Leave Steele alone. That's what we do, put too much pressure on one guy. Let him play his gig as a member of the team.

2 hours ago, 3KZ is Football said:

Not disagreeing with you, but i don’t think the Media were expecting 2 BOG performances from both players in Round 1 either.

Oliver wasn't BOG.

Good game, not taking that away from him, but nothing all that dissimilar to what we were seeing last year.

Petracca on the other hand ...

I wouldn’t say this game was all that much more than what he produced for us last year outside kicking a nice goal, his issues were never around getting the ball it’s what he did without the ball, he gets exposed for pace without the ball leaving you a man down once the ball gets out, his below average kicking limits his hurt factor and his inability to play any other position means you can’t spread the load which is needed to play high tempo football.

The key these days is everyone needs to be multi positional so you can have a constant rotation of fresh players into the middle and you just run the other team off the park, you also need to be a good user of the ball and you need to be at least average pace. Oliver does not tick any of those boxes. He is a player built for a different style of football which has fallen out of favour.

9 hours ago, Pennant St Dee said:

I disagree Daz, I reckon he was very important inside and unlike us of the last few years the Giants have plenty of outside power runners who fed off him.

Just MO

I saw it completely the opposite.

He's getting positive reviews because the media want a feel good story out of him on top of the Petracca performance.

It was all the Fox commentators were talking about and hoping for on the pre game telecast.

It was stock standard Oliver game in terms of racking up a heap of handballs in close and leave it to the rest. Other then that I saw nothing to suggest that his performance any different to what he dished up last year.

Metres gain is a stat that coaches froth over in today's game in terms of ability to win the footy and then driving your legs to carry the footy as well or gain territory. Oliver's was low and it was noticeable. His performance was very Tom Mitchell like in that regardless, he is will always rack up 25 each game but have no hurt factor. I never once saw the Oliver of old in terms of bursting out of stoppages or driving his legs around stoppages.

Footy is going to about transitioning and gaining as much territory as you can

I look at Jai Newcombe game yesterday and both he and Oliver are exactly the same players and yet had such a significant influence because he was trying to burst through and link up in transitioning snd territory. Newcombes 574 metres gain was certainly more noticeable just like it was for Petracca the other night.

For another comparison, Patrick Cripps was another who had low metres gain (186) because they're very in and under and struggle with transition.

To finish off, I thought Stringer, Callaghan, and Riccardi were far more influential then Oliver.

I thought it was one of Stringers best games in a long time as he rose to the occasion when they were challenged and to have 9 scoring shots in itself is pretty impressive. Kicking 5.4 is a great return for him. He looked fit and dynamic. Him and Hogan this year is going to be scary.

But of course the media would prefer the feel good story of Oliver's performance and them rating his 17 handball and 9 kicks performance as BOG ahead of Stringers proves exactly that point.

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I saw it completely the opposite.

He's getting positive reviews because the media want a feel good story out of him on top of the Petracca performance.

It was all the Fox commentators were talking about and hoping for on the pre game telecast.

It was stock standard Oliver game in terms of racking up a heap of handballs in close and leave it to the rest. Other then that I saw nothing to suggest that his performance any different to what he dished up last year.

Metres gain is a stat that coaches froth over in today's game in terms of ability to win the footy and then driving your legs to carry the footy as well or gain territory. Oliver's was low and it was noticeable. His performance was very Tom Mitchell like in that regardless, he is will always rack up 25 each game but have no hurt factor. I never once saw the Oliver of old in terms of bursting out of stoppages or driving his legs around stoppages.

Footy is going to about transitioning and gaining as much territory as you can

I look at Jai Newcombe game yesterday and both he and Oliver are exactly the same players and yet had such a significant influence because he was trying to burst through and link up in transitioning snd territory. Newcombes 574 metres gain was certainly more noticeable just like it was for Petracca the other night.

For another comparison, Patrick Cripps was another who had low metres gain (186) because they're very in and under and struggle with transition.

To finish off, I thought Stringer, Callaghan, and Riccardi were far more influential then Oliver.

I thought it was one of Stringers best games in a long time as he rose to the occasion when they were challenged and to have 9 scoring shots in itself is pretty impressive. Kicking 5.4 is a great return for him. He looked fit and dynamic. Him and Hogan this year is going to be scary.

But of course the media would prefer the feel good story of Oliver's performance and them rating his 17 handball and 9 kicks performance as BOG ahead of Stringers proves exactly that point.

Summed up beautifully. Lots over overreaction

In his post siren on ground interview Oliver admitted that he arrived at GWS fat. After all his tribulations these last few years he still turned up, in his own words, fat.

If you think anything would have been different in the same old environment he'd become accustomed to you belong on Demonland.

5 hours ago, Garbo said:

I wouldn’t say this game was all that much more than what he produced for us last year outside kicking a nice goal, his issues were never around getting the ball it’s what he did without the ball, he gets exposed for pace without the ball leaving you a man down once the ball gets out, his below average kicking limits his hurt factor and his inability to play any other position means you can’t spread the load which is needed to play high tempo football.

The key these days is everyone needs to be multi positional so you can have a constant rotation of fresh players into the middle and you just run the other team off the park, you also need to be a good user of the ball and you need to be at least average pace. Oliver does not tick any of those boxes. He is a player built for a different style of football which has fallen out of favour.

The ball is bounced and nothing happens...................... and still nothing happens....... the ball remains inert..... outside runners wait....... still nothing happens..... coz footy has evolved ..... the inside beast has gone the way of the dodo. PLAYERS LIKE CLAYTON are no more .....

This essentially is what you are saying!

WRONG!

Jesus. Are we still arguing the toss over these two. They both had really good games that they can be happy with yesterday. For various reasons however they both had to be punted from the MFC. They get to strut their stuff but off broadway. Out of sight out of mind.

Hollywood 7 rooms to rent till ur name goes up in lights, Hollywood 7 you can dream ur dream for 7 bucks a night!

13 hours ago, 3183 Dee said:

Except he didn’t know the words 🤣

It’s NOT a big, big sound 😂

At least he owns not knowing the words. Could’ve been worse, he could’ve pretended he was singing it.

14 hours ago, Chook said:

I’m telling you “nobody” (or rather, few people) are talking about that because they simply do not care what he thinks.

Show me your Roy Morgan results then we’ll talk 😉

11 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Well there is a 29 page 'Media Madness' Thread still floating around on here from last year..

So yes, I would suggest there are many folks on here who are still pretty sensitive to what gets said in the media going off that thread.

Who is the idi-t who started that thread?🤔

Edited 9 hours ago9 hr by Redleg

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I saw it completely the opposite.

He's getting positive reviews because the media want a feel good story out of him on top of the Petracca performance.

It was all the Fox commentators were talking about and hoping for on the pre game telecast.

It was stock standard Oliver game in terms of racking up a heap of handballs in close and leave it to the rest. Other then that I saw nothing to suggest that his performance any different to what he dished up last year.

Metres gain is a stat that coaches froth over in today's game in terms of ability to win the footy and then driving your legs to carry the footy as well or gain territory. Oliver's was low and it was noticeable. His performance was very Tom Mitchell like in that regardless, he is will always rack up 25 each game but have no hurt factor. I never once saw the Oliver of old in terms of bursting out of stoppages or driving his legs around stoppages.

Footy is going to about transitioning and gaining as much territory as you can

I look at Jai Newcombe game yesterday and both he and Oliver are exactly the same players and yet had such a significant influence because he was trying to burst through and link up in transitioning snd territory. Newcombes 574 metres gain was certainly more noticeable just like it was for Petracca the other night.

For another comparison, Patrick Cripps was another who had low metres gain (186) because they're very in and under and struggle with transition.

To finish off, I thought Stringer, Callaghan, and Riccardi were far more influential then Oliver.

I thought it was one of Stringers best games in a long time as he rose to the occasion when they were challenged and to have 9 scoring shots in itself is pretty impressive. Kicking 5.4 is a great return for him. He looked fit and dynamic. Him and Hogan this year is going to be scary.

But of course the media would prefer the feel good story of Oliver's performance and them rating his 17 handball and 9 kicks performance as BOG ahead of Stringers proves exactly that point.

I understand all the stuff regarding leg drive from stoppages and how the game has gone to more of a transition game, but do not consider Oliver’s game to be like Mitchell.

Oliver won a lot of contested footy and fed it off, there wasn’t much cheap around the back of stoppage possessions.

The run from halfback and regular handball receive the Giants went with suited Oliver yesterday.

I had Callahan down amongst the best and both Stringer and Fonti had impact, but we see things differently overall

9 hours ago, bing181 said:

Oliver wasn't BOG.

Good game, not taking that away from him, but nothing all that dissimilar to what we were seeing last year.

Petracca on the other hand ...

Correct Clarry played a good game, he probably played 3-4 games at that standard last year , lets not get carried away

Think Steele will have as good a game next Sunday

Petracca was another level, which really annoyed me by the way

If he can extract and dish off then he’ll be an asset for the giants.

I do wonder if they can keep him on the straight and narrow. There’s plenty of bright lights in Sydney to distract him.

It’s peak MFCSS to worry about how the media will report on us in relation to Trac and Clarry this year

We had them for the past two years and had back to back 14th placed finishes, so it was clear that a fresh start was best for all involved

Good luck to both of them - meanwhile I’m going to spend my time enjoying the development of Kozzy, Langford, Windsor etc while seeing what King and co have in store for us

Edited 8 hours ago8 hr by demoncat

12 hours ago, rjay said:

Good things come in 3's...we should expect Steele to be back to his AA form and BOG against his old side next week.

Bad things also come in 3s. Let's hope Jacko doesn't haven't a blinder next week!

25 minutes ago, dice said:

Bad things also come in 3s. Let's hope Jacko doesn't haven't a blinder next week!

I think he's past it...

3 hours ago, Pennant St Dee said:

I understand all the stuff regarding leg drive from stoppages and how the game has gone to more of a transition game, but do not consider Oliver’s game to be like Mitchell.

Oliver won a lot of contested footy and fed it off, there wasn’t much cheap around the back of stoppage possessions.

The run from halfback and regular handball receive the Giants went with suited Oliver yesterday.

I had Callahan down amongst the best and both Stringer and Fonti had impact, but we see things differently overall

I attended the game and left feeling like we have lost nothing with Oliver no longer on our list. He kicked a handy goal right in front of us but tbh kicking goals is more the exception than the rule with him as is evident over his career. He racked up some possessions just like he did for the us in the past couple of seasons but they generally don't hurt the opposition. To my eye he is one of the slower players (and least fit) other than key position types. Callahan is a far superior player and like you I thought Stringer played a great game and Fonti was in certainly in their 3 best.

We will regret CP5 leaving but while I wish Clayton success I'm convinced, we are better for him not being on the list

5 hours ago, picket fence said:

The ball is bounced and nothing happens...................... and still nothing happens....... the ball remains inert..... outside runners wait....... still nothing happens..... coz footy has evolved ..... the inside beast has gone the way of the dodo. PLAYERS LIKE CLAYTON are no more .....

This essentially is what you are saying!

WRONG!

Is this wrong because the ball isn’t bounced anymore?

Side note, I agree with you. And extra note, I HATE the opening ball up even more than I expected!

16 hours ago, rjay said:

Good things come in 3's...we should expect Steele to be back to his AA form and BOG against his old side next week.

Lov ur logic rjay.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by DemonOX