FAREWELL JACK GRIMES

[Demonsterative 3,020]

I'd like to know how kicking efficiency is calculated. Too many times Grimes played it safe and kicked down the line to a contest when he options to short pass and change the play. 

[Dante 2,739]

1 hour ago, Demonsterative said:

I'd like to know how kicking efficiency is calculated. Too many times Grimes played it safe and kicked down the line to a contest when he options to short pass and change the play. 

Choosing the right option will come with more game time, I'm sure he did't want to make any mistakes last night but confidence will come. He got better as the game went on and I'm sure he'll be better for the run.

I think he'll be back to Casey before the year's end and then probably back in the seniors after that, same as Trenners,

[Demonsterative 3,020]

2 hours ago, Dante said:

Choosing the right option will come with more game time, I'm sure he did't want to make any mistakes last night but confidence will come. He got better as the game went on and I'm sure he'll be better for the run.

I think he'll be back to Casey before the year's end and then probably back in the seniors after that, same as Trenners,

I agree he got better as the game went on. But that doesn't explain his career. Grimes has never been a good decision maker on field. As sad as that is, as I think he is a top person and clubman, he is 20th to 22nd player picked in a finals time at best. As a club we have plenty of those who are better than Grimes. 

[At Least I Saw a Flag 5,274]

I agree with the comments about disposal efficiency. Little chip kicks sideways are given a tick, even though a longer kick downfield was available. As far as I know, even a handball to a teammate under pressure is considered OK. (I stand to be corrected.)

M. Jones (i think it was) passed to a teammate. It was an up and under kick which, fortunately his teammate marked. It should have been a much lower kick, so that his teammate had an uncontested mark. For all its failings, the stat would have been given a "tick".

On a similar theme, I'm not sure what constitutes a tackle for stats purposes. Does anyone know if broken/ineffectual tackles count, or do they have to stick? 

Is anyone still reading this?

[jayceebee31 761]

Worthy effort after recall- deserved but will not be there next year, in my option.

Edited July 10, 2016 by jayceebee31
Spelling mistake

[bandicoot 1,395]

6 hours ago, Demonsterative said:

I'd like to know how kicking efficiency is calculated. Too many times Grimes played it safe and kicked down the line to a contest when he options to short pass and change the play. 

Agree... Good sides will make you pay if you kick to a contest. He has to become better at kicking to a spare man or playing on

[DeeSpencer 26,083]

7 hours ago, Demonsterative said:

I'd like to know how kicking efficiency is calculated. Too many times Grimes played it safe and kicked down the line to a contest when he options to short pass and change the play. 

Any kick that goes 40m to a 50/50 or better is called efficient. 

The 90% efficiency is a positive because it means he didn't turn it over frequently, but I still didn't see any line breaking run, creative kicking or handballing or speed that looked like an AFL player.

[poita 3,902]

Aside from his possessions, Jack was basically the only player still running in the fourth quarter when the rest of the team had fallen in a heap. He made a bad error early in the game, but picked himself up and was very solid thereafter. I'm not sure what more he could do in one game, but some people have it in their mind that he is no good, and nothing will ever change that. He deserves a solid run of games without feeling that he is one error away from being dropped, as clearly was the case last year. Congratulations on your 100th this week Jack, and hopefully there are many more to come.

Edited July 11, 2016 by poita

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

27 minutes ago, poita said:

Aside from his possessions, Jack was basically the only player still running in the fourth quarter when the rest of the team had fallen in a heap. He made a bad error early in the game, but picked himself up and was very solid thereafter. I'm not sure what more he could do in one game, but some people have it in their mind that he is no good, and nothing will ever change that. He deserves a solid run of games without feeling that he is one error away from being dropped, as clearly was the case last year. Congratulations on your 100th this week Jack, and hopefully there are many more to come.

Well said.  Looking forward to your 100th Jack.  I think Roos and Goodwin have "released" him from playing in a backline which used to leak like a sieve.  He still has plenty to offer.

 

 

Edited July 11, 2016 by iv'a worn smith

[Forest Demon 4,681]

Geez, hard to please bunch in here. It was an excellent return and gets a well deserved 100th next week.

He has the chance to cement a spot in the side for the rest of the year, and that would likely lead to a contract extension. I, for one, will be in his corner hoping he can get it done.

[binman 43,817]

9 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

The 90% efficiency is a positive because it means he didn't turn it over frequently, but I still didn't see any line breaking run, creative kicking or handballing or speed that looked like an AFL player.

Yet his coach did. An excerpt from this artilce:  http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-07-09/grimes-florishes-in-comeback-match

The former co-captain played on the wing and gathered 32 disposals, nine marks and had five inside 50s to be one of the Demons' best across the contest.

Coach Paul Roos said the 27-year-old's form in the VFL for the Casey Scorpions had seen him earn selection for his 99th career game at the club, and that it continued to show the Demons' growing depth.

"It was good to see him getting a bit of the ball and he took a crucial mark late in the game as well when we were under siege a bit," Roos said after the win.

"It's encouraging as a footy club that when our 'seconds' are playing really well you can see that when they come into the seniors they are really well prepared.

"It's good for Jack to get a game, we were confident he'd play well and he did."

 

[nutbean 8,838]

10 hours ago, bandicoot said:

Agree... Good sides will make you pay if you kick to a contest. He has to become better at kicking to a spare man or playing on

No they won't.

Teams are drilled to kick to a  loose man, run and carry from behind or if neither option is available, dump it down the line to a contest, hopefully getting the ball OOB and resetting.

You may want to criticise Grimes for not finding a loose man but saying that good sides make you pay when you kick to a contest is just not correct.

[demonchris 162]

Reading some of these comments, it seems individual bias has taken away from what was a pretty good game from Grimes. To come in for your first game of the season (pretty late in the season too) and be the second leading disposal getter for your side is rather impressive. 

Its easy to say he won't be on the list etc. In reality, if Jack is doing what needs to be done, improving in areas coaches have asked him, then theres every chance he stays on the list. Look at how Neville Jetta took his chance. In no way am I saying he will do the exact same as Jetta. But it shows what good coaching and a chance to players who deserve it can really do.

As a Melbourne fan, I'm ecstatic at how Grimes has responded. From his attitude to playing VFL all year, to finally getting his chance. He never once threw it in. Grimes worked tirelessly all season and as a former captain of the club, Id imagine it would be hard to be told that if he's to play in this new era side, his game needs to change. Previous regimes wouldn't have taken that on board and got up and left (Ie Moloney etc). Which is the easy way out.

With this attitude, it wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest that as he wants to put in the work, he very may end up a best 22 player. Again, I use the Jetta example. Grimes became captain of this club (Peer voted) for a reason. Its safe to believe those reasons are his (Positive) attitude and leadership. 

Grimes has a long way to go, but if were judging on his output and where that puts his career trajectory, I think its breaking even and soon turning on the ascent. 

Edited July 11, 2016 by demonchris
Typo.

[old55 23,705]

On 7/9/2016 at 11:06 PM, DeeSpencer said:

Whenever he had any pressure on he didn't look like it winning the footy and he didn't do anything with the ball.

Made a terrible error by not manning the mark that led to a Pavlich goal in the 3rd quarter when the Dockers were coming. Baffling from a senior player.

The only positive compared to Bugg is that he has an opposite foot, but it's shaky. 

I'm almost certain he won't play well against the Saints and therefore I wouldn't pick him. A 100th and farewell game against Carlton or Gold Coast would be fine by me. 

I'm sorry if this upsets people or they find it cruel and out of spirit from this thread but too bad.

No, I don't really believe you are sorry.

Mean-spirited post of the year, congratulations!  (I don't really mean congratulations)

[spirit of norm smith 16,589]

Look through this thread and many many many posters had Grimes delisted and moved on (with no future AFL opportunity).

Jack is a very talented footballer and has worked to improve his playing style. His tackling and marking are of a very high standard. His character is unquestionable. His skills have improved and are better than many others in the team.  I think there is a spot in our best 22 for Jack Grimes for this year and beyond.

[Adam The God 30,421]

2 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Look through this thread and many many many posters had Grimes delisted and moved on (with no future AFL opportunity).

Jack is a very talented footballer and has worked to improve his playing style. His tackling and marking are of a very high standard. His character is unquestionable. His skills have improved and are better than many others in the team.  I think there is a spot in our best 22 for Jack Grimes for this year and beyond.

Jack is a hard worker and by all reports a terrific clubman, but his limitations as a decision maker and disposer as a footballer will see him at another club next year.

Jack will play his 100th game this year, he may even play more. But after Round 23, we'll thank him for his services and when Round 1 2017 rolls around he'll be playing in opposition colours.

[Demonsterative 3,020]

Some very sensitive ppl on both sides of the pendulum here. Say Jack is a bad, or not a good decision maker and your anti Grimes. Say Jack got 31 possessions at 90% efficiency your a supporter. 

I see Jack as good footballer with limitations. He has an up side, but he has limitations. Mick Malthouse has said on SEN, play someone in the VFL and they become a good VFL player. Jack has had 99 games at AFLl level and has fallen victim of bad coaching and development of the past. 

The club has done a 180 and is on the right track. Jack has not been a part of the journey. He is in my opinion and in between player. Better than VFL and below AFL level. 

Congrats Jack on getting to 100 games, you deserve extra games. But the MFC has bigger plans on the quality the clubs thinks it needs get to a premiership. 100 games is to be celebrated, and I hope you have many boys who will be better than you and become premiership players in 20 years

 

 

 

 

[spirit of norm smith 16,589]

Plenty of piranhas on this thread. Grimes was clearly in our best and stood up when the flow was going Freo's way. He is definitely an asset and his maturity, leadership, tackling and composure will be needed against top teams.

 

Edited July 12, 2016 by spirit of norm smith
k

[Dante 2,739]

12 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Plenty of piranhas on this thread. Grimes was clearly in our best and stood up when the flow was going Freo's way. He is definitely an asset and his maturity, leadership, tackling and composure will be needed against top teams.

 

The current list of players, bar a few, didn't go through the years that Jack did and have been trained from the word go that they are good enough to win any game they play in, Jack, I would imagine, is still burdened by the years where we were tanking, list managing, changing the coach every couple of years and generally burdened by a loser mentality.

My opinion is that he has the talent but needs to adopt the "we can win any game we play in" mentality and to do that he needs to be in the side for a while, surrounded by positivity and perhaps then he will return to the player he should have been all the time.

The two Jacks can be really good players for the MFC, they just need to get the confidence that is needed to do so.

 

 

[The Chazz 4,077]

30 minutes ago, Dante said:

The current list of players, bar a few, didn't go through the years that Jack did and have been trained from the word go that they are good enough to win any game they play in, Jack, I would imagine, is still burdened by the years where we were tanking, list managing, changing the coach every couple of years and generally burdened by a loser mentality.

My opinion is that he has the talent but needs to adopt the "we can win any game we play in" mentality and to do that he needs to be in the side for a while, surrounded by positivity and perhaps then he will return to the player he should have been all the time.

The two Jacks can be really good players for the MFC, they just need to get the confidence that is needed to do so.

 

 

The same regime that Nathan Jones, and to some degree Jack Watts, have been through?

Which is the same regime that Garland and Dunn have been through?

All players (that are left on our list) that went through that dark time have had the opportunity over the past 3 years to consolidate a spot in our best 22.  Some have taken it, some haven't.

[Dante 2,739]

3 minutes ago, billy2803 said:

The same regime that Nathan Jones, and to some degree Jack Watts, have been through?

Which is the same regime that Garland and Dunn have been through?

All players (that are left on our list) that went through that dark time have had the opportunity over the past 3 years to consolidate a spot in our best 22.  Some have taken it, some haven't.

So are you saying that Watts and Garland and Dunn haven't been affected? Jones has come through apparently unscathed, fortunately. The two Jacks were made  to bear the responsibility of captaining the club when it was a shambles. Jack Watts is only now coming good after years in the wilderness and has never had to be the Leader/face of a club that was falling apart.

I'd say that Grimes and Trenners are probably closer to getting a game than either Garland or Dunn.

[The Chazz 4,077]

2 minutes ago, Dante said:

So are you saying that Watts and Garland and Dunn haven't been affected? Jones has come through apparently unscathed, fortunately. The two Jacks were made  to bear the responsibility of captaining the club when it was a shambles. Jack Watts is only now coming good after years in the wilderness and has never had to be the Leader/face of a club that was falling apart.

I'd say that Grimes and Trenners are probably closer to getting a game than either Garland or Dunn.

It could be argued that Watts has had to deal with more crap than what Grimes has had to deal with.

I would also argue that an uninjured Trengove would've flourished under the Roos program.  Admittedly, this is a hypothetical situation.

You can't compare Grimes/JT with Garland/Dunn in terms of being closer to getting a game, simply because they play different positions.  If Tom Mc and O Mc both went down, Garland and/or Dunn would be called up straight away.

The thing in Grimes and JTs favour at the moment is that the kids that were keeping them out of the team in the first half of the year are starting to run our of gas.  Add to that the fact that Newton and Michie haven't been able to get consistency in the VFL, they are in a great position to get a few games in the back half of the year.

[Dante 2,739]

9 minutes ago, billy2803 said:

It could be argued that Watts has had to deal with more crap than what Grimes has had to deal with.     it could be, or not.

I would also argue that an uninjured Trengove would've flourished under the Roos program.  Admittedly, this is a hypothetical situation.    it is.

You can't compare Grimes/JT with Garland/Dunn in terms of being closer to getting a game, simply because they play different positions.  If Tom Mc and O Mc both went down, Garland and/or Dunn would be called up straight away.     You brought them in to it.

The thing in Grimes and JTs favour at the moment is that the kids that were keeping them out of the team in the first half of the year are starting to run our of gas.  Add to that the fact that Newton and Michie haven't been able to get consistency in the VFL, they are in a great position to get a few games in the back half of the year.      What was keeping them out go the team is/was, Trenners being injured for several years and Grimes being shellshocked and unable to adapt to the new game plan. Trenners is no longer injured and now needs to gain fitness, Grimes has to show he can adapt to the new game plan, they both do. If they do and gain confidence as the rest of the team has you will see two very good contributors to the team. I think Grimes showed he knows how to get his hands on the ball, all he has to do now is show he knows how to play to the game plan.

 

[Sir Why You Little 37,143]

Please stop making excuses for what happened 3-4 years ago

Ample time to erase and shred up all that rubbish. Any player who doesn't fit in or still cannot cope cannot be anywhere near a senior game. 

Excuses for lack of skill are a thing of the past

[The Chazz 4,077]

1 hour ago, Dante said:

It could be argued that Watts has had to deal with more crap than what Grimes has had to deal with.     it could be, or not.

I would also argue that an uninjured Trengove would've flourished under the Roos program.  Admittedly, this is a hypothetical situation.    it is.

You can't compare Grimes/JT with Garland/Dunn in terms of being closer to getting a game, simply because they play different positions.  If Tom Mc and O Mc both went down, Garland and/or Dunn would be called up straight away.     You brought them in to it.

The thing in Grimes and JTs favour at the moment is that the kids that were keeping them out of the team in the first half of the year are starting to run our of gas.  Add to that the fact that Newton and Michie haven't been able to get consistency in the VFL, they are in a great position to get a few games in the back half of the year.      What was keeping them out go the team is/was, Trenners being injured for several years and Grimes being shellshocked and unable to adapt to the new game plan. Trenners is no longer injured and now needs to gain fitness, Grimes has to show he can adapt to the new game plan, they both do. If they do and gain confidence as the rest of the team has you will see two very good contributors to the team. I think Grimes showed he knows how to get his hands on the ball, all he has to do now is show he knows how to play to the game plan.

I'm not even going to address your first three replies - they are a waste of effort, and in particular point 3 (the comparison of those players), you've clearly missed the point.

With regards to your last point, saying that the reason Grimes wasn't playing in the past 18 months because he was "shellshocked" is one of the most mind-boggling things I have read on here.

Grimes needs to do more than get his hands on it.  His first game he had 32 possessions, which was the 3rd most for the game.  He got last best on the AFL website, didn't make the best in the Herald Sun, and didn't received 1 vote from either coach.  Says a lot about the quality of his disposal (don't give me the 90% efficiency stat - I watched his game and that stat is far from reality), and also says a lot about the impact he had on the game.

Knowing the game plan isn't his issue, it's being able to perform his role within it, and being able to improve his skills, which has ALWAYS been his problem, and will ultimately cost him his place on the list at the end of the year.