Have a look at him pants Ryder and Hill in last years Essendon game. Like all defenders he has his bad days and is beaten by really good players. But he's been playing on bigger players his whole career and doing very well.

I don't agree with you.

Fan, agree regarding Ryder and Hill and agree he was improved last year but think you seriously over rate him. He is most often beaten by bigger players, does not have the agility to beat most leading forwards and although improved last year he does not offer the drive we need of half back. Rivers finishing where he did in our B & F is more a statement on how poor our season was than his performance. If we are to improve as we hope to players such as Rivers need to start becoming periphery and not starting 18 players.

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

No need for the patronising post. I've been following Melbourne since the 70's

Fan, agree regarding Ryder and Hill and agree he was improved last year but think you seriously over rate him. He is most often beaten by bigger players, does not have the agility to beat most leading forwards and although improved last year he does not offer the drive we need of half back. Rivers finishing where he did in our B & F is more a statement on how poor our season was than his performance. If we are to improve as we hope to players such as Rivers need to start becoming periphery and not starting 18 players.

BRFE, do we require Rivers to offer drive off half back ? No doubt it would be a huge positive if he did. He may not do it as much as Frawley and Garland - come to think of it, Frawley is probably the only one who offers this time and again ! Garland does it every now and then. We need the likes of Strauss or Bennell or a Blease or even a McDonald to come on and eventually offer this. I agree he doesn't have the agility that Frawley & Garland possess or the tenacity for quick second or third efforts efforts. But I'd argue he can read the play and time himself to contests better than most in the team and spoil second to none. No doubt there are pros and cons with Rivers, but I feel the negativity towards him, appalling considering what he has delivered last year.

I disagree that where he finished in the B&F is more of a statement of our poor season, than his performance. It was his consistent performances that allowed an outright 2nd.

I tend to agree with your last sentence. And one of the reasons why I was keen on Smedts. I'm hoping McDonald, Davis come on in this regard.

BRFE, do we require Rivers to offer drive off half back ? No doubt it would be a huge positive if he did. He may not do it as much as Frawley and Garland - come to think of it, Frawley is probably the only one who offers this time and again ! Garland does it every now and then. We need the likes of Strauss or Bennell or a Blease or even a McDonald to come on and eventually offer this. I agree he doesn't have the agility that Frawley & Garland possess or the tenacity for quick second or third efforts efforts. But I'd argue he can read the play and time himself to contests better than most in the team and spoil second to none. No doubt there are pros and cons with Rivers, but I feel the negativity towards him, appalling considering what he has delivered last year.

I disagree that where he finished in the B&F is more of a statement of our poor season, than his performance. It was his consistent performances that allowed an outright 2nd.

I tend to agree with your last sentence. And one of the reasons why I was keen on Smedts. I'm hoping McDonald, Davis come on in this regard.

I think into today’s game a player needs to be able to do more than just be a third man up. Rivers needs to be able to provide attack, and be able to defend one on one regularly, (not just against the odd slow resting ruckman)

A forward can no longer get a spot by only kicking goals, he must defend, and often move into the midfield (ruck or rover) or half forward. So too a back must be able to provide more.

(however I don't think that Rivers can even be compared to a goal kicking forward, he would be compared to a decoy in the forward line, not kicking goals or defending, just blocking backman to help the better forwards on a lead)

I don't disagree there Thomo. What you see is what you get with Rivers. When you say "in today's game", you're looking for those elite capable players who can provide attack from the back half, that have a few strings to their bow. Like a O'Brien, a Maxwell, a Mackie, a Fisher. Let's not forget guys like Lonergan, Brown (Pies defender), Roberts-Thompson, Blake, Morris - opposition supporters would have similar opinions of them in the similar mould to Rivers. ie. lacking agility, lacks attack from back half, kicking so-so, one trick pony, etc etc.

I think we're in agreeance that it's beneficial for teams to obtain defenders who can provide their teams with all round ability for different match-ups. Rivers I recognise is limited in some areas, but very good in specific areas. Opposition sides may exploit that, but I think Neeld can provide (YTBD yet to be determined) a positive aspect in this regard in finding the suitable solutions if required.

It's a good discussion and it's going to be fascinating to see how Neeld uses Rivers. I'm struggling to think of a more interesting story in the new regime - Morton, Bate, Green, Sellar will all be very intersting too.

BRFE, do we require Rivers to offer drive off half back ? No doubt it would be a huge positive if he did. He may not do it as much as Frawley and Garland - come to think of it, Frawley is probably the only one who offers this time and again ! Garland does it every now and then. We need the likes of Strauss or Bennell or a Blease or even a McDonald to come on and eventually offer this. I agree he doesn't have the agility that Frawley & Garland possess or the tenacity for quick second or third efforts efforts. But I'd argue he can read the play and time himself to contests better than most in the team and spoil second to none. No doubt there are pros and cons with Rivers, but I feel the negativity towards him, appalling considering what he has delivered last year.

I disagree that where he finished in the B&F is more of a statement of our poor season, than his performance. It was his consistent performances that allowed an outright 2nd.

I tend to agree with your last sentence. And one of the reasons why I was keen on Smedts. I'm hoping McDonald, Davis come on in this regard.

If he is a key defender who is not good body on body nor has the pace to go on the lead then you would want him to be able to offer quality drive. Being a good spoil and reader of the play is not enough. I have nothing against Rivers I admire some of his attributes I just don't rate the complete package.

Edited February 9, 201213 yr by big_red_fire_engine

I'm struggling to think of a more interesting story in the new regime -

Davey?

It's a good discussion and it's going to be fascinating to see how Neeld uses Rivers. I'm struggling to think of a more interesting story in the new regime - Morton, Bate, Green, Sellar will all be very intersting too.

BUMP

It's a great discussion old55. And he has bought in under Neeld, backing up from a solid 2011 personally, immediately put behind him the LG overturn and continues to be in career best form. Right up there with Jones in most consistent this year. And leads by example even though he occasionally looks at his bootlaces much to the chagrin of some supporters. Neeld is using him wisely.

And yet some wanted him traded back in 08-09.

May have Cloke again this week and will provide a timely reminder for the knockers.

He's been very good - but there's a problem against the giant resting ruckmen - Hale, Hampson. He can outmark them reading the play but he can be outmarked by their sheer size and that can cost goals. We need to set up so that he doesn't have to play on the 200cm opponents. Maybe Tom McDonald can take them.

He's been very good - but there's a problem against the giant resting ruckmen - Hale, Hampson. He can outmark them reading the play but he can be outmarked by their sheer size and that can cost goals. We need to set up so that he doesn't have to play on the 200cm opponents. Maybe Tom McDonald can take them.

Sellar? Martin? Both proven to be largely ineffective as ruckman/forwards. It's what we recruited Sellar for and that dream seemed to have died but was revived against Essendon for mine. Agree that Rivers has been exposed against the resting ruckman.

Forgot about Sellar. Could be the option for Cloke.

Edit: McDonald or Sellar.

Actually Sellar maybe better suited to Dawes. McDonald to Cloke as old55 suggests

I'll put my hand up - last year I thought he was cooked and we should discard him.

Now in the best form of his career.

I don't think he is contracted beyond this year. I think he is one of the most under rated player's in the comp.

AND WE CAN"T AFFORD TO LOSE HIM!!!

Priority Tim Harrington!!! Keep the poachers away.

Apoligise if he has signed.

I'm a big Rivers fan. He's one of our few players who has consistently performed all season. I doubt he'd move elsewhere, but I'd be devastated to see him go.

Edited June 11, 201213 yr by Good Times Grimes

Me too. I said on the other thread that he's the only player from the Daniher era who's managed to avoid the awful funk that permeates our senior group. Sign him up pronto. Yes, I just said the word pronto. Big whoop! Wanna fight about it?

I'll put my hand up - last year I thought he was cooked and we should discard him.

Now in the best form of his career.

I agree. Rivers has been very good (and consistant) this year.

The coming of age of Sellar and the great year that Tom McDonald is having, plus Frawley, will also allow rivers to not play on the gorilla forwards of the league. Which can only be a positive.

I can't think of too many players that have played for the MFC that read the play as well as he does.

He's a rare talent in my opinion

I'll put my hand up - last year I thought he was cooked and we should discard him.

Now in the best form of his career.

I too wasnt endeared to ol Jared. But he is playign a lot better than many his junior. I have always considered his forte his ability to read play. He , for mine , has been a poor decision maker in disposal and in my view been a major culprit in coughing it up down the track ..i.e kicking to poor targets..or straight to opposition. This seems to have been curtailed to some extent. His role somewhat redefined...or rather simply...'defined" Seems a tad quicker this year also. He needed to find this as he was getting run off far too easily. Im still not sure where he'll place next year on the ground. But credit whhere its due. Hes putting in and thats far more than some of his brethren

I thought it was great to see him go forward last week and obviously improved us in that area unfortunately his influence was missed down back. He has too often been played against a guy six inches taller than him in our backline and will appreciate a run up forward.

The weeks before he has been playing a Matthew Scarlett type role as a second backman to McDonald .

I'm wondering if they are trying to find a place for Stef Martin down back with Sellar as back up ruckman.

• Last two weeks Sellar has done less ruckwork. Mitch Clark has been providing the chop out for Jamar lately. But I think you are obivously on the money that there is a spot up forward for stef martin or anything big marking forward.
  

I'm hoping that Garland stays forward and Rivers swings back or forward (probably prefer him forward)

The forward line pressure was terrific last week.

Martin started as a full back .

Watts has made the back line much more flexible but Someone needs to stop the big animals from other sides.

Martin and Sellar could be competing for this spot leaving Frawley to play the Scarlett role?

Neeld is all about tackling and pressure Stef needs to step up in this area.

He's been great back (except occasionally when outmarkedby 200cm ruck/fwds) but I like the idea of him forward. He can take a genuine contested mark and can compete with a couple in the air. He complements Clark better than anyone else on our list in this role at present and will either stop 2 or 3 flying against Clark or be one-out himself. He's more of a marking threat than Garland. We've probably got enough KPB options (Frawley, Sellar/Martin, McDonald, Watts, Garland) to allow him to move forward as Cook develops at Casey.

Has been great this year.

Still has body language issues he needs to work on.

I think it is great that Rivers and Garland are getting another string on their bow, something that McDonald and Sellar (in the last two weeks) are allowing.

I don't know how long term it will be though.