 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Piethagoras' Theorem 
the hypotenuse, is always a cakewalk
Joined: 29 May 2006
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Not his greatest fan but last night he was better than at least a half dozen players. Didn't think he deserved a spot but it wasn't a shocking game.
_________________
Formally frankiboy and FrankieGoesToCollingwood. |
|
|
|
 |
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Harvey wrote: | The problem with Blair is that he's consistently average. He just has 0 upside. This is currently the best that he's playing and it's hardly enough. If he was a kid that was just inconsistent then I'd be more than happy with his performance. However, we should be expecting a lot more from a 100 game player. Unfortunately there's 0 improvement left in him and it's compounded by the fact that he's small and slow.
If we go through every player in our top 30 and look at what their best game is, they can be potentially matchwinning including the kids like Thomas, Kennedy, Fasolo and Adams. Blair's best is 15 possessions, 2-3 goals and 8 tackles (all of them in pack situations and none that are run-down turnovers). It's just not good enough, I'd much rather play a kid who has 2-3 quiet games that aren't too much worse than Blair's average and every once in a while can pull out 30 possessions or 4-5 goals. At least by playing them, they can get more consistency in their game which comes from experience. Blair is already experienced and consistent. And it's consistently average. |
Fasolo's record is probably worse ; though he did snag 4 recently, his output is pretty average on the same terms. The others you mention above are mids, and that's a whole different ball game to being a small forward, not least in stats terms. The weeman nearly won us the game last night, and i reckon he was in our top 7-8 players.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Beast
Joined: 26 Oct 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yes, had we won it would have been solely due to Blair winning one hard ball that led to something that than led to something else.
And Bucks knows best by picking him week in week out, just look at the heights he has taken us to during his time at the helm of the Club. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Beast wrote: | Yes, had we won it would have been solely due to Blair winning one hard ball that led to something that than led to something else.
And Bucks knows best by picking him week in week out, just look at the heights he has taken us to during his time at the helm of the Club. |
Didn't say that, but if you watch the game you'll see that he was instrumental in several goals, or in Young's case, should-have been goals. The scapegoating of a bloke who actually did more to get us over the line than many others is ridiculous. I'd suggest your hero Cloke did more to lose it with that unbelievable wastage of Seedsman's lancing pass in the second quarter and the resultant 12 point turnaround. Blair was one of the better contributors last night.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Harvey
Joined: 15 Oct 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | Harvey wrote: | The problem with Blair is that he's consistently average. He just has 0 upside. This is currently the best that he's playing and it's hardly enough. If he was a kid that was just inconsistent then I'd be more than happy with his performance. However, we should be expecting a lot more from a 100 game player. Unfortunately there's 0 improvement left in him and it's compounded by the fact that he's small and slow.
If we go through every player in our top 30 and look at what their best game is, they can be potentially matchwinning including the kids like Thomas, Kennedy, Fasolo and Adams. Blair's best is 15 possessions, 2-3 goals and 8 tackles (all of them in pack situations and none that are run-down turnovers). It's just not good enough, I'd much rather play a kid who has 2-3 quiet games that aren't too much worse than Blair's average and every once in a while can pull out 30 possessions or 4-5 goals. At least by playing them, they can get more consistency in their game which comes from experience. Blair is already experienced and consistent. And it's consistently average. |
Fasolo's record is probably worse ; though he did snag 4 recently, his output is pretty average on the same terms. The others you mention above are mids, and that's a whole different ball game to being a small forward, not least in stats terms. The weeman nearly won us the game last night, and i reckon he was in our top 7-8 players. |
My point is that even if Fasolo is more inconsistent than Blair, if both have their best games, Fasolo's impact would be matchwinning whilst Blair's impact would be "solid". I'd rather Fasolo's 1 good game in 4 over Blair's 4 average games. At least by getting more experience into Fasolo, there's a chance he can become more consistent and have 1 bad game in 4. Blair can't get anymore consistent.
In regards to your comments about mids, all of Kennedy, Thomas and to a lesser extent Adams can play forward. Especially if your "role" is just to tackle and harrass. There's no reason that Blair should have a monopoly on the role when those other kids can probably perform the same role less maybe 3-4 pressure acts a game but with more chance of snagging a goal and greater long term upside. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Fair enough, i can see your point, even though I disagree. I think Blair does more than chase and harrass, and if you watch the game last night he did some things that brought us goals or goal opportunities, even if he did not kick them himself. I do not want to denigrate Fas, though, and agee that "good Fas", if you can get him on the park often enough, probably has more upside than Frodo.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Brenny
Joined: 05 Apr 2011
Location: Westpac Centre
|
| Post subject: | |
|
For me, if going off last night... there should be a roast Keefe thread who I thought wsa worst on ground.
Blair, was no where near the shitness of Keefe and Blair was solid :p.
_________________
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeey, we want some Bayley! |
|
|
|
|
Darkstranger
Joined: 06 Jun 2012
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yeah not a huge Blair fan these days but he wasn't too bad last night.
Problem is we have a few players who by now we expected to take the next step, I'm a fraud that the like of Blair, Goldsack, Sidebottom, Dwyer, OBrien currently is just about as good as they well be. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ in the case of Sidebottom and Lumumba, the next step was well and truly taken, and they are A-graders. Like any A-grader, they can have the odd bad day at the office, but they're a slightly different level to the others you mentioned, I think.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
King Monkey
Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Location: On a journey to seek the scriptures of enlightenment....
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'd love to see this utopia some speak of, the one where every player on the ground either gets 25 plus possessions, and/or kicks 3 or more goals every week.
You can't have 22 highly skilled silky players in a football team, especially the way the game is played these days.
Some have to sacrifice their chance at higher numbers to help others achieve those numbers. Blair is someone who does that for us.
If you can't see it - either you're not watching properly, or you haven't caught up with the modern game.
A small example -
How does Sidebottom get on his own so often??
In the era of flooding back and manning space - someone else runs through a dangerous area forcing an opponent to follow, clearing space for a teammate to run into.
Fasolo is going to instinctively perform duties like this is he????
(I love Fas and would love to see him in the side when fit, but Blair's isn't the spot he'd take.)
Whilst he might be a more dangerous individual player, that would upset team balance.
Now, if Buckley wants to change the way we play - then an argument for Martin, Karnezis, Fasolo coming in for Blair becomes a little more relevant........
_________________
"I am a great sage, equal of heaven.
Grow stick, grow.
Fly cloud, fly.
Oh you are a dee-mon, I love to fiiight." |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Brenny wrote: | For me, if going off last night... there should be a roast Keefe thread who I thought wsa worst on ground.
Blair, was no where near the shitness of Keefe and Blair was solid :p. |
Keeffe? You sure you realised Grundy was playing?
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | Brenny wrote: | For me, if going off last night... there should be a roast Keefe thread who I thought wsa worst on ground.
Blair, was no where near the shitness of Keefe and Blair was solid :p. |
Keeffe? You sure you realised Grundy was playing? |
Yep, daylight between those two, though they were probably an astronomical unit behind the rest of the field. Keefe was great against the filth, but really got pantsed last night. Having said that, I think Grundy left his pants in the changing rooms.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Harvey
Joined: 15 Oct 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| King Monkey wrote: | I'd love to see this utopia some speak of, the one where every player on the ground either gets 25 plus possessions, and/or kicks 3 or more goals every week.
You can't have 22 highly skilled silky players in a football team, especially the way the game is played these days.
Some have to sacrifice their chance at higher numbers to help others achieve those numbers. Blair is someone who does that for us.
If you can't see it - either you're not watching properly, or you haven't caught up with the modern game.
A small example -
How does Sidebottom get on his own so often??
In the era of flooding back and manning space - someone else runs through a dangerous area forcing an opponent to follow, clearing space for a teammate to run into.
Fasolo is going to instinctively perform duties like this is he????
(I love Fas and would love to see him in the side when fit, but Blair's isn't the spot he'd take.)
Whilst he might be a more dangerous individual player, that would upset team balance.
Now, if Buckley wants to change the way we play - then an argument for Martin, Karnezis, Fasolo coming in for Blair becomes a little more relevant........ |
I don't think we're saying that he should be averaging 25 possessions a game and/or 3 goals a game. I'm saying that he needs to have the potential to step up when our other stars are down to help us win matches and not just play his role. You go through our best 22 and every player in there, if they were play there best game for us, they'd have the potential to be a matchwinner. If Blair is BOG however, chances are we'd lose. His best just isn't good enough.
To respond to your comments about Fasolo, yes I think if we were to give him the Blair role, to focus largely on pressure acts and not worry about goals or possessions, I think he can learn to play it. Hell, we managed to teach him how to be a small defender.
Notice I'm not questioning the role that he plays. I definitely see the benefits of a defensive forward. Which is why I like Goldsack. At least he's big enough and fast enough to chase down tackles, provide a physical presence and cause turnovers. I just don't understand why Blair has a monopoly on the role when he's a weak tackler, is slow, too short to be an opportunistic marking target, and doesn't have smart goal sense or ball finding ability. He's only strong trait is his endeavour (which I admire) but I'm sure we can find more talented players that can play his role. In our reserves alone, Marsh, Mooney, Broomhead, Martin can be groomed to play his role whilst having much higher development potential. |
|
|
|
|
jackcass 
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | Greeny2968 wrote: | | Blair would not get a game at any other Top 8 team. |
Either would his near doppleganger Paul Puopolo. Wait, are the Hawks and Pies in the 8? |
 |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Harvey wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | | Harvey wrote: | The problem with Blair is that he's consistently average. He just has 0 upside. This is currently the best that he's playing and it's hardly enough. If he was a kid that was just inconsistent then I'd be more than happy with his performance. However, we should be expecting a lot more from a 100 game player. Unfortunately there's 0 improvement left in him and it's compounded by the fact that he's small and slow.
If we go through every player in our top 30 and look at what their best game is, they can be potentially matchwinning including the kids like Thomas, Kennedy, Fasolo and Adams. Blair's best is 15 possessions, 2-3 goals and 8 tackles (all of them in pack situations and none that are run-down turnovers). It's just not good enough, I'd much rather play a kid who has 2-3 quiet games that aren't too much worse than Blair's average and every once in a while can pull out 30 possessions or 4-5 goals. At least by playing them, they can get more consistency in their game which comes from experience. Blair is already experienced and consistent. And it's consistently average. |
Fasolo's record is probably worse ; though he did snag 4 recently, his output is pretty average on the same terms. The others you mention above are mids, and that's a whole different ball game to being a small forward, not least in stats terms. The weeman nearly won us the game last night, and i reckon he was in our top 7-8 players. |
My point is that even if Fasolo is more inconsistent than Blair, if both have their best games, Fasolo's impact would be matchwinning whilst Blair's impact would be "solid". I'd rather Fasolo's 1 good game in 4 over Blair's 4 average games. At least by getting more experience into Fasolo, there's a chance he can become more consistent and have 1 bad game in 4. Blair can't get anymore consistent.
In regards to your comments about mids, all of Kennedy, Thomas and to a lesser extent Adams can play forward. Especially if your "role" is just to tackle and harrass. There's no reason that Blair should have a monopoly on the role when those other kids can probably perform the same role less maybe 3-4 pressure acts a game but with more chance of snagging a goal and greater long term upside. |
And you need a certain number of players in the team that offer predictable performance to offset the hot and cold Fasolo types. If say Fasolo was to come into the senior team for Blair and 1st game he is ordinary defensively (by comparison to Blair) but kicked 4 goals and we win you'd say that's a good thing, but if for the next 3 games he doesn't bother the scorer and is poor defensively, are we actually better off?
And yeah, anyone can play forward and tackle and harass, just ask Jeff Garlett. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
