Liability may be harsh but I'm not a fan of Grimes. Probably close to our worst today and made some really sloppy errors last week too.

Not sure the midfield is his destiny...courageous marking is his #1 strength - and he won't get as many opportunities in the midfield. Also, he tends to cough up the ball once tackled, whereas some other players still get a decent handball away...(Chris Judd style). Grimes is a blunt object who moves in pretty much straight lines - I don't think he has enough finesse to be a competent on-baller.

Mind you at least he gets near the ball... Benell only had 8 possessions! I like his bag of tricks but that there is some Heffernan type stats.

75 inside 50's for Hawthorn.

Grimes rebounded 15 or so of them. Very few AFL players have 100% accuracy over 15 touches under pressure. Even Tapscott turned it over a couple of times tonight.

I was most annoyed when he didn't stick tight to his opponent. His kicking I'm not overly fussed about.

You talking about Grimes?

A liability?

You're just embarrassing yourselves...

Huge fan of Grimesy, but i've never felt so relieved as i did today when Tapscott and Davey took over the kicking in duties from him.

You could see it really early in the game that it just wasn't going to be Jack's night. Hoping for an improved performance from him next week.

100% Agree.

Has a lot of credit built up, and I believe that is what others are defending, but his kicking was atrocious today, was a liability, and I'm not sure how anyone can disagree with this. Hopefully he bounces back next week.

You talking about Grimes?

A liability?

You're just embarrassing yourselves...

He is not a liability but he had a absolute stinker today.

IMO it was easily his worst game for the MFC.

I think his kicking is at best average and it results in too many turnovers in the back line.

Perhaps a shift to the centre there are plenty of spots available.

Probably close to our worst today

Not even close.

I like this criticism of Grimes because if there's one thing I don't want, it is for him to become our Nick Maxwell: Absolutely pumped up in the media, but in reality a 1-trick, 3rd-man up, pony with little real ability under pressure. I think Grimes could be much more than that, as long as he continues to improve.

What absolutely crap.

Grimes is an amazing young player, who has to play in a defence under rediculous pressure. We had 43 inside 50s conceded in the last HALF alone! I feel sorry for our defenders and our forwards. Our forwards get no opportunities and our defence is constantly put under pressure from a midfield that can't stop conceding inside 50s

There is only one reason for our shiteness. our midfield. Full stop.

I agree, including our half forwards, who should be the stronger Marks. They should be pushing quickly up, for kickout targets with urgency. We lack a big deep forward who can prowl the 50 Mtr line as our Mids have rolled to the kickout.

But we're just not big enough, nor aggressive enough, Yet. There will be more pain to come before we are.

I like this criticism of Grimes because if there's one thing I don't want, it is for him to become our Nick Maxwell: Absolutely pumped up in the media, but in reality a 1-trick, 3rd-man up, pony with little real ability under pressure. I think Grimes could be much more than that, as long as he continues to improve.

I agree, I want to see him in the midfield soon. But Unfortunately, I've realised that we don't have a flanker that's big and strong enough to play his role yet.

Trenners is my man for the job, but he's a bit smaller than grimes at this stage.

Edited April 3, 201114 yr by dee-luded

I womder what Rhino Richards now says about my comments on Jack Grimes.

Exactly the same thing he's been saying since you made them...

You're wrong. Find something else to bore everyone with.

Exactly the same thing he's been saying since you made them...

You're wrong. Find something else to bore everyone with.

Short, sweet, and absolutely spot on Dappa.

On the OP - "absolute liability"... do you really think we're worse off by having him in the side? I know you're being a cranky pants because we lost and all - but engage brain for just a few seconds please.

I'd say for every goal Grimes may cost us a game, he'd save two with his excellent placement of himself. That says "absolute asset" to me.

He'll be aRolls Royce when he shifts to the midfield. What we need is a half back Hodge.

Jack Trengove is our Hodge, it's written all over him. Someone who can play midfield, shift forward and play right in the guts, and doesn't take a backward step.

I was going to make a similar thread to this, so I'm glad deemonkey beat me to it!

Most are correct, it's pretty hard to call a 28 game player a liability, but with every game he plays, he's getting closer to becomming one!

We can all use the stats about how many inside 50's our opponents have, and how that puts pressure on our defenders, but my gripe with Grimes is his inability to hit a target when he is under no pressure. He takes a lot of marks in the D50, so I can't see how this puts him under pressure. A lot of his turnovers come from kicks after he has taken a mark.

The arguement to this is that the players aren't moving for him up the field. While this may be correct at times, it's absolute crap on most occasions. I admit, I watch the game on TV as I'm interstate, but when he does kick to a lead (which is often), the Melbourne player is in the clear by a couple of metres. I understand it is hard for some on here to realise that if Grimes misses a target by 5 metres, chances are an opposition player is standing right there. It may look like our player is standing still, but missing targets by such a long way is inexcusable.

I'm waiting with anticpation from E25 about the issues with Jack's skills. I gave Grimes a spray last week on the N Jones thread, so will be interesting to see what E has to say after ANOTHER incompetent performance by Grimes.

Edited April 3, 201114 yr by billy2803

I was going to make a similar thread to this, so I'm glad deemonkey beat me to it!

Most are correct, it's pretty hard to call a 28 game player a liability, but with every game he plays, he's getting closer to becomming one!

We can all use the stats about how many inside 50's our opponents have, and how that puts pressure on our defenders, but my gripe with Grimes is his inability to hit a target when he is under no pressure. He takes a lot of marks in the D50, so I can't see how this puts him under pressure. A lot of his turnovers come from kicks after he has taken a mark.

The arguement to this is that the players aren't moving for him up the field. While this may be correct at times, it's absolute crap on most occasions. I admit, I watch the game on TV as I'm interstate, but when he does kick to a lead (which is often), the Melbourne player is in the clear by a couple of metres. I understand it is hard for some on here to realise that if Grimes misses a target by 5 metres, chances are an opposition player is standing right there. It may look like our player is standing still, but missing targets by such a long way is inexcusable.

I'm waiting with anticpation from E25 about the issues with Jack's skills. I gave Grimes a spray last week on the N Jones thread, so will be interesting to see what E has to say after ANOTHER incompetent performance by Grimes.

I agree-I also await - the master RR for his comments.

This bloke is a gun who is not a reliable kick. Actually, he is a poor kick and this needs to be stated clearly even by those of us who love him as a player. He reads the play better than most, is courageous, can mark in a pack and runs into the right paces at the right times. But a coach needs to pull him aside at training and do kicking drills with him over and over again. He is too good to be making fuindamental errors, especially when not under pressure.

1. He should not be responsible for kick-ins.

2. He should be in our midfield but we need a large mobile skilled defender to take his place. We do not have one (yet).

3. He had a howler tonight but is the kind of plager who will rebound from this quickly. Look out Brisbane, Grimes will be BOG next week.

.

Don't hate the player, hate the game (Bailey)

I was going to make a similar thread to this, so I'm glad deemonkey beat me to it!

Most are correct, it's pretty hard to call a 28 game player a liability, but with every game he plays, he's getting closer to becomming one!

We can all use the stats about how many inside 50's our opponents have, and how that puts pressure on our defenders, but my gripe with Grimes is his inability to hit a target when he is under no pressure. He takes a lot of marks in the D50, so I can't see how this puts him under pressure. A lot of his turnovers come from kicks after he has taken a mark.

The arguement to this is that the players aren't moving for him up the field. While this may be correct at times, it's absolute crap on most occasions. I admit, I watch the game on TV as I'm interstate, but when he does kick to a lead (which is often), the Melbourne player is in the clear by a couple of metres. I understand it is hard for some on here to realise that if Grimes misses a target by 5 metres, chances are an opposition player is standing right there. It may look like our player is standing still, but missing targets by such a long way is inexcusable.

I'm waiting with anticpation from E25 about the issues with Jack's skills. I gave Grimes a spray last week on the N Jones thread, so will be interesting to see what E has to say after ANOTHER incompetent performance by Grimes.

I was at the end the Hawks kicked to in the 3rd. I could see the whole thing clearly.

To me the biggest problem is the pressure is getting to a relatively young fella who has the kickin role, without any support. I've seen Grimes do a good job kicking in. But ATMO, all opposition teams know we are susceptible to pressure on the kickout and swarm.

There is more Desire at a primary school recess, to get the footy, than there is at Our kickins. If our boys had shovels I'm sure they'd dig a tunnell.

we need our guys presenting, and presenting quickly. Not waiting for the opposition to form their defence.

To me our Mids and Half Forwards should be around the defensive 50Mtr Arc when the opposition score. They should be able to sprint to space to create options, and to draw their opponents out of structure.

We can't wait to see where the opposition want us to play.

I commented on Grimes' kicking from day dot; not in a particularly negative manner - I did and still do think he'll be a good player for us - but I noted it. That said, I think the last couple of games are an abberation and those writing him off are going way too far.

While I'm not sure he's the ideal guy for kicking out, I think a bigger issue is the fact that we're so static. It's not just from kick-outs either - it's the same when we have the ball further down the field.

Watts was actually leading a few times, which was nice to see. Jones, whatever his other faults, also tries to lead too. (Which, in case our players don't realise, is quite different to a fast walkto nowhere in particular with your hand half-heartedly waving).

To call someone an absolute liability in their 28th match is an absolute joke.

I disagree. I don't want to name names, but some of the players we've cut in the past few years would be as much a liability in their 28th match as they were in their 1st (if they even played a first game).

By the way, a guy on 25 career games says hi.

I was at the end the Hawks kicked to in the 3rd. I could see the whole thing clearly.

To me the biggest problem is the pressure is getting to a relatively young fella who has the kickin role, without any support. I've seen Grimes do a good job kicking in. But ATMO, all opposition teams know we are susceptible to pressure on the kickout and swarm.

There is more Desire at a primary school recess, to get the footy, than there is at Our kickins. If our boys had shovels I'm sure they'd dig a tunnell.

we need our guys presenting, and presenting quickly. Not waiting for the opposition to form their defence.

To me our Mids and Half Forwards should be around the defensive 50Mtr Arc when the opposition score. They should be able to sprint to space to create options, and to draw their opponents out of structure.

We can't wait to see where the opposition want us to play.

Is it that they aren't presenting or is it that our kick-ins take too long and our players are manned-up on by the time Grimes (or Garland) decide to bring the ball in to play?

I think his biggest problem kicking out is that he is so focused on not making a mistake, that he is missing early opportunities and as a result, the opposition set their zones and apply that forward pressure that we don't like. It's clear that Tappy is playing back because of his, becuase if there are no options, he kicks to himself, and bombs it to about 65m out. This is why the Inside 50's stat is quite misleading (to some degree). If we kick out to 55m, then the opposition spoil and punch it to 48m out, it's classed as an inside 50.

I disagree. I don't want to name names, but some of the players we've cut in the past few years would be as much a liability in their 28th match as they were in their 1st (if they even played a first game).

By the way, a guy on 25 career games says hi.

Point taken. I should have said that to call a guy holding down a key defensive spot and a leadership role 28 games into his career a liability, is stupid.

I mean newsflash, player with less than 30 games experience struggles under attack of 74 balls. Seriously, we should sack him now!

And please lets not make fools of ourselves by comparing Grimes to guys who were looking at getting delisted after 20 games or have been dumped and rookied.

Grimes definitely has to work on his kicking. I'm sure he knows that and I'm sure he is working on it.

Edited April 4, 201114 yr by Jaded

Point taken. I should have said that to call a guy holding down a key defensive spot and a leadership role 28 games into his career a liability, is stupid.

I mean newsflash, player with less than 30 games experience struggles under attack of 74 balls. Seriously, we should sack him now!

The OP is clearly indicating that Grimes' kicking out is a libaility; you'll note that the OP doesn't suggest Grimes is no good, or even argue that he should go back to Casey - the OP instead suggests he should play in our midfield!

Given that, I think it'd be better form to debate the merits of the OPs argument instead of creating a strawman argument that's easier to oppose.

EDIT: On that vein, do you think Grimes should be taking our kick-outs? Do you think we would be better served with Grimes in our midfield? Do you think Grimes would be better served by playing as a midfielder?

Is it that they aren't presenting or is it that our kick-ins take too long and our players are manned-up on by the time Grimes (or Garland) decide to bring the ball in to play?

I think his biggest problem kicking out is that he is so focused on not making a mistake, that he is missing early opportunities and as a result, the opposition set their zones and apply that forward pressure that we don't like. It's clear that Tappy is playing back because of his, becuase if there are no options, he kicks to himself, and bombs it to about 65m out. This is why the Inside 50's stat is quite misleading (to some degree). If we kick out to 55m, then the opposition spoil and punch it to 48m out, it's classed as an inside 50.

It's both, IMO, chicken and egg.

What I've noticed is that our players, the majority, don't get to position before the defenders do. IMO they should be streaming in. But they all seem to slow to get setup.

Our defender about to do kickin races to the ballbag to get the pill and quickly to the kickout box. Then waits an eternity because nobody relly assertively wants the ball, verbally or physically leading hard one way or another.

to me it looks like the 'recievers' don't want the pressure or responsibility. The Kicker is stuck with the responsibility., and is made to look stupid.

I think it's a problem maybe born out of our recent past where we had players who could get the recieve, but couldn't kick. So other teams know it's an easy way to hurt us as a team. Our good ball users are usually our smaller players, so can be pressured easily. We have to break this cycle, and make the kickins our strength.

It's both, IMO, chicken and egg.

What I've noticed is that our players, the majority, don't get to position before the defenders do. IMO they should be streaming in. But they all seem to slow to get setup.

Our defender about to do kickin races to the ballbag to get the pill and quickly to the kickout box. Then waits an eternity because nobody relly assertively wants the ball, verbally or physically leading hard one way or another.

to me it looks like the 'recievers' don't want the pressure or responsibility. The Kicker is stuck with the responsibility., and is made to look stupid.

I think it's a problem maybe born out of our recent past where we had players who could get the recieve, but couldn't kick. So other teams know it's an easy way to hurt us as a team. Our good ball users are usually our smaller players, so can be pressured easily. We have to break this cycle, and make the kickins our strength.

There is always at least someone to kick to. they could be a player that is 20m away right on the boundary line, deep in the pocket. Opposition teams leave a bloke open there because it's in a "dead" spot on the ground (meaning they are forced wide down the wing, or have to kick back to the goal square to try and break the zone). This is my arguement with Grimes; the fact that he is incompetent at hitting this type of target on a consistent basis. These kicks, whilst under no pressure in terms of getting tackled (becuase he is kicking out), does require him to hit a relatively small target so of course there is some pressure. I cringe when he is in this situation, as I have zero confidence in his ability to do this.

What I don't understand is why hasn't he improved this area of his game, considering it has been a flaw for the entire 28 of them? It has nothing to do with development from a coaching point of view. My expectation of Grimes would be extra training, which should be done in his own time, with a bag of footballs and a rubbish bin. And he should sit there for 30 mins or an hour, 2 or 3 nights a week, and practice kicking it in to the bin. I can't confirm if he does this, but I can assure you, if I knew that was a deficiency in my game, and I was a full time footballer, I'd owe it to my Employer to go out and change things. The best part, he wouldn't have to do it on his own becuase Colin Garland could easily join him.

I can remember a story about Scully as a junior where spent a few hours on a Sunday arvo doing something similar. The story was that he missed a target on his wrong foot, so he went out the next day (might have even been after the game) and spent a couple of hours kicking on that footy. That's the level of commitment I want from Jack if he wants to be a future leader of this Club.

Harsh? Maybe, but we're serious about being the best team of the decade. The best teams put in the extra miles.

Not sure they are allowed to do kicking practice like that any more Billy2803, I think forwards are even limited to the amount of shots at goal they are allowed. Due to the risk of OP or related injuries I believe.

EDIT: On that vein, do you think Grimes should be taking our kick-outs? Do you think we would be better served with Grimes in our midfield? Do you think Grimes would be better served by playing as a midfielder?

No (Tapscott or Garland should be. Davey if we are struggling)

Yes and yes. I've maintained all along that Grimes is a midfielder playing out of position because he is so good at reading the play and setting up the attack. Because we have no immediate replacement he is still there but had Strauss come on like we wanted he would be playing as a midfielder now. That IMO is where he ultimately belongs.