I have always been a big fan of Rivers, and anyone who has read this forum would attest to that. I've held high hopes that when he gets his body right he'll once again be the general down back.

Sadly, I think my convictions were misguided by false hope.

Rivers was given a hard task today to play purely a defensive role on a big guy. He completely and utterly lost that battle within the first few minutes of the game, losing Kennedy on the lead and in the contest. Kennedy then got smacked in the head and struggled to play out the game.

When Rivers plays as a loose man in defense, he excels defensively which is great, but his disposal is not great and he lacks speed.

I left the game today wondering whether we can afford to carry an attacking defender who struggles to defend one on one and has mediocre disposal and pace, when Grimes, Frawley and Garland are all better defensively and offensively.

Are we carrying Rivers? And should we?

While I'd agree he struggled in the first 15min today, I thought he recovered to be in our top half dozen players today, not that was anything difficult seeing as so many people were down.

Agree...Rivers appears to have the propensity to play the victim on occasions. In saying that, being at the game today, our structure was not up to standard. I actually think this started at selection table.

While I'd agree he struggled in the first 15min today, I thought he recovered to be in our top half dozen players today, not that was anything difficult seeing as so many people were down.

He only recovered when he was left to play as a loose man in defense, which is the point I was trying to make.

If he struggles one on one, he is basically nothing more than a third man up in every contest, and a rebounding defender, which would be fine if he was quicker and a better ball user.

I just don't see what his role is going forward, when we have so many defenders pushing for selection. A guy his size should be able to play on big talls, but in the modern game talls also possess a lot of leg speed, which Rivers doesn't.

So what do you do with someone who is big but slow?

Can we try and move him up forward?

Edited May 15, 201015 yr by Jaded

Yeah, he certainly still reads the play well, but he was shown up for pace early on today.

I have always been a big fan of Rivers, and anyone who has read this forum would attest to that. I've held high hopes that when he gets his body right he'll once again be the general down back.

Sadly, I think my convictions were misguided by false hope.

Rivers was given a hard task today to play purely a defensive role on a big guy. He completely and utterly lost that battle within the first few minutes of the game, losing Kennedy on the lead and in the contest. Kennedy then got smacked in the head and struggled to play out the game.

When Rivers plays as a loose man in defense, he excels defensively which is great, but his disposal is not great and he lacks speed.

I left the game today wondering whether we can afford to carry an attacking defender who struggles to defend one on one and has mediocre disposal and pace, when Grimes, Frawley and Garland are all better defensively and offensively.

Are we carrying Rivers? And should we?

Sadly I think you are correct. He only plays well when he is the loose man in defence as he reads the play well. He may be better played on a resting ruckman who would not be quick.

I have an easy solution for u Jaded:

In Joel MacDonald

Out - Mr Rivers

I have an easy solution for u Jaded:

In Joel MacDonald

Out - Mr Rivers

I just threw up in my mouth a bit.

Rivers is an extra man in defense-type player. Put him one-on-one and he's no good. He will throw his body on the line, and can blast through the defense with precision and skill. MacDonald is mistake-prone; Brisbane got rid of him for a reason. Rivers is a general. I think you are all forgetting his role in the team.

Definitely can't carry him purely as a loose defender.

If he's in the team there has to be a matchup for him (and for Warnock, Garland and Frawley as well).

Otherwise bring in Macdonald, Strauss or MacNamara. The second two (and probably Cheney who I don't rate) need to be played more to continue investing in the future.

Agree...Rivers appears to have the propensity to play the victim on occasions. In saying that, being at the game today, our structure was not up to standard. I actually think this started at selection table.

Your joking right? He was useless. I could look good playing in the hole and even half the time he stuffed that up. He is nothing more than a back up defender and should be treated in that fashion by going back to Casey.

Was really disappointed in Jared today. I have also have been a huge fan of him and actually thought he had a good year last year. His few games this year though, haven't been good enough. There was one 5 minute patch when he took 3 defensive marks running back into a pack in which I thought he was back. Besides that though, he was really poor. The amount of times Kennedy was a mile in front of him on a lead was laughable. He just kept getting away from him as Jared was destroyed by his man today.

I think you're right. The bottom line is, he's a quality loose defender but cannot account for a man. Think he needs a run at Casey, he's currently doing us more harm than good.

Rivers is a general. I think you are all forgetting his role in the team.

I don't buy that anymore.

In days gone by when our defense consisted of Carroll and a witches hat, he was the general.

Today, when we have Chip, Warnock, Garland and Grimes defending and attacking with precision and guys like Cheney, McNamara, Bail, Strauss and so forth all able to fill Rivers' role as a loose man in defense, your statement just no longer holds true.

5 years ago loose man in defense were all the rage and Rivers was one of the best. Today, you can't afford to carry someone who defensively is going to be shown up for pace and offensively is not very creative.

Rivers' biggest strength has always been his smarts in reading the play. There are few players who can read the ball as well as he can, and he can certainly take a mark. This makes me wonder whether it is worth giving him a go as a forward.

He sucks one-on-one, and he's too slow. His only value is as a third tall, dropping back, zoning off, reading the play. He cannot, and should never again be asked, to play FB or CHB. He just can't do it. Not strong enough, not fast enough.

I don't buy that anymore.

In days gone by when our defense consisted of Carroll and a witches hat, he was the general.

Today, when we have Chip, Warnock, Garland and Grimes defending and attacking with precision and guys like Cheney, McNamara, Bail, Strauss and so forth all able to fill Rivers' role as a loose man in defense, your statement just no longer holds true.

5 years ago loose man in defense were all the rage and Rivers was one of the best. Today, you can't afford to carry someone who defensively is going to be shown up for pace and offensively is not very creative.

Rivers' biggest strength has always been his smarts in reading the play. There are few players who can read the ball as well as he can, and he can certainly take a mark. This makes me wonder whether it is worth giving him a go as a forward.

100% agree, spot on.

Get your hand off it. Rivers was far from the worst today, Garland was completely pantsed by LeCras today, yet he gets a pass.

After the first 15 mins, he was allowed to start playing his old role and cut off 5 or 6 inside 50's from the weagles.

Also nevermind the fact that our mids played like absolute mongs today, the ball was coming into the backline every second weagles possie.

Get your hand off it. Rivers was far from the worst today, Garland was completely pantsed by LeCras today, yet he gets a pass.

After the first 15 mins, he was allowed to start playing his old role and cut off 5 or 6 inside 50's from the weagles.

Also nevermind the fact that our mids played like absolute mongs today, the ball was coming into the backline every second weagles possie.

Yes Garland was well beaten, but he has a few credits in the bank after some promising performances of late. Rivers on the other hand has not shown anything for quite a while and has been constantly beaten in one out contests and as has been mentioned in many posts above he clearly lacks many of the attributes required to improve his performance.

Terrible thread. Rivers among the best today. Cannot fathom where the hate for him is coming from. Took a pile of contested marks in defensive 50 and affected a heap of good spoils in contested situations as well as out on leads.

Get your hand off it. Rivers was far from the worst today, Garland was completely pantsed by LeCras today, yet he gets a pass.

After the first 15 mins, he was allowed to start playing his old role and cut off 5 or 6 inside 50's from the weagles.

Also nevermind the fact that our mids played like absolute mongs today, the ball was coming into the backline every second weagles possie.

Le Cras is one quick guy.

He beat both Garland and Frawley on the lead, which is very rare. The only way to stop him is to choke up the Eagles' midfield so to not allow them to kick it to him on the lead, because he isn't a great overhead mark. We were poo in the middle today and so West Coast was able to kick the ball to him with precision and he just ran straight at the ball and marked. That's like asking Garland to keep up with Jurrah on the lead when Davey is kicking it to him on the chest every time.

And Garland had 100% disposal efficiency today and really helped to drive us forward.

Terrible thread. Rivers among the best today. Cannot fathom where the hate for him is coming from. Took a pile of contested marks in defensive 50 and affected a heap of good spoils in contested situations as well as out on leads.

Hate?

If I hated him I'd just simply say "he's crap, drop him". I wouldn't waste my time trying to work out how to ensure sustained longevity in our side, because let me tell you, he won't be part of our best 22 if he doesn't find another trick to live by.

Edited May 15, 201015 yr by Jaded

Terrible thread. Rivers among the best today. Cannot fathom where the hate for him is coming from. Took a pile of contested marks in defensive 50 and affected a heap of good spoils in contested situations as well as out on leads.

He actually only took 2 contested marks and 4 uncontested. Checked the stats.

Did you not notice how easily he was beaten on the lead and in one on ones? At least 4 goals were scored against him.

Rivers was well beaten by Kennedy but was unlucky to concede the 1st goal due to a free kick down the ground against Davey. Losing that contest magnified the problems for Garland, as Kennedy would take a grab then wheel around and deliver lace out for Le Cras. Luckily he didn't have his kicking boots on otherwise would have been a blowout. And all the defenders were badly let down by the midfield today.

Who was Frawley matched up with... Lynch??? Why is Frawley so rarely played on the most dangerous forward? Surely going into the game the goals were going to come from Le Cras & Kennedy. Frawley is widely considered our best defender (and I agree) so why not start him on the best forwards before they get their confidence up. He does not provide enough rebound out of defense (and his kicking is only mediocre) to justify keeping him on the 3rd best forward across half back.

Not blaming Frawley for the loss but I think Wellman/Bailey got it wrong today with the match-ups.

Edited May 15, 201015 yr by big tuna

Terrible thread. Rivers among the best today. Cannot fathom where the hate for him is coming from. Took a pile of contested marks in defensive 50 and affected a heap of good spoils in contested situations as well as out on leads.

Totally agree. Rivers played courageously and used his body brilliantly in contested situations. i think a lot of people just make things up to suit the prevailing fashion.

A backman who cant play one on one

Can you see a problem here.

Liability - nuff said

He only recovered when he was left to play as a loose man in defense, which is the point I was trying to make.

If he struggles one on one, he is basically nothing more than a third man up in every contest, and a rebounding defender, which would be fine if he was quicker and a better ball user.

I just don't see what his role is going forward, when we have so many defenders pushing for selection. A guy his size should be able to play on big talls, but in the modern game talls also possess a lot of leg speed, which Rivers doesn't.

So what do you do with someone who is big but slow?

Can we try and move him up forward?

I see what you mean Jaded. I'm a big wrap for Rivers but I'm starting to have my concerns also. The way I see it at the moment I think Melbourne need to get Martin in for Rivers to help their structure as Garland, Frawley and Warnock are all ahead of him at the moment.

Going forward it seems the only role for Rivers will be to get a game when one of Warnock, Garland, Frawley or Martin (if he does come in for Rivers) are injured, may become trade bait which I'd hate to see as I have his number on my back.

Le Cras is one quick guy.

He beat both Garland and Frawley on the lead, which is very rare. The only way to stop him is to choke up the Eagles' midfield so to not allow them to kick it to him on the lead, because he isn't a great overhead mark. We were poo in the middle today and so West Coast was able to kick the ball to him with precision and he just ran straight at the ball and marked. That's like asking Garland to keep up with Jurrah on the lead when Davey is kicking it to him on the chest every time.

And Garland had 100% disposal efficiency today and really helped to drive us forward.

Simple answer to all this, don't blame Rivers..blame the coaching staff.. they had an ordinary day!

Hate?

If I hated him I'd just simply say "he's crap, drop him". I wouldn't waste my time trying to work out how to ensure sustained longevity in our side, because let me tell you, he won't be part of our best 22 if he doesn't find another trick to live by.