I'm going to need to go to weight watchers if Melksham can keep this up . I am scoffing humble pie right now.

Melksham- Becoming very valuable

Good on him!

Hibberd - In AA form. 

Hunt - still suffering concussion 

OMac - need Jake Lever

13 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

Hunt - still suffering concussion 

OMac - need Jake Lever

What did OMac do wrong this week? Only watched it on my phone, but i thought he did ok. Definitely attacking the ball better than he has in the past.

2 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

 

 

 

 

Tyson was literally useless until the tide turned.

And the turning of the tide came from Nathan Jones, our skipper. 

Tyson got involved once the ball got rolling and as others have stated, he is a front runner. Watch how hard he runs forward compared to when he needs to chase.

And as for turnovers. ^ I guess some supporters will see only what they want to see. He is floating at the moment and is lucky to be in the side.

Agree. Joeboy called him a front runner and thats the perfect description of his game.

Sums up his year to date as well.

1 hour ago, rjay said:

Yep, and whilst I enjoy the insights both you and 'joeboy' post, when it comes to Tyson I take the views with a grain of salt...

 

Doesnt worry me in the slightest. 

OMac - eleven one percenters 

Tteam - next best six

2 hours ago, martin said:

Watts 'laconic'? Was he not speaking much on the ground?

Ok, he's laid back, relaxed, composed, cool, he's a casual dude

21 minutes ago, binman said:

OMac - eleven one percenters 

Tteam - next best six

Jones, Garlett, Melksham, Hannan and Oliver had 0 one percenters. Another meaningless stat.

1 minute ago, mo64 said:

Jones, Garlett, Melksham, Hannan and Oliver had 0 one percenters. Another meaningless stat.

Exactly.  He was dropped after round 3 when he was top 10 in the entire competition for 1%s.

Just now, ProDee said:

Exactly.  He was dropped after round 3 when he was top 10 in the entire competition for 1%s.

Could be number 1 and it wouldn't matter, he's been beaten comfortably by virtually every decent forward he's played on and offered very little in an attacking sense. 

You don't select a guy based on one percenters.

59 minutes ago, Abe said:

Could be number 1 and it wouldn't matter, he's been beaten comfortably by virtually every decent forward he's played on and offered very little in an attacking sense. 

You don't select a guy based on one percenters.

No, your'e right. I didn't say he did. I just put the stat up. 

But they keep picking him. So it is safe to assume the coaches - and Goody in particular - pick him because they think he earns selection. And please lets forget the asinine 'because there is no one else line'.  Just as you don't select a guy based on one percenters, you don't pick a guy who is not up to the job 'because there is no one else"

So why do you think he keeps getting selected?

7 hours ago, davo said:

Watts is always laconic, it's his personality, people think he doesn't try but he does, played welll today after couple quiet weeks

This is not what laconic means. Ita a reference to Spartans (lacedaemonians) being of few words, not lethargic.

Edit: saw I wasn't the first onto this. Excuse my pedantry

Edited May 27, 20178 yr by AmDamDemon

12 hours ago, danielE288 said:

Dommy T gave us some run and didnt turn it over at all really. Good game

The AFL website has him at 9 turnovers for the game. The most of any player on the ground.

Spoils count as 1%ers, that's why KPDs always feature highly in it. It's something worth counting (so I disagree that it is useless), but you definitely can't use it to compare players in different positions and  you can't benchmark it in isolation. It could be used as an input to other metrics though.

Shepherds, knock ons and smothers also count.

11 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

 

 

 

 

Tyson was literally useless until the tide turned.

Absolute rubbish. He was one of few who were solid from the start. 

Actually I reckon we're being a bit unfair to Joeboy and his use of 'laconic'. Sure, it literally means concise, succinct with words, etc.. But I reckon you could argue for a more metaphorical interpretation of the word, in the same way that an art critic might describe a painting as 'understated' - think Jeffrey Smart, say, as opposed to somebody more flamboyant, like Brett Whitely.  One could mount a pretty good case for describing Jack's style of play as 'laconic' - i.e. he doesn't go in for the dramatic flourishes, the dramatic bursts of aggression. He's no Dusty or Dangerfield. But like one of your laconic Aussie battlers - think somebody from Lawson - the drovers wife? - he gets the job done, and overall, it's a pretty good job.

 

Plus - I really enjoy Joeboy's little summaries - more power to his arm.    

9 hours ago, binman said:

No, your'e right. I didn't say he did. I just put the stat up. 

But they keep picking him. So it is safe to assume the coaches - and Goody in particular - pick him because they think he earns selection. And please lets forget the asinine 'because there is no one else line'.  Just as you don't select a guy based on one percenters, you don't pick a guy who is not up to the job 'because there is no one else"

So why do you think he keeps getting selected?

Honestly I think it's a combination of thinking of what he may become and not having any great opposition for the position he plays. I suspect if garland were fit he may be feeling more heat 

9 hours ago, binman said:

No, your'e right. I didn't say he did. I just put the stat up. 

But they keep picking him. So it is safe to assume the coaches - and Goody in particular - pick him because they think he earns selection. And please lets forget the asinine 'because there is no one else line'.  Just as you don't select a guy based on one percenters, you don't pick a guy who is not up to the job 'because there is no one else"

So why do you think he keeps getting selected?

Garland isn't available and we're improvising in the ruck, so Oscar gets to hold down a key post.

it's pretty obvious he's getting games due to attrition.

17 minutes ago, Jara said:

Actually I reckon we're being a bit unfair to Joeboy and his use of 'laconic'. Sure, it literally means concise, succinct with words, etc.. But I reckon you could argue for a more metaphorical interpretation of the word, in the same way that an art critic might describe a painting as 'understated' - think Jeffrey Smart, say, as opposed to somebody more flamboyant, like Brett Whitely.  One could mount a pretty good case for describing Jack's style of play as 'laconic' - i.e. he doesn't go in for the dramatic flourishes, the dramatic bursts of aggression. He's no Dusty or Dangerfield. But like one of your laconic Aussie battlers - think somebody from Lawson - the drovers wife? - he gets the job done, and overall, it's a pretty good job.

 

Plus - I really enjoy Joeboy's little summaries - more power to his arm.    

A lot of people use the word laconic when they actually mean lackadaisical.

It's a s simple as that.  There's no more to it.

The irony is that Joeboy's three-word analysis is the ultimate in "laconic".

9 minutes ago, Abe said:

Honestly I think it's a combination of thinking of what he may become and not having any great opposition for the position he plays. I suspect if garland were fit he may be feeling more heat 

Agree that garland would put him under pressure if fit but garland really struggles to play on talls. 

I see his flaws but get really frustrated at those who bag him whilst ignoring the fact that he gets selected. If he wasnt up to it is is ridiculous to suggest they would pick him just as a future prospect. And again the argument there is no one else does not hold water. A team pushing for finals does not carry a player who the coaching staff do not believe is up to it. If as bad as some say they would reorganise things just as they did when thwy dropped him. I would mention the option of bringing in keilty but some would argue he is not up to it yet. Which might be right. Bur tbat proves my point. They dont select players they dont think are up to it.

I also get frustrated when his mistakes get used to confirm bias and good play gets ignored.

Some got into him for brown and other key forward kicked bags. Yet those same posters give him zero credit for keeping the crows and gold coast twrrific power forwards in check. Cant have it both ways. He is a kid playing on monsters.

Also no side has smashed us as reflected by our percentage. Surely the back six, including omac can take some credit for that

And skuit i didagree about his spoling and ability to read the ball im flght. Last night on a couple occasions his spoling was excellent, particularly one running back with the flight that saved a vertaim mark and easy shot on goal.

11 hours ago, leehow said:

What did OMac do wrong this week? Only watched it on my phone, but i thought he did ok. Definitely attacking the ball better than he has in the past.

SOOOOO SLLLLLLOOOW TO REACT not up to it and never will be!

I agree with Chook get Lever!

Edited May 28, 20178 yr by picket fence

12 hours ago, leehow said:

What did OMac do wrong this week? Only watched it on my phone, but i thought he did ok. Definitely attacking the ball better than he has in the past.

Hid did kick awfully on several occasions. Defended well but we were better when he didn't have the ball!

11 hours ago, Abe said:

Could be number 1 and it wouldn't matter, he's been beaten comfortably by virtually every decent forward he's played on and offered very little in an attacking sense. 

You don't select a guy based on one percenters.

That is just BS! He wasn't beaten yesterday , he wasn't beaten v Adelaide. Last week Frost was on Brown much of the time, anyway, the way Brown was given the ball it was easy for him

i reckon he's one of the most promising players in the team. Will be an absolute star.