That's the problem - his so called strength is to play lose because that he cannot defend a direct opponent.

He is not tall enough to play on talls, not fast enough to play on quicks, and has poor kicking skills. So the solution is don't give him an opponent or he will get shown up. No place in the team for a player not able to offer anything except being third man up, easiest job in football, however most who play it also add run out of the backline.

If a player needs to play lose, play one that has skill and speed to create attack, not Rivers.

It is a skill to get to those contests though...

He needs to find a particular type of forward that a number of teams have to beat most weeks so he is found out and isn't making us play him as a 'loose man' but he is value at the moment.

As an aside - this plays into a narrative on Land: we love pointing out who can't do what, without consciously realising that we have no-one to replace said flawed player. Yes, a better skilled player with the same defensive attributes as Rivers could take his spot, but since this person does not exist at the minute on our list - Rivers remains.

Both of those players are ruckman-come-forwards.

So? Many teams will play their second ruck forward. I thought some would bring up Cloke. Wow. Rivers beaten by the strongest contested mark in the comp so he's no good.

I don't agree. Time will tell. He'll be even better when the ball isn't coming in 75 times a game at a rate of knots.

I will restate - For me there are two discussions - whether he should be in the team and whether he should be in the leadership group.

For me the jury is out on the first question - at the top of his game he is first picked - he can be exposed on the lead. And I 100% agree - if the midfield can slow the speed of entry into our back half then he is not so caught out - but the same goes for most defenders ( excepting the likes of Frawley who has the gift of stunning closing speed).

As to the second question - I have often stated that we are not fully privvy to how good a leader. On the field the footballing ability is obvious but that is not the only indicator of leadership ( or the likes of Maxwell wouldnt get the captains gig). It is the chat, the direction, the encouragement etc that we dont get to see. We also have little insight as to off-field leadership

I will make my uninformed opinion and say that I am not unhappy that he is not in LG as to my eyes he drops his head when things get tough.

So? Many teams will play their second ruck forward. I thought some would bring up Cloke. Wow. Rivers beaten by the strongest contested mark in the comp so he's no good.

I don't agree. Time will tell. He'll be even better when the ball isn't coming in 75 times a game at a rate of knots.

Well, to be fair, we have both used one game as evidence of our arguments so we are in the same leaky boat there...

I agree that we will be better when we bring our Inside 50 differential back into parity but there are many of us who believe that the decision to bring in Sellar is because we have had trouble with forward lines with more than one big body.

Edited February 7, 201213 yr by rpfc

Well, to be fair, we have both used one game as evidence of our arguments so we are in the same leaky boat there...

I agree that we will be better when we bring our Inside 50 differential back into parity but there are many of us who believe that the decision to bring in Sellar is because we have had trouble with forward lines with more than one big body.

We also had trouble with forward lines that had mids that sliced through our mids like they were butter. Defensive pressure by our forwards and mids makes life easier for our defenders.

That's the problem - his so called strength is to play lose because that he cannot defend a direct opponent.

He is not tall enough to play on talls, not fast enough to play on quicks, and has poor kicking skills. So the solution is don't give him an opponent or he will get shown up. No place in the team for a player not able to offer anything except being third man up, easiest job in football, however most who play it also add run out of the backline.

If a player needs to play lose, play one that has skill and speed to create attack, not Rivers.

I don't agree with Rivers not being able to play on talls, Thomo. He can play on some, but not all. At 192cm (*shudder*) he has good reach and his 1%'s which far and away get overlooked by nearly all here are second to none. His spoiling capacity is and was unsurpassed in 2011 for Mfc. I recognise he's not the quickest, but his ability to read and close in with reach makes up for that yard you crave. His kicking isn't elite, but it isn't shonky either. He's far from the worst.

And as Fan pointed out, whether you or others like it or not, his performances last year left him outright 2nd in the B&F, comfortably ahead of 3rd.

He wasn't the only one looking at his bootlaces with a negative body language in the team when we were 20+ goals down either.

He wasn't the only one looking at his bootlaces with a negative body language in the team when we were 20+ goals down either.

Correct - hence the other exitings from the leadership group. And the reason why Trengove was made co-captain and Nathan Jones was retained.

Correct - hence the other exitings from the leadership group. And the reason why Trengove was made co-captain and Nathan Jones was retained.

Haha. Actually they were all looking down.

Well, to be fair, we have both used one game as evidence of our arguments so we are in the same leaky boat there...

Yes agreed, but he did finish second in the B&F so I reckon he either polled well in that game or was pretty good for the season!! I just happened to watch that game last night and was reminded of how good he was. But I only re-watch the wins so perhaps I'm getting a slanted view.

I just love his reliability and courage so that's what I tend to see but I think the writing off of him is very harsh.

Not much time today, but I'll be all over this next week.

In brief, can't defend one on one, poor kicking skills, slow, offers very little rebound, does not offer a target from kickout, can't take kickout.

He was exposed badly by Collingwood last year, so I assume Neeld knows his weaknesses already.

He has got courage, but that's it. Third man up is not a full time roll if he can't offer anything else. Will struggle to get a game from now on.

His recent best and fairest results tells me more about the previous coaching group than how good Rivers is.

You do not know the game if you make statements like that thomo. What is with the rivers bashing? Poor kicking skills? Rivers disposal efficiency last season was around the 85% mark in just about every game. He held the defense down on his own until chip came into his own half way through the year and to state he did not deserve his place in the B and F is astounding. Yes, Rivers did get beat up by cloke last year simply because bailey got out coached once again. When Malthouse saw Rivers heading to Cloke at the start he sent Cloke straight to the goal square and that is where Cloke stayed the whole game. Dawes played CHF that day and Chip destroyed him but did bailey swap them? No, poor Rivers was left on his own with the ball flying over his head left, right and centre due the incompetence of our midfield. Rivers is not a full back but he is a hell of a courageous defender who puts his body on the line week in, week out. True club man!

Edited February 7, 201213 yr by H_T
Fixed quote tags

Sorry guys but my reply to thomo's post was actually posted amidst thomo's post. Not sure what I did there.

well said demon 77 cant understand the bashing of rivers, if not for injuries he would have been named captain after Neitz retired.

He is certantily in our best 22

I see value in Rivers in that 10 man defensive group.

As the team gets stronger it will get greater value from Rivers' abilities, but they will also be required less.

Some glimpes last year (a solid one) of the RS Rivers.

I do recall stoppages/rebounds on/to the 50 arc in 2010 where Rivers was mercilessly isolated against ok forwards - be it man on man non-contests, easy burns on the lead, forward50 pressured ftl. That point I think is lost on some who blame the mids for all.

Haha. Actually they were all looking down.

I keep harping on Nathan Jones - I am not a huge fan of his "ability" - but what i do love is his "never throw the towel in" attitude. You can walk off the ground with your head bent but not at 5 minute minute mark of the last quarter.

Yes agreed, but he did finish second in the B&F so I reckon he either polled well in that game or was pretty good for the season!! I just happened to watch that game last night and was reminded of how good he was. But I only re-watch the wins so perhaps I'm getting a slanted view.

I just love his reliability and courage so that's what I tend to see but I think the writing off of him is very harsh.

I also love what he can do, but I think the time is quickly coming for him to find a role that suits an older, slower, wiser player and minding one of the top 2 forwards isn't that role in my view.

In an interesting discussion with AoB a few weeks ago he touched on today's ideal of a backline that is, for lack of a better word, amorphous.

And this is where we can exploit what Rivers is so good at - being the third man up in contests that only someone as brillant as him can get to.

A poster mentioned that Rivers will be superceded by someone who is more value in the counterattack (or words to that effect), but you can't counterattack if you can't get the ball back and Rivers gets his hands on the sherrin from the opposition more than any other plaeyr I would wager (I don't know if anyone has that stat?).

I keep harping on Nathan Jones - I am not a huge fan of his "ability" - but what i do love is his "never throw the towel in" attitude. You can walk off the ground with your head bent but not at 5 minute minute mark of the last quarter.

Are you alluding to that Rivers throws the towel in ? Stops trying ? I disagree if this is what you are insinuating.

edit: I admire Jones for his determination and his attitude to better himself.

I also love what he can do, but I think the time is quickly coming for him to find a role that suits an older, slower, wiser player and minding one of the top 2 forwards isn't that role in my view.

Rivers is 192/92 and Chris Tarrant is 193/94. That's almost identical. Ideally a bloke like Sellar would take the gorilla and Rivers the next leaving Garland and Frawley as more attacking talls.

Rivers reads the play so well and uses his body so well I think he can do a Tarrant type role. Pace maybe an issue.

Rivers is 192/92 and Chris Tarrant is 193/94. That's almost identical. Ideally a bloke like Sellar would take the gorilla and Rivers the next leaving Garland and Frawley as more attacking talls.

Rivers reads the play so well and uses his body so well I think he can do a Tarrant type role. Pace maybe an issue.

Yes, I remember a training thread where AoB went through this.

It's predicated on Sellar being something he has shown very little evidence of being, and on Frawley becoming a third tall in our backline and I don't think that will happen.

I hope Sellar and Rivers can turn Frawley into a third tall but I don't see it happening. And as amorphous as backlines are these days - to beat the best, you are going to have to have your best tall backs play on their best forwards so that the five times they get a one-on-one in a tight game they don't get thrown around as their bloke kicks 4.1.

I remember the discussion, it was a good debate. I'm not sure anyone is sold on Sellar being able to do the job but I'd think he does that role or none, wouldn't you?

There is no doubt that Sellar, Davis and McDonald all create significant competition for Rivs spot. I hold high hopes for Tom and Troy as well.

Fancy, after all these years having an embarrassment of riches down back.

I remember the discussion, it was a good debate. I'm not sure anyone is sold on Sellar being able to do the job but I'd think he does that role or none, wouldn't you?

There is no doubt that Sellar, Davis and McDonald all create significant competition for Rivs spot. I hold high hopes for Tom and Troy as well.

Fancy, after all these years having an embarrassment of riches down back.

Two unknowns and a delisted player is hardly an embarrassment of riches.

Two unknowns and a delisted player is hardly an embarrassment of riches.

McDonald and Davis are not unknown to me. The comment was based on holding high hopes for McDonald and Davis.

I remember the discussion, it was a good debate. I'm not sure anyone is sold on Sellar being able to do the job but I'd think he does that role or none, wouldn't you? There is no doubt that Sellar, Davis and McDonald all create significant competition for Rivs spot.

Well, here is my nitpick from the AoB argument - I think Sellar is more suited to coming in and doing Rivers' job than Frawleys. So I agree with you on the competition for places argument but I just see the jump between doing what Rivers was doing (taking the 2nd tall for better or worse) and doing what Frawley was doing (taking The Forward) was too great.

If I could give the likelihood of Rivers becoming a third tall and Frawley becoming a third tall, I would say that Rivers being third tall is more likely.

McDonald and Davis are not unknown to me. The comment was based on holding high hopes for McDonald and Davis.

You knowing them is not my point. Their ability to play consistently good football at AFL level is unknown.

You knowing them is not my point. Their ability to play consistently good football at AFL level is unknown.

Its a relative embarrassment of riches when almost 6-7 years ago Nathan Carroll was a valuable player because he was one of two backman we had. The other was Rivers and he had chronic OP!!

At the moment, we have Chippa, Rivers and Garland in the 22 and we have the potential of Davis, McDonald and Sellars. And FWIW, Davis and McDonald are talented and MacDonald have shown good signs in his early

Its a relative embarrassment of riches when almost 6-7 years ago Nathan Carroll was a valuable player because he was one of two backman we had. The other was Rivers and he had chronic OP!!

At the moment, we have Chippa, Rivers and Garland in the 22 and we have the potential of Davis, McDonald and Sellars. And FWIW, Davis and McDonald are talented and MacDonald have shown good signs in his early

And furthermore RR four years ago Warnock would have been a regular (he was top 10 B&F at least once) and Martin a key position defender.

Thomo you're quite correct that McDonald and Davis aren't proven but I can't remember having had two better prospect other than Frawley and Garland and these forums wrote both those players off.

Your clearly not old enough to remember the bad times. I wish I had that advantage.