Axis of Bob

If you don't want your opinion to be judged then don't give it. Once you put it out there I can call it whatever I want. And I (politely) called it 'rubbish'. Because it was.

Rubbish. You are starting with a destination in mind and then shoehorning the evidence to suit. I would argue exactly the opposite happened. McKenzie tried too hard to kick it, so he poked at it nervously and missed. I think that if your argument relies on McKenzie not giving enough effort then your argument is probably struggling.

I don't see the link that people are making between skills and effort. It's like they assume that missed targets are because they aren't trying hard enough. We clearly had effort, but we lack class on the outside. We comfortably won the contested possession but we turned it over. Brisbane were able to do a lot more damage outside packs than we were. That's where we need to improve.

Bottom right corner. Next to the 'Quote' button.

The point is that putting off talks until the end of the season does not automatically mean that a player is leaving. It can often be a strategy to get the best possible deal for the player. We saw that with Boak, Cloke, Pavlich etc. If you have multiple clubs bidding for your services at the same time near the deadline, it will likely increase the contract you will receive. Each situation is unique. So while it increases the chances a player will leave, it is not necessarily the fait d'accompli that everyone is saying it is.

Matthew Pavlich. Just about every time he was out of contract.

Not eligible. He goes wherever he's picked.

Which picks would they have had to use for them under the current system? Then, what players did they end up picking with those picks?

It depends on what you define as 'X-factor'. X-factor, to me, is the ability to do something different that few other can do. For instance, Gary Rohan has x-factor but that's entirely based on raw speed. Colin Sylvia, in that sense, has x-factor based on his power. He could win contests that other people couldn't win because of this. BRFE is right about his junior footy. He'd take a hanger or two every week as a midfielder. His team mates would just kick the ball to him and he would either win it or kill the person who did. He had natural endurance, but didn't work hard enough. He never developed the work rate or nous to become a high level footballer. He was, and is, a very flawed footballer. But that is independent of his 'x-factor', or whatever people with to call it.

Constantly. He had other limitations that prevented him ever getting to that top level, but his power was never in question. It was exceptional and a real point of difference for him

Disagree. Sylvia had plenty of X-factor, which was his combination of power and endurance. His power was exceptional, but his ability to turn it into consistent performance was lacking.

How can you not get excited about a player who got 13 possessions in a quarter? It's all about perspective.

It depends on how you define 'overhead mark'. He's not a high flying, spectacular mark. However, one on one, he takes more than his fair share.

He's doing a job at the moment. If he keeps doing that, he'll keep getting games. He kept Boak under 20 possessions today. He had 39 last week.

That isn't the rule, it is just commonly a free kick because it's very risky. If you spoil the ball (ie, clean contact), rather than hit the player, it isn't a free kick. The rule is that if you are not looking at the ball and make contact with the player (and not the ball) then it is a free kick. As it was, the umpire paid the free kick for high contact, not for having his back to the ball.

He doesn't have the tank to run out a full game at the moment. Check how many times he's been subbed out this year.

It shows how much we lack outside class. Watts is, easily, our best player in open space. Unfortunately, when he is down then we really struggle to find players that can cut open the opposition and really damage them once we get the ball into space. We need to find more players like this so that we can put it on the scoreboard when we the advantage in general play.

Why? To cover Brisbane's plethora of tall forwards? Maybe we want to play 3 key defenders on their solitary key forward .... Daniel Merrett.

Dawes is a hard working forward who is good one on one. He isn't the pea, but he's a lion hearted player who will push up to the ball time after time to provide a target when there isn't anything else on. As a result, most of Dawes' good work goes unnoticed, because making a contest doesn't get a stat or glory. Once you put Hogan in there, Dawes will start to get more one on one opportunities.

Probably because of his leadership, I'd guess/ This doesn't surprise me.

Ah, serves me right for only reading the last couple of posts!

Nasher, it's not just the player drafted with that top 5 pick. It's also whatever we could possibly trade that top 5 pick for. Using last year as an example, we could trade that pick for Dom Tyson and a late first round pick. So the choice that is being made is (hypothetically): - Frawley for Malceski + pick 40(ish), or - Frawley for Tyson and pick 12(ish). There are, of course, other ways of getting Malceski that don't include free agency. A deal like that was made by Port Adelaide and Essendon in the Monfries trade, involving later picks. We could, for example, trade a 3rd round pick for Malceski to preserve our own free agency pick, plus Sydney gets something too. Then it becomes: - Frawley + pick 40 for Tyson, pick 12 and Malceski.

Why? Not a fan of Nat Fyfe? Stephen Hill? Stephen Motlop? Jack McCrae? Tom Lonergan? Marcus Bontempelli? Dustin Fletcher? etc.etc.

Why would you impose a max contract if both the player and club are happy to pay it?