Jordie McKenzie

[Slartibartfast 15,807]

Is there no grey for you ? Just black and white ? Jordie was not best on ground on Sunday. What he did do is keep one of Essendons highest possession getters to 13 touches - Stanton's worst performance for the year. But we have seen him tag successfully before. He has been playing at Casey because the FD have said that they need more. They need him more offensively involved. So he show some signs in the 2nd half - dishes off to Watts to Kent for a goal and his part in the last play and yet you give this comment.

You well may be right that he wont be around in two years - or maybe he will keep improving and end up our Cameron Ling. All that is necessary is to say that Jordie has a good game on Sunday and play his part in the win.

Nut I'd leave Stevie alone. He's got a problem with Jordie, fails to see his good and only focus's on his bad. Jordie must have taken his girl or something. Or perhaps Stevie is a girl and Jordie dumped her - I could understand why!

Having pizzed all over Jordie for weeks our man has shown up Steve for what he is. A pretty ordinary judge of this player. Just for the record Jordie won the ball against Stanton in a marking contest to get the ball to Watts and then Kent. He was also the one who won the clearance that got the ball to Jones who got it to Frawley who goaled. He was pivotal in the final play. He got the ball to Pedersen who goaled in the third. That's 4 pivotal scoring involvements in the last 40 minutes of footy - personally I reckon a "well played" is called for.

But for Stevie he's just an ordinary footballer. A couple of handballs, a couple of kicks, anyone can do it.

[nutbean 8,837]

Nut I'd leave Stevie alone. He's got a problem with Jordie, fails to see his good and only focus's on his bad. Jordie must have taken his girl or something. Or perhaps Stevie is a girl and Jordie dumped her - I could understand why!

Having pizzed all over Jordie for weeks our man has shown up Steve for what he is. A pretty ordinary judge of this player. Just for the record Jordie won the ball against Stanton in a marking contest to get the ball to Watts and then Kent. He was also the one who won the clearance that got the ball to Jones who got it to Frawley who goaled. He was pivotal in the final play. He got the ball to Pedersen who goaled in the third. That's 4 pivotal scoring involvements in the last 40 minutes of footy - personally I reckon a "well played" is called for.

But for Stevie he's just an ordinary footballer. A couple of handballs, a couple of kicks, anyone can do it.

For me the jury is still out on Jordie. He does need to be more than a tagger.

What I don't get is we are lauding Roos for the improvement in players. It is obvious he is setting the individuals goals and is clear on his expectation. We can see it paying dividends. So according to Saty, from Jordie's mouth - he has to be more than tagger - needs more involvement. He goes back to Casey and tears it up. He gets his chance last week and does what we expect - shuts his man down - but then does what we havent seen from him nearly enough - getting involved in offensive passages of play.

If we see the improvement from Watts, Dunn , Jetta, Pederson and the like and don't put a ceiling on how much further they can improve why wouldn't we extend the same to Jordie ?

[old dee 22,927]

For me the jury is still out on Jordie. He does need to be more than a tagger.

What I don't get is we are lauding Roos for the improvement in players. It is obvious he is setting the individuals goals and is clear on his expectation. We can see it paying dividends. So according to Saty, from Jordie's mouth - he has to be more than tagger - needs more involvement. He goes back to Casey and tears it up. He gets his chance last week and does what we expect - shuts his man down - but then does what we havent seen from him nearly enough - getting involved in offensive passages of play.

If we see the improvement from Watts, Dunn , Jetta, Pederson and the like and don't put a ceiling on how much further they can improve why wouldn't we extend the same to Jordie ?

Lower skill level?

[Slartibartfast 15,807]

For me the jury is still out on Jordie. He does need to be more than a tagger.

What I don't get is we are lauding Roos for the improvement in players. It is obvious he is setting the individuals goals and is clear on his expectation. We can see it paying dividends. So according to Saty, from Jordie's mouth - he has to be more than tagger - needs more involvement. He goes back to Casey and tears it up. He gets his chance last week and does what we expect - shuts his man down - but then does what we havent seen from him nearly enough - getting involved in offensive passages of play.

If we see the improvement from Watts, Dunn , Jetta, Pederson and the like and don't put a ceiling on how much further they can improve why wouldn't we extend the same to Jordie ?

Jordie has a challenge to become are regular in the team particularly with Trengove coming back and Roos stated desire for more quality mids. Jordie knows that as well.

Both Stanton and Jordie had about 13 possessions on each other. Jordie had more impact as I've evidenced. Who at Demonland wouldn't have taken that result before the game? Too little credit is given to players who can effectively shut down opposition players. Too many like the sizzle but not the steak. Jordie was ordinary in his games against Carlton and GCS but in his defence he did play against Ablett. Prior to that he beat Ablett, Dangerfield and Griffen in 3 or his last four games last year.

Interestingly Roos has used Jones and Vince in tagging roles this year. That has surprised me. Cross is usually our first pick tagger but he's much less effective in shutting people down as Zakarakis showed. Jordie's future will depend on how Roos sees his taggers working in future. Jordie is the best "shut down" player at the club but not as offensively orientated as Cross. Cross won't be around as long as Jordie. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

One thing in Jordie's favour is his character. The coaches and the players love him because of his work ethic and footy smarts. As you say I'd be surprised is Roos doesn't just develop him and try and make him a core part of the team.

But one thing I'm pretty confident in is that if Jordie doesn't succeed at MFC he'll go somewhere else and prosper.

[nutbean 8,837]

Lower skill level?

I've broached this before.

I don't think his skill, particularly his hands are bad. Under Neeld we developed a ball chasing mentality. Too many players rushing to the contest. You would find Jordie many times at the bottom of pack trying to extract the ball to 1 of 4 players standing right on top of him. You can have a little more leeway in precision when the player you are trying to get it to has worked hard to get 3 metres in the clear. Jordie needs to get more uncontested possession but that will never be his main game. He will mainly be in the heat of the contest. Better midfield planning and predictability combined with hard work and a willingness to spread hard will mean more and better clear options for a player like McKenzie.

Look at his touches on Sunday - there wasn't too much unskilled about them.

Edit - watching Bomber on AFL 360, they analysed the "Salem" play and he summed up where Essendon went wrong. Too many players got drawn up to the contest. That's Neeld like and the point I am trying to make about Jordie.

Edited June 20, 2014 by nutbean

[old dee 22,927]

I've broached this before.

I don't think his skill, particularly his hands are bad. Under Neeld we developed a ball chasing mentality. Too many players rushing to the contest. You would find Jordie many times at the bottom of pack trying to extract the ball to 1 of 4 players standing right on top of him. You can have a little more leeway in precision when the player you are trying to get it to has worked hard to get 3 metres in the clear. Jordie needs to get more uncontested possession but that will never be his main game. He will mainly be in the heat of the contest. Better midfield planning and predictability combined with hard work and a willingness to spread hard will mean more and better clear options for a player like McKenzie.

Look at his touches on Sunday - there wasn't too much unskilled about them.

Edit - watching Bomber on AFL 360, they analysed the "Salem" play and he summed up where Essendon went wrong. Too many players got drawn up to the contest. That's Neeld like and the point I am trying to make about Jordie.

I was just suggesting that there may be a difference in the player skill level between Mckenzie and Watts, Dunn , Jetta, Pederson that would justifying why people have a different attitude.

[nutbean 8,837]

I was just suggesting that there may be a difference in the player skill level between Mckenzie and Watts, Dunn , Jetta, Pederson that would justifying why people have a different attitude.

I agree - but people should also take into account the positions that each of them play.

The "extractors" always have less time, more pressure and congestion and usually more around the contest.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

That may be so, but in the meantime we need players that will set an example of running hard and never giving up and Jordie fits that bill. We have to change the thinking of the players and you need players like Jordie, Cross and Riley that will kill to get to the ball.

Jordie sets an example that hopefully others will follow.

What, the example that Jones has been trying to set for how many years now? Clearly rubbed off didn't it..

Obviously in the meantime he'll be getting a gig here and there providing he 'plays his role'.

But the point I'm making is that it seems Melbourne supporters have been used to shite for so long that they start to applaud passages of play and fundamentals of the game that should be expected.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Is there no grey for you ? Just black and white ? Jordie was not best on ground on Sunday. What he did do is keep one of Essendons highest possession getters to 13 touches - Stanton's worst performance for the year. But we have seen him tag successfully before. He has been playing at Casey because the FD have said that they need more. They need him more offensively involved. So he show some signs in the 2nd half - dishes off to Watts to Kent for a goal and his part in the last play and yet you give this comment.

You well may be right that he wont be around in two years - or maybe he will keep improving and end up our Cameron Ling. All that is necessary is to say that Jordie has a good game on Sunday and play his part in the win.

Stanton's worst performance for the year because of McKenzie's tagging job solely? Not helped by the fact that Jobe Watson was out?

Yes, McKenzie limited Stanton's uncontested ball count numbers, something he thrives on. So well done to McKenzie for that.

Is that what this thread is about? Congratulating him on everything he does, without a second thought?

If so, I think I'm at the wrong place.

[nutbean 8,837]

But the point I'm making is that it seems Melbourne supporters have been used to shite for so long that they start to applaud passages of play and fundamentals of the game that should be expected.

That's me. I will applaud when the fundamentals are done correctly because if you do 120 minutes of fundamentals correctly invariably you will win the game. I will also applaud passages of play ( most from our mob but even from others) that are sublime in their daring and their execution.

[nutbean 8,837]

Stanton's worst performance for the year because of McKenzie's tagging job solely? Not helped by the fact that Jobe Watson was out?

Yes, McKenzie limited Stanton's uncontested ball count numbers, something he thrives on. So well done to McKenzie for that.

Is that what this thread is about? Congratulating him on everything he does, without a second thought?

If so, I think I'm at the wrong place.

So we have devoted a thread to Pederson because of his improvement.

We have devoted a thread to Jetta because of his improvement.

We have devoted a thread to Dunn because of his improvement.

McKenzie comes back in after being told what he should to be more valuable and does precisely that but we shouldn't recognise it ?

If so I am in the wrong place too.

[nutbean 8,837]

Stanton's worst performance for the year because of McKenzie's tagging job solely? Not helped by the fact that Jobe Watson was out?

Hmm . Dunn IMO was BOG last week - he wasn't helped by appalling kicking into the Essendon forward line ?

You are looking to find reasons not to acknowledge what Jordie did last week - he shut down his player and he provided some valuable offensive output - he wasnt best on ground, he did a good job - that's all.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Nut I'd leave Stevie alone. He's got a problem with Jordie, fails to see his good and only focus's on his bad. Jordie must have taken his girl or something. Or perhaps Stevie is a girl and Jordie dumped her - I could understand why!

Having pizzed all over Jordie for weeks our man has shown up Steve for what he is. A pretty ordinary judge of this player. Just for the record Jordie won the ball against Stanton in a marking contest to get the ball to Watts and then Kent. He was also the one who won the clearance that got the ball to Jones who got it to Frawley who goaled. He was pivotal in the final play. He got the ball to Pedersen who goaled in the third. That's 4 pivotal scoring involvements in the last 40 minutes of footy - personally I reckon a "well played" is called for.

But for Stevie he's just an ordinary footballer. A couple of handballs, a couple of kicks, anyone can do it.

He is an ordinary footballer who gets a game for reasons I CAN understand at the minute. I've said this a million times. I'll never question the bloke's tenacity and desire to give his all and if that's all AFL football required, then he'd be up there with the best.

I am more than reasonable in my judgement of McKenzie. I am what you'd call an unbiased supporter of a club which can sometimes make you standout on a place like demonland.

Because of this, my view can be hard to acknowledge on a place where there's so much cognitive dissonance floating around. I've already said that McKenzie held Stanton well on the weekend without providing much himself.

Here's a take of a non-biased Melbourne supporter's view on those passages of play McKenzie was involved in:

1. McKenzie happened to be the beneficiary of a ball that spilt off Stanton as he was trying to mark the ball unbalanced. The ball landed at the fall of the feet of McKenzie and he picked it up to fire off a handball. Haha. Are we serious here? Stanton lost his feet, Hurley left Watts to impact the marking contest which he didn't do leaving Watts free for the handball receive from McKenzie. Two mistakes by Essendon players gift us a goal. McKenzie was the beneficiary. There's your unbiased view of the scenario.

2. McKenzie gets first hands to the ball and shoots out a quick handball to a free Vince, (which is inexcusable at that time in the match), which results in a goal after a chain of hanballs. McKenzie had the opportunity to think more offensively in that situation which he did I guess... Got a handball. Should we crack open the champaign? I'm not so sure.

3. The kick to Pederson was most definitely not deliberate. I'll call that now. Whichever way you look at it, McKenzie hit a target in the forwadline which was absolute luck.

I'm grateful it worked out, but again, are we really jotting that bit of play down on his CV? Unbelievable.

4. The last passage of play for the night where we happened to have some players free. Jordie in a lucky spot again, well done to him for executing two hand handballs that would be expected from any player that plays at that level. One-two handball from Frawley and then off to a free running McDonald.

Now go and show your non-MFC supporter pals these passages of play, and then compare your notes to mine, and see which ones they agree with.

Cheers.

Edited June 20, 2014 by stevethemanjordan

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

That's me. I will applaud when the fundamentals are done correctly because if you do 120 minutes of fundamentals correctly invariably you will win the game. I will also applaud passages of play ( most from our mob but even from others) that are sublime in their daring and their execution.

Well I suggest you come and see some Amateur footy sometime.

You'll see plenty of passages of play where those particular skills are executed time and time again without fail.

[mauriesy 6,813]

It's his birthday tomorrow. Hope he has a good day.

[Bossdog 2,002]

Gee Steve......That's Frawley and McKenzie that you don't like and are very over rated in your opinion

Anyone else????

We have doubled our wins since last year and improved 100% I don't know what you expected this season but I have seen improvement over the whole team. Praise is warranted sometimes. Can you wait till we are thumped, then you can bag players to your hearts content...

[Vipercrunch 2,816]

Jordie must have done something REALLY bad to Steve.....

[Elusive Tunbridge 795]

"I am more than reasonable in my judgement of McKenzie. I am what you'd call an unbiased supporter of a club which can sometimes make you standout on a place like demonland.

Because of this, my view can be hard to acknowledge on a place where there's so much cognitive dissonance floating around. I've already said that McKenzie held Stanton well on the weekend without providing much himself.

Here's a take of a non-biased Melbourne supporter's view on those passages of play McKenzie was involved in:"

Delighted to have such a reasonable and unbiased view presented. Personally, I am quite biased, and I think your self-congratulation is full of it. And look up cognitive dissonance - if you want to sound educated, it's better to be so.

[mauriesy 6,813]

You can reduce any passage of play down to just a sequence of executed fundamentals and dismiss it.

I could argue that Adam Scott winning the 2013 Masters was just a sequence of 286 fundamental golf swings, none of which were particularly special.

There are also only so many 'lucky spots' you can be in before it becomes more than 'lucky', or you are purely a 'beneficiary'.

And I think a purely 'unbiased' supporter would be holding off making judgement. I've seen it many times before, and it's usually premature. Especially now with Roos as the coach.

As long as a player pulls on the red and blue I will support them.

Edited June 20, 2014 by mauriesy

[Nasher 33,068]

What are we to applaud players for doing if it's not fundamental footy things?

Funny that McKenzie handballs features in the two most watched clips from the game: the Kent running goal and the Salem goal.

[Uncle Fester 2,835]

He is an ordinary footballer who gets a game for reasons I CAN understand at the minute. I've said this a million times. I'll never question the bloke's tenacity and desire to give his all and if that's all AFL football required, then he'd be up there with the best.

I am more than reasonable in my judgement of McKenzie. I am what you'd call an unbiased supporter of a club which can sometimes make you standout on a place like demonland.

Because of this, my view can be hard to acknowledge on a place where there's so much cognitive dissonance floating around. I've already said that McKenzie held Stanton well on the weekend without providing much himself.

Here's a take of a non-biased Melbourne supporter's view on those passages of play McKenzie was involved in:

1. McKenzie happened to be the beneficiary of a ball that spilt off Stanton as he was trying to mark the ball unbalanced. The ball landed at the fall of the feet of McKenzie and he picked it up to fire off a handball. Haha. Are we serious here? Stanton lost his feet, Hurley left Watts to impact the marking contest which he didn't do leaving Watts free for the handball receive from McKenzie. Two mistakes by Essendon players gift us a goal. McKenzie was the beneficiary. There's your unbiased view of the scenario.

2. McKenzie gets first hands to the ball and shoots out a quick handball to a free Vince, (which is inexcusable at that time in the match), which results in a goal after a chain of hanballs. McKenzie had the opportunity to think more offensively in that situation which he did I guess... Got a handball. Should we crack open the champaign? I'm not so sure.

3. The kick to Pederson was most definitely not deliberate. I'll call that now. Whichever way you look at it, McKenzie hit a target in the forwadline which was absolute luck.

I'm grateful it worked out, but again, are we really jotting that bit of play down on his CV? Unbelievable.

4. The last passage of play for the night where we happened to have some players free. Jordie in a lucky spot again, well done to him for executing two hand handballs that would be expected from any player that plays at that level. One-two handball from Frawley and then off to a free running McDonald.

Now go and show your non-MFC supporter pals these passages of play, and then compare your notes to mine, and see which ones they agree with.

Cheers.

McKenzie comes back in to the side, keeps his opponent quiet while hurting Essendon offensively, and to some people this is a sign that he's not much chop?

Just out of interest: was it an Essendon supporter you compared notes with?

[chook fowler 18,299]

I remember when Geelong were at their low point and Bomber Thompson had his foot on the banana skin Ling was heavily criticised for acquiring few possessions and doing nothing with them. Was pretty ineffectual before the whole teams philosophy changed. I see parallels with Jordie and feel it is far too early to write him off. He was at the centre of some important plays while keeping Stanton out of the game.

[Dockett 32 1,213]

Did a great job last week, got a bit of the pill himself and set up some quite good plays. One things for sure with Jordie , he'll always try to improve.

[nutbean 8,837]

4. The last passage of play for the night where we happened to have some players free. Jordie in a lucky spot again, well done to him for executing two hand handballs that would be expected from any player that plays at that level. One-two handball from Frawley and then off to a free running McDonald.

Now go and show your non-MFC supporter pals these passages of play, and then compare your notes to mine, and see which ones they agree with.

Cheers.

I don't need to show it to my non MFC supporters. 3 Football shows ( AFL 360, Footy classified and on the couch) not only showed it - they dissected it in minute detail!!!

They each mentioned certain events within the play. The hard running , the speed and execution, the bravery of decision making and also how too many Essendon players got sucked up into the contest.

Why exactly did these shows not just show it but dissect it ?

This was not amateur footy stuff - this was not fundamentals - this play was poetry..

Again - you seem to be lacking understanding our game - you say that we happened to have players free. Why do you think that is ? Viney, Cross and McDonald gut ran and burned off their opponents - that is why they were free !

And McKenzie was in a lucky spot - he was very lucky to be.. umm where was he ? front and centre of the contest - what a novel place to stand !!!

And I may give the final word on McKenzies performance to someone who set his role - 3 guesses who said this ?

“Jordie was a great example for the other guys. He was out for five or six weeks and he just does well and he doesn’t complain and he keeps doing his role and all of a sudden, you come into the team. He played a really, really good game.”

Edited June 20, 2014 by nutbean

[rpfc 27,501]

I am not so blasé about 'fundamental football;' I haven't seen much of it in nearly a decade...