POST MATCH DISCUSSION

[beelzebub 23,240]

tapscott is gone imo

gone ?? did he ever really get going ??

[old dee 23,524]

you are straight out wrong, you have to have more than 2 kicks in a game of AFL football no matter what role you are in

see above

On second thoughts C and B 2 kicks for Mckenzie is probably a positive.

[old dee 23,524]

gone ?? did he ever really get going ??

beat me by four minutes bb

[Ted Lasso 18,904]

not really bb might have been a different story at a better club

[beelzebub 23,240]

beat me by four minutes bb

great minds Old...great minds

[beelzebub 23,240]

not really bb might have been a different story at a better club

I can only comment on what is D26...Hes at Melbourne and hes done not a lot !!

[Goodvibes 3,596]

Having re-watched the first half Toumpas had 10 handballs, 8 which were clearly effective freeing a man into space. He handballed once under pressure to Trengove which resulted in no turnover and a 50/50 he pushed out to Garland which we took the ball away from the play. He had 3 kicks all were moving the ball forward. None were direct clangers as all went to 50/50's but one was taken away from the contest for a score for Adelaide (4 possessions in the chain later). Outside of his possessions he got caught taking the game on in the first half which cost us a goal. So he had 13 touches in the first half 8 that clearly put us in a more attacking position, 4 that had no direct negative impact and one which cost a goal 4 possessions later in a scoring chain. He was clearly our most effective player in the first half and these so called possessions selling others into trouble and his slow decision making seem to be figments of peoples imagination.

Will have a look at the second half when I get a chance.

I have absolute respect for anyone who watches a replay of any Melbourne game from 2013. Nice work BRFE!

[titan_uranus 24,857]

you are straight out wrong, you have to have more than 2 kicks in a game of AFL football no matter what role you are in

Now you're conflating issues.

McKenzie's number of disposals is irrelevant to his tagging job. You can shut a player out of a game and get 0 disposals. As you tried to do earlier, measuring a tagger's success on their disposal count is not useful or fair.

However, the separate argument is whether having a tagger in the side who provides nothing offensively is worth it. McKenzie's tagging jobs are good without being great. The fact that he gives us little offensively means that, overall, his value to the side is lower than it could be, and he clearly needs to work on that aspect of his game.

But your job as a tagger has nothing to do with disposals, as you originally said.

[DeeSpencer 24,899]

Now you're conflating issues.

McKenzie's number of disposals is irrelevant to his tagging job. You can shut a player out of a game and get 0 disposals. As you tried to do earlier, measuring a tagger's success on their disposal count is not useful or fair.

However, the separate argument is whether having a tagger in the side who provides nothing offensively is worth it. McKenzie's tagging jobs are good without being great. The fact that he gives us little offensively means that, overall, his value to the side is lower than it could be, and he clearly needs to work on that aspect of his game.

But your job as a tagger has nothing to do with disposals, as you originally said.

I don't think he gives us nothing offensively though. Yes he's been poor this year which I think stems from a bad start to the year (where he couldn't train his achilles was that bad and he was rushed back into the team) but when he's on he can win clearances. Against Gold Coast and even against Adelaide he got some contested ball and got us moving. I remember when he first came in to the team and wasn't purely tagging he was getting about 20 touches and some decent clearances as well as laying tackles. Now his lack of skill means he's better suited to tagging but I expect him to develop with the talent around him and make some contribution offensively. I'd even consider changing things up if we are getting smashed in contested ball next week against the dogs and let McKenzie have a free run at winning the footy and move someone else on to Griffen. Sylvia would be my first choice I'd love to get him to tag even just for one game as a learning exercise.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Now you're conflating issues.

McKenzie's number of disposals is irrelevant to his tagging job. You can shut a player out of a game and get 0 disposals. As you tried to do earlier, measuring a tagger's success on their disposal count is not useful or fair.

However, the separate argument is whether having a tagger in the side who provides nothing offensively is worth it. McKenzie's tagging jobs are good without being great. The fact that he gives us little offensively means that, overall, his value to the side is lower than it could be, and he clearly needs to work on that aspect of his game.

But your job as a tagger has nothing to do with disposals, as you originally said.

I said he did not play a good game. It seems you are agreeing with that but stupidly trying to argue at the same time for no reason at all.

[titan_uranus 24,857]

I said he did not play a good game. It seems you are agreeing with that but stupidly trying to argue at the same time for no reason at all.

No you didn't, you said this:

come on he had 2 kicks for the day and the bloke he was blanketing received 7 frees, for me that is a failure of a tagging job

As I said, the number of kicks McKenzie got has nothing to do with his tagging job.