Nobody takes any notice of me up here. Got no one to play with

Ask any Pies fan and they'll tell you that Kennedy virtually always starred at VFL level.  Finding consistency and a position at AFL level has been more of a challenge. 

That said,  he's had some quality games this year for the Dees and will no doubt get a reprieve.

1 hour ago, Davos said:

How did Declan Keilty play?

Was not his greatest game but he is useful. 

 

Just now, ProDee said:

Ask any Pies fan and they'll tell you that Kennedy virtually always starred at VFL level.  Finding consistency and a position at AFL level has been more of a challenge. 

That said,  he's had some quality games this year for the Dees and will no doubt get a reprieve.

Very stiff to be dropped in the first place imo. 

He was not really ever given much of a chance with Bucks.  The  Fizzer obviously preferring players like why and when   to only get that ideal wrong.  This is Bens first real year at  feeling his way at the highest level.  Hes far from the worst at waxing and waning..  More importantly he seems to want to take it on and put his hand up !!  Yep, good for him. He may never be a permanent 22 but he'd probably make the  25. Handy .

I think Ben Ken for Harmes is firming for me and the possibility of White if upgraded to be in the mix. Playing very very consistent footy at Casey and like the way he uses the ball.

If we want to get cute continue with Frost instead of O Mac and bring White in as a PACY rebound defender.

Won't happen though

24 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

He was not really ever given much of a chance with Bucks.  The  Fizzer obviously preferring players like why and when   to only get that ideal wrong.  This is Bens first real year at  feeling his way at the highest level.  Hes far from the worst at waxing and waning..  More importantly he seems to want to take it on and put his hand up !!  Yep, good for him. He may never be a permanent 22 but he'd probably make the  25. Handy .

Easily in our best 22 at this point BZ

2 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

Just out of interest by the way, Harmes had 4 clangers yesterday, so did Cyril Rioli and Luke Breust

On Clangers alone you are spot on Saty. Had an ugly day but he wasn't the worst clanger offender.

Others tend to get away with more of them (or similar levels) though as their other work more than makes up for it (eg., Vince/Jones/Tyson) on the day and some others are no doubt coach's favs so wouldn't matter how badly they went ie., they've locked away enough brownie points from previous efforts/or they are playing a role (not a chico!) better than others apparently, which some would say is fair enough. Some are also just more involved in general play through the mid (like Harmes) and on such an ugly day are likely to turn it over a fair bit.

Leading clanger count from y'day down to Harmes...

Vince 8, Tyson 6, Frost 6, Jones 5, Omac 5, Harmes 4

 

1 hour ago, willmoy said:

"Harmes was as good yesterday as Rioli or Breust"?

Willmoy be careful what you read on here

14 minutes ago, picket fence said:

 

If we want to get cute continue with Frost instead of O Mac and bring White in as a PACY rebound defender.

Won't happen though

None of Frost or Oscar will get dropped as the filth are playing three big forwards (Cox, Cloke & White).

Mitch White probably isn't quite tall enough for Jesse White. He could play as the third tall defender against other teams though.

2 hours ago, Gorgoroth said:

Nah, Garlett is more likely to bounce back with a good game, Harmes has been average for a while, other than the three goals in the last vs Suns I think it was.

Garlett was also atrocious against Port. Too big a gap between best and worst 

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Do we have a spot available?

I'd like to see White at some point soon, maybe if Wagner or Hunt need a rest.

Without bashing Oscar McDonald because I do see a future for him, with Tom McDonald and Frost down back White would be a perfect replacement for Oscar because we don't need three tall defenders and White would add much needed skills to the team.

48 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

He was not really ever given much of a chance with Bucks.  The  Fizzer obviously preferring players like why and when   to only get that ideal wrong.  This is Bens first real year at  feeling his way at the highest level.  Hes far from the worst at waxing and waning..  More importantly he seems to want to take it on and put his hand up !!  Yep, good for him. He may never be a permanent 22 but he'd probably make the  25. Handy .

have you ever had a Buck's Fizz? 

A tasty little champagne cocktail  and no I wasn't referring to the 81 Eurovision contestants  

 

25 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Leading clanger count from y'day down to Harmes...

Vince 8, Tyson 6, Frost 6, Jones 5, Omac 5, Harmes 4

 

Difference there though, is that Vince, Tyson and Jones had a lot of it, even Omac had it 22 times, and Frost 18. 

Harmes' 4 clangers came from only 10 possessions.

9 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Difference there though, is that Vince, Tyson and Jones had a lot of it, even Omac had it 22 times, and Frost 18. 

Harmes' 4 clangers came from only 10 possessions.

 No argument there Bing and Harmes was easily in our bottom 2 WOG y'day. Had him as 2nd worst. You may have missed the rest of my post (and other earlier posts saying this about Harmes' overall game y'day)....

..."Had an ugly day but he wasn't the worst clanger offender"....

"......Others tend to get away with more of them (or similar levels) though as their other work more than makes up for it (eg., Vince/Jones/Tyson) on the day and some others are no doubt coach's favs so wouldn't matter how badly they went ie., they've locked away enough brownie points from previous efforts/or they are playing a role (not a chico!) better than others apparently, which some would say is fair enough. Some are also just more involved in general play through the mid (like Harmes) and on such an ugly day are likely to turn it over a fair bit.

Edited June 5, 20169 yr by Rusty Nails

17 minutes ago, Demi Dee said:

have you ever had a Buck's Fizz? 

A tasty little champagne cocktail  and no I wasn't referring to the 81 Eurovision contestants  

 

You mean this one Demi

 

Hard to get an exact definition but it seems clangers include frees against so they're more of a catch all negative stat than a reliable measure of effectiveness.

There's a big difference between a high tackle or in the back and kicking to an opposition, out on the full or conceding 50 meters. All of those = 1 clanger though.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clanger_(Australian_rules_football)

8 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Difference there though, is that Vince, Tyson and Jones had a lot of it, even Omac had it 22 times, and Frost 18. 

Harmes' 4 clangers came from only 10 possessions.

Also partly in response to the "Rioli had 4 clangers".

More relevant stat would be clangers as a percentage of possessions. All players are going to have dud disposals. Also, it's worth considering the position they play in. For Jones and co. playing in the guts and under the hammer the whole day, clangers come with the job.

Not sure on Harmes. Was great a few weeks ago, but since, the wheels seem to have come off. Due for a rest?

2 hours ago, Gorgoroth said:

Nah, Garlett is more likely to bounce back with a good game, Harmes has been average for a while, other than the three goals in the last vs Suns I think it was.

4 against the Lions a few weeks ago Gorg. Garlett hasn't bounced back since his last decent game against the Suns 5 rounds back. Def our best small forward when he's on but his form has dropped away since that match. Can't see him being dropped.

Edited June 5, 20169 yr by Rusty Nails

8 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

You mean this one Demi

 

Unfortunately. Good spot. 

Hey. Speaking of cocktails. Don't think I didn't notice your pseudonym. 

37 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

Garlett was also atrocious against Port. Too big a gap between best and worst 

I was at the game yesterday and yes Garlett had a shocker but I don't remember him getting a run in the centre ball ups. Am I wrong? My thoughts are he adds value with cameos in the centre clearances, he has great reflexes and provides another midfield variation and it is good for him as he gets some contested game time , rather than sitting in starvation corner hoping for a ball to come his way. 

20 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Also partly in response to the "Rioli had 4 clangers".

More relevant stat would be clangers as a percentage of possessions. All players are going to have dud disposals. Also, it's worth considering the position they play in. For Jones and co. playing in the guts and under the hammer the whole day, clangers come with the job.

Not sure on Harmes. Was great a few weeks ago, but since, the wheels seem to have come off. Due for a rest?

Yes i said that also Bing. In total agreement.

Had a shocker yesterday but others do that also and get follow up games. Like Kent in Round 2 against the Bombers. Horror match but came out the next week against Norf and probably was in our best 10 players that day. Up and down since then.

Frost a shocker in the game against Norf. Came out against the Pies and played ok the week after. Another below par game against the Toiges and a shocker against the Saints. Then dropped (maybe for match up reasons though , who knows).

Going to happen with the young blokes. Takes seasons as you know to come up to speed and find any consistency. In the case of Jacky boy it took 7. Not sure if lessor lights (ie., not No.1 picks) will get that much leeway to come good though.

Based on y'days performance Harmes probably out for Newton. But on his previous 3 to 4 weeks, especially the Lions in Rnd 9, i would say no. Wasn't the worst last week (but still ordinary) where i would have placed him on a par (roughly) performance wise in that match (ONLY) with say Tyson/Wagner. Just part of what comes with playing young blokes. Thereabouts one week, cloke of invisibility the next (or the one after lol).

 

Edited June 5, 20169 yr by Rusty Nails

12 minutes ago, Demi Dee said:

Unfortunately. Good spot. 

Hey. Speaking of cocktails. Don't think I didn't notice your pseudonym. 

Touche'! May have thrown down a few many decades ago Demi. Not so much these days

26 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

I was at the game yesterday and yes Garlett had a shocker but I don't remember him getting a run in the centre ball ups. Am I wrong? My thoughts are he adds value with cameos in the centre clearances, he has great reflexes and provides another midfield variation and it is good for him as he gets some contested game time , rather than sitting in starvation corner hoping for a ball to come his way. 

He needs to get into the game and the midfield sounds right. I'm not suggesting he be dropped but something needs to change after 2 shockers.

30 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

I was at the game yesterday and yes Garlett had a shocker but I don't remember him getting a run in the centre ball ups. Am I wrong? My thoughts are he adds value with cameos in the centre clearances, he has great reflexes and provides another midfield variation and it is good for him as he gets some contested game time , rather than sitting in starvation corner hoping for a ball to come his way. 

We had 50 inside 50's and it's not like Dawes was marking any of them, there was plenty of chances to crumb. I don't mind him in the centre square but he's very risky in there, pretty much runs forward and hopes he gets it. 

I'd rather use the tactic Adelaide did with Charlie Cameron sprinting from half back at a centre stoppage.