DEMONLAND PLAYER OF THE YEAR - ROUND 10

[demonchris 162]

Why? Show me footage of him attacking a contest or chasing more than half paced and I will happily retract.

6 minutes left in the first quarter, roves dawes and breaks 2-3 tackles and has a shot on goal... worked hard to get the crumbs and showed how well he reads the play.

[Lil_red_fire_engine 10,171]

6 minutes left in the first quarter, roves dawes and breaks 2-3 tackles and has a shot on goal... worked hard to get the crumbs and showed how well he reads the play.

It was a good piece of play. Unsure what that has to do with the criteria I set but agree it was a good piece of play.

[Dee Dee 1,043]

6: Jones N

5: Frawley

4: Dawes

3: Terlich

2: Kent

1: Howe

[DeeSpencer 23,126]

It was a good piece of play. Unsure what that has to do with the criteria I set but agree it was a good piece of play.

It was moderate. He had a guy free for a handball after he danced around the tackles.

But I'm glad you (and most of us on here) recognise the problem with Watts is not what he does with the ball it's what he does without it. Way too much standing on the edge of a contest instead of attacking it. His lowlight today was a piece of play at half back when he waltzed into the ball and then got gang tackled and it was the same Watts as his debut on QB all that time ago. Puopolo tore in at the contest and won the ball and put him to shame.

[Robbie57 1,990]

6: Jones N

5: Frawley

4: Dawes

3: Garland

2: terlich

1: Watts

[spirit of norm smith 12,904]

8: Chris Dawes
6: James Frawley
4: Nathan Jones
2: Colin Garland

-12: Rohan Bail

Oh dear, Demons

Bail spills a chest mark as Breust kicks his fifth

[demonchris 162]

It was a good piece of play. Unsure what that has to do with the criteria I set but agree it was a good piece of play.

He took the game on, a guy backing his skills.

[Maluski 24]

N jones 6

Dawes 5

Frawley 4

Garland 3

Kent 2

Terlich 1

[Bobby McKenzie 2,169]

6. Dawes

5. N. Jones

4. Frawley

3. Rodan

2. Garland

1. Watts

Special mention to Davey and Howe.

[red and blue forever 781]

6. Frawley

5. Dawes

4. N.Jones

3. Garland

2. Rodan

1. Terlich

[angrydee 842]

6 JonesN

5 Dawes

4 Frawley

3 Garland

2 Terlich

1 Kent

[Je Roos Salem 661]

6. N.Jones- Probably best game of the year, 11 clearances, a much better first half but still solid throughout the game

5. Dawes- Moved around the ground fantastically, applied some great pressure and hardness, should've kicked 3-4 goals instead of 1, very clean marking.

4. Rodan- Very impressive, especially in the 2nd half after making mistakes early. Seemed to be in every contest, his clearance work, contested possessions and tackling was a huge asset. Seems to want the ball more than others. A great opportunity taken in the side .

3. Frawley- Fine job keeping with Franklin, only 2 goals he conceded were more iffy free kicks. Work with the ball in defence still needs improvement.

2. Garland- Run through the middle in the 2nd quarter was inspiring and seemed to lift players. Good job in the contests

1. Howe- Solid game, not as good as last week, but found enough of the ball to justify playing around the ground

[Demonland 64,807]

PROGRESS VOTING ROUND 10

85. Nathan Jones

67. Colin Garland

59. Matt Jones

55. Jeremy Howe

42. Dean Terlich

40. James Frawley

39. Jack Viney

31. Colin Sylvia

26. Jack Grimes

24. Aaron Davey

23. Shannon Byrnes Michael Evans

16. Max Gawn

14. Chris Dawes

12. James Magner

11. Luke Tapscott

8. Mitch Clark

6. Lynden Dunn Tom McDonald

4. Jordie McKenzie Jack Trengove Jack Watts

3. Mark Jamar Dean Kent

2. Rohan Bail David Rodan

1. Sam Blease

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,397]

6. Dawes

5. N Jones

4. Frawley

3. Garland

2. Rodan (although terrible in the first quarter where he fumbled everything)

1. Howe

Interesting that Kent got votes from many people. I didn't think he deserved votes but I liked what I saw for the future. If he can build a tank, I see him as a potential classy midfielder. with pace, evasive skills and a great left foot.

And I didn't think Bail was the worst. I thought Strauss and Pedersen had him covered.

[P-man 13,168]

Interesting that Kent got votes from many people. I didn't think he deserved votes but I liked what I saw for the future. If he can build a tank, I see him as a potential classy midfielder. with pace, evasive skills and a great left foot.

I think it was due to him being willing to take the game on. Players like that who wear red and blue tend to stand out. For his bulky frame, he is very quick. When you add his skills and aggression, we could do alot worse than acquire another 2 or 3 Dean Kents.

[Maldonboy38 5,861]

6. Nathan Jones

5. James Frawley

4. Colin Garland

3. Chris Dawes

2. Terlich (when this guy gets some composure he will be a very good player)

1. Watts

Rodan played a good game, but the mistakes he made - fumbling, selfish play, missed tackles - hurt us badly so I could not get him a vote.

[JJJ 505]

Watts was below par. Anyone who thinks his 1st half was good is well off the mark. I know for a fact he received some pretty frank criticism regarding his attack on the ball during the 1st half.

I watched him pretty closely yesterday and he NEVER takes the responsibility of leading to the dangerous areas as a forward. Numerous times yesterday he had 2 options:

1: Take the responsibility and lead to the open side of the ground. This could potentially result in a shot at goal from a good position but it requires the forward to lead hard and with purpose in a similar vein to Clark. There is potential for collision and injury but a genuine footy player would see that opportunity, realise the potential pay off and go for it.

2: Double back to an area where players from both sides were already situated, engage in a 'wrestle' for position and watch as the ball is taken away by Hawthorn defenders without Watts impacting the contest.

Which one do you think Watts chose?

Watts' flaws are well known here but I have never seen a player choose to fail so readily.

[drdrake 3,037]

JJJ agree with you, you will find most people that think Jack played well yesterday watched from their couch anyone at the game would have seen an extremely dis-interested lazy player, my only hope is that he was sick and couldn't work as hard as he should be.

[Bobby McKenzie 2,169]

JJJ agree with you, you will find most people that think Jack played well yesterday watched from their couch anyone at the game would have seen an extremely dis-interested lazy player, my only hope is that he was sick and couldn't work as hard as he should be.

Just thought I should mention that watching on TV is MUCH clearer than being at the ground. You miss so much when the ball is far away from your position at the ground.

[drdrake 3,037]

Just thought I should mention that watching on TV is MUCH clearer than being at the ground. You miss so much when the ball is far away from your position at the ground.

You must watch to many games at Subi, not every oval has a big dome in the middle so you can't see the other side. I am lucky sitting on the wing 2nd level, you don't miss anything and you get to see the play unfold rather than just where the ball is and I can tell you it shows the players that don't work and on Sunday Jack Watts didn't work hard enough.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,397]

Just thought I should mention that watching on TV is MUCH clearer than being at the ground. You miss so much when the ball is far away from your position at the ground.

Actually - I think the opposite. On TV you generally only see what is happening where the ball is and not what else is happening - such as who is leading, who's running hard and who's not in the right position (such as players standing too far away from a free opponent who is obviously going to come into play. We have a prime candidate for that last comment, but I won't name him here as that's not what this thread is about).

[Nasher 33,047]

Just thought I should mention that watching on TV is MUCH clearer than being at the ground. You miss so much when the ball is far away from your position at the ground.

No way, I do all my watching on TV and can honestly say I have absolutely no idea what is going on most of the time, thanks to the cameras being zoomed in far too close to the play. I can't see when players haven't worked hard enough to contest (or when they have made an extra special effort to do so), I can't see how the team is set up forward of the ball, and I can't see what options a player has when using the ball.

Sitting in an elevated position at the ground is definitely better from the perspective of knowing what is going on.

[Bobby McKenzie 2,169]

You must watch to many games at Subi, not every oval has a big dome in the middle so you can't see the other side. I am lucky sitting on the wing 2nd level, you don't miss anything and you get to see the play unfold rather than just where the ball is and I can tell you it shows the players that don't work and on Sunday Jack Watts didn't work hard enough.

You are right about Subi oval. We Demons sit behind the goals at the City end and you can't see a bloody thing when the ball is up the other end. Maybe my comment should have been related to Subi oval. Thinking back to my past experiences at the G no problems viewing the whole game. Now living in Perth Subi is the only ground I can attend. Still reckon Jack was OK though. Not dominating like he should.