11 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

I double checked it, yep.

Not only did he kick a goal in every game from round 12 on, but he kicked 2 goals or 3 goals three times each!

21 goals in 12 games is a pretty handy contribution!

 

10 hours ago, Demonland said:

The stat is correct but it is for Current Players not All Time.

Consecutive Games Kicking A Goal
Games	Player	Teams	Period	Games	Current Player	Teams	Period
121	Peter McKenna	CW,CA	1968-1974	42	Josh Kennedy	CA,WC	2016-2017
114	Tony Lockett	SK,SY	1993-2002	38	Joe Daniher	ES	2016-2017
98	Gordon Coventry	CW	1932-1937	29	Jack Riewoldt	RI	2016-2017
97	Dick Lee	CW	1910-1918	25	Taylor Walker	AD	2016-2017
90	Doug Wade	GE,NM	1971-1975	14	Peter Wright	GC	2017-
80	Bill Mohr	SK	1933-1938	12	Charlie Dixon	GC,PA	2017-
79	Mark Jackson	ME,SK,GE	1981-1985	12	Jake Melksham	ES,ME	2017-
78	Jack Moriarty	ES,FI	1924-1929	11	Charlie Curnow	CA	2017-
78	Kelvin Templeton	FO,ME	1976-1981	10	Levi Casboult	CA	2017-
77	Sel Murray	NM,RI	1940-1948	10	Cale Hooker	ES	2017-
75	Simon Beasley	FO	1985-1989	10	Jesse White	SY,CW	2016-2017
72	Jason Dunstall	HW	1987-1990	9	Tim Membrey	SY,SK	2017-
71	Lance Franklin	HW,SY	2006-2009	8	Dayne Zorko	BL	2017-
70	Matthew Lloyd	ES	1999-2002	7	Jarrad Waite	CA,NM	2017-

Cheers intrepid researchers. It was sensibly iffy. There's a massive difference between the all-time121 consecutive goal-kicking games of Peter McKenna compared to the current playing group efforts of Jake Melksham at 12 games. Well, not just massive, but easily quantifiable at one tenth - the same as say comparing Billy Stretch to a 300-game player.

But, on a separate note, and now that the dust has settled somewhat - I've been meaning to respond to the Jack Watts Once Kicked the Glorious Winning Goal Against Collingwood on Queens Birthday and So Therefore and So Forth peoples (although I agree that it was winning and that it was glorious) . . .

. . . from my very rough estimate (i.e my terribly poor memory), Jake Melksham kicked the 'sealer' in at least four games in the back half of the season. At least two of those were genuine bona fide sealers (e.g had some element of clutch and broke the last resolve of the opposition).

I've already openly eaten humble pie as to the man - but the Milkshake contribution of 2017 is still lacking in acknowledgement and respect.

20 hours ago, ProDee said:

I've been reliably told that they're planning their preseason around Weideman in the 22.

Obviously things can change and it will be dependent on form, JLT, etc., but the plan is for Weideman to be in the team.

And so they should.

Tom has protected Oscar early in his career as the more experienced and stronger defender.

Now he’ll do the same at the other end of the ground. Weed and Tommy Mac deep forward with Tom to take the better defender and the pressure will be off him.

Hogan a roaming Riewoldt-like CHF using his brilliant field kicking will cause headaches too.

To date, Weideman has only ever played either as a first or second key forward target. (Watts is not a key forward).  But next year, he’ll be the third key forward behind Tommy and Hoges and will get the third best defender. He’ll also be in his third season and all of this will allow for him to make a genuine impact. 

Carn.

 

Edited November 23, 20177 yr by stevethemanjordan

5 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

And so they should.

Tom has protected Oscar early in his career as the more experienced and stronger defender.

Now he’ll do the same at the other end of the ground. Weed and Tommy Mac deep forward with Tom to take the better defender and the pressure will be off him.

Hogan a roaming Riewoldt-like CHF using his brilliant field kicking will cause headaches too.

To date, Weideman has only ever played either as a first or second key forward target. (Watts is not a key forward).  But next year, he’ll be the third key forward behind Tommy and Hoges and will get the third best defender. He’ll also be in his third season and all of this will allow for him to make a genuine impact. 

Carn.

 

I like the idea of playing two talls forward with Hogan playing the connecting hybrid role, as well as pushing forward himself.  I think Hogan would be terrific in this role.

I'm not convinced Weideman is good enough, but he's got ability, so let's hope so.

5 hours ago, ProDee said:

I like the idea of playing two talls forward with Hogan playing the connecting hybrid role, as well as pushing forward himself.  I think Hogan would be terrific in this role.

I'm not convinced Weideman is good enough, but he's got ability, so let's hope so.

didn't work for GWS or Adelaide and they are way better sides overall and have way better talls.

Will be interesting to see what game plan Crows and Giants adopt in 2018

8 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

didn't work for GWS or Adelaide and they are way better sides overall and have way better talls.

Will be interesting to see what game plan Crows and Giants adopt in 2018

Firstly, I prefer a 2 tall and 4 small/medium forward-line, but am open-minded re Hogan in a hybrid role.  So I'm not advocating a 3 tall forward-line, but more a 2.5, i.e. drift forward or make decisions based on matchups, etc.

Secondly, you're suggesting it didn't work for Adelaide ?  On what planet didn't their forward-line work ?  They finished the H&A season having scored more than 250 points more than the next best scoring side, which was Port Adelaide.  That's dominance.

Do you mean it didn't work because they lost a grand final ?  They didn't lose the grand final because of their forward set up.  They lost in the midfield and didn't stand up to the pressure across the field.  You don't judge a setup or game-plan entirely on one game, even if it is the biggest of the year.  Big Game Tex Walker didn't stand up on the day, but it wasn't a structure issue.

Cameron needs to play better, but I'm not sure the forward-line was GWS' biggest issue.  

All this is moot anyway, because right now none of us know what the structure will be.

 

48 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

didn't work for GWS or Adelaide and they are way better sides overall and have way better talls.

Will be interesting to see what game plan Crows and Giants adopt in 2018

Go back through history, DJ.  It is very rare for a team to win a Grand Final with less than 2 x talls, 1 x relief ruck.

And please don't stop looking at Richmond 2017.  Go back further and further, and further again.  What you saw in 2017 is an exception to a rule that is hardly broken.

Edited November 24, 20177 yr by The Chazz

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

didn't work for GWS or Adelaide and they are way better sides overall and have way better talls.

Will be interesting to see what game plan Crows and Giants adopt in 2018

well it did work for them.....most of the time.....that's why you can say they have way better talls