponent to either spoil, or take a very good overhead mark. But the game today is nothing like the game of 5 years ago - just ask Brock McLean. Teams now virtually never kick to the same contests that allowed Rivers to shine, he isn't quick enough to match leads, he's not strong enough for the bigger full forwards and he can't play on the plethora of smalls in the competition. He's a victim of a changed and far quicker game.

The average number of interchanges 5 years ago were 30 a match, they're now over 100. The game has changed more in the last 3 years than the combined previous 30 years. Unfortunately for Rivers, Garland is a much better option for a host of reasons. The "third tall" is a thing of the past.

Edited May 4, 201015 yr by Hannabal

Rivo is a handy player to have on your list. He will have to rework part of his game, but I would back him to do so. Tough character who is a leader and will reclaim a spot.

Will take him a number of games to get a feel for the game again.