 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dave The Man 
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | | Adams is much faster than Ball, he's a better long and short kick, and he gets much more of the ball when played in the midfield. He showed what he can do when he played a whole game in the midfield against the cats in the NAB cup game, collecting over 30 disposals - something I can't recall Ball doing for several years. Put simply, Adams is a much improved model than the aging Ball. |
Adams is quicker then people give him Credit for.
Well there was an Article in Inside Footy this year saying Adams will be a Better Player then Ball
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
 |
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Lazza wrote: | | jackcass wrote: | | Agree we're lacking a bit of x-factor. Love to see Broomhead, Seedsman and Karnezis getting games soon because I think they more than any of the other guys not in the senior side bring that. |
Not that I disagree with your comments Daz but don't you think that Adams brings an X factor?
Mind you I'm the one who suggested well before the season that Adams should spend at least half the season in the VFL getting used to the Collingwood game plan and playing style (and got howled down for having that opinion) but I still believe he brings an X factor to the team as well. |
Ball has no X-Factor either
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
Doc63
Joined: 06 May 2004
Location: Newport
|
| Post subject: | |
|
No, he doesn't. He also has no hesitation in putting the team ahead of his own personal safety. Time and time again, game after game.
_________________
I hold a cup of wisdom, but there is nothing within. |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Quote: | | Can't have that. Ball has no depth on his kicking, sure, but no way is he a "very bad" kick. He is a very smart footballer and makes good decisions with ball in hand. Nothing wrong with his short passing. Adams on the other hand has poor execution and poor decision making, and is as likely to make a mistake with a short kick as a long one. He can kick the ball further, that's about all he has on Ball. as |
Did you see his game last saturday vs Cats?
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
Piesnchess
piesnchess
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
YOU know, we really should, SHOULD, win this game by around 55 points, comparing the team lists and players. BUT, knowing our slack arse forward line, Cloke outa form etc, my guess is a lazy 27 point win, against mediocre opposition.
_________________
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb. |
|
|
|
|
DaVe86
Man of Steele
Joined: 08 Oct 2004
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | DaVe86 wrote: | | jackcass wrote: | | slydog81 wrote: | From what I saw in the magoos on the weekend I would have Adams ahead of JT atm.
Would love to see Broomhead get a run and Dwyer is also playing better than JT. |
Thomas and Adams may have had similar games against the Cats but I still think Thomas was the more creative of the 2. And Thomas has been more consistent. Adams the previous game was reportedly going at below 50% DE by foot, and according to reports lost confidence in his kicking to the point where he was opting to handball. Surely consistency of effort counts for something when selectors make their decisions.
Agree on Broomhead and was at a loss as to why Dwyer was dropped in the first place.
All that said, can't see too many changes being made beyond Brown - Keeffe unless Frost doesn't get up. I'd retain both Witts and Grundy. Adams, Thomas, Kennedy, Broomhead, Seedsman, and Dwyer would all be under consideration. Young and Fasolo should be worried. |
I suppose the theory is that Adams would replace Ball in the side. Ball's footskills are also very bad and I would say Adams has more penetration and footspeed than Ball. So although Adams is not the best user by foot, as a whole you get an improvement. I'm not saying I attest to this theory because I am still a huge Luke Ball fan, but I can see the merit.
|
Can't have that. Ball has no depth on his kicking, sure, but no way is he a "very bad" kick. He is a very smart footballer and makes good decisions with ball in hand. Nothing wrong with his short passing. Adams on the other hand has poor execution and poor decision making, and is as likely to make a mistake with a short kick as a long one. He can kick the ball further, that's about all he has on Ball.
| DaVe86 wrote: |
It's hard to find room, but in my opinion we need to get more midfielders into the side. As I said, Swan is spending more time forward and Ball is not covering the ground very well. Sidebottom is starting on a wing and pushing back to be the +1. Macaffer is purely defensive. This is leaving all the burden on Pendlebury and Beams.
|
As you said, Adams is more like Ball than Thomas is. If we're playing Ball then Thomas makes more sense as an in than Adams who has not shown any real flexibility as yet. If Adams plays, Ball pretty much needs to be rested if we want a good balance.
| DaVe86 wrote: |
I'm not saying Ball is finished because if you watch last week's games, he did some amazing things in the second half and he clamped down on Priddis in the last. I just think we need to find more for more midfielders.
|
He is still playing better than either Adams or Thomas. They need to show more to replace him, especially in such a key leadership position. Adams so far lacks maturity, Thomas is more settled, but is not yet showing the necessary form.
| DaVe86 wrote: |
I think long term we will probably need to re-think Langdon's role if we already have Maxy, Williams and Toovey...and potentially Seedsman comes in to add some drive off half back.
|
Don't see why. He's just about our best performed defender over the season. No way I'd have Williams ahead of him. He stays until others outperform him. So far that's not even close to happening.
| DaVe86 wrote: |
I'm also not sure if you can have Fasolo, Elliott and Blair in the one side because neither are real midfield rotations. Port Adelaide do it well with Gray, Monfries and Wingard who all spend substantial time in the middle. This may be why we are seeing more of Elliott through the middle.
|
Elliott is a real midfield rotation. Provided crucial minutes in the middle against the Eagles, and in other games has been playing all over the field. Fas can also do this. Blair is fine as a mid for short periods. I'd say Elliott is the best mid of the three.
| DaVe86 wrote: |
We might actually be looking at using Adams as a small forward or even Broomhead, and then they can rotate on the ball. Especially if we still want to use Goldsack up forward along with Cloke, White and Reid.
|
I see no chance of Adams playing forward. He doesn't look at all capable. If we want a forward who can rotate through the middle, the obvious option is Kennedy, not Adams or Broomhead, though the latter can do the job, Adams just isn't an option in my opinion. |
Good responses. I am with you that Luke Ball is still far from finished. I know I'd want him there in a cruch final ahead.
I also agree that if Ball is in the team, then I'd go Thomas ahead of Adams. I think Adams is a Ball replacement, but don't necessarily think we should have both in the side when Pendlebury and Beams also can play in and under.
I'm not sure if Elliiott can yet be considered a midfield rotation. But there is potential. Blair could do with some more time on the ball I reckon.
What I am noticing at the moment is a distinct lack of midfielders. Especially with Swan playing so much forward, and Sidebottom playing the +1. Luke Ball is a gun, but isn't adding that spread around the ground.
I don't know how to do it, but definitely think we need at least 2 more mids in the side. If Ball holds his spot, then the 2 I'd pick would be JT and Broomhead/Dwyer.
Otherwise Kennedy and Martin can play forward/midfield roles.
_________________
There's more to life than footy.........just not much more. |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Quote: | | I also agree that if Ball is in the team, then I'd go Thomas ahead of Adams. I think Adams is a Ball replacement, but don't necessarily think we should have both in the side when Pendlebury and Beams also can play in and under. |
Why would you play Thomas over Adams when Ball in the same side?
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
DaVe86
Man of Steele
Joined: 08 Oct 2004
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Because I if Ball is in the side, then he is there to be under the packs, whilst THomas is a more explosive player from stoppages but probably needs a guy to feed it out first.
I would say Adams is more of a direct comparison to Luke Ball, so we probably don't need both.
I wouldn't be against playing both Adams and Ball and I'd like to see it happen. I just think if it comes to Thomas v Adams for the side, Thomas probably is a better structural fit if Ball is already in the team
_________________
There's more to life than footy.........just not much more. |
|
|
|
|
3rd degree 
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Location: John Wren's tote
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Is this the in and under hard nuts thread?
_________________
" Ohhh Banksy and out comes the Note Book".
www.facebook/the hybernators |
|
|
|
|
woftam 
I used to be undecided, but now I'm not so sure.
Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Location: Carum Downs, Vic
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I think Adams is a better in & under player & can hold his tackles better, but Thomas can deliver the ball to the forwards a lot better. I guess it's a case of which is more important. Personally I don't know. |
|
|
|
|
the pie guy
Joined: 25 Oct 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| last week we were spanked in clearances, so what is wrong with having another hard at it player to help Luke. We need to get it to Beam, Pendles, Sidey, Young etc quickly, and another in and under bull will help do that. No use having run if all you use it for is to chase the opposition mids. I would not care if we pick Adams or Thomas as long as the end result is we get it out going our way. |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| woftam wrote: | | RudeBoy wrote: | | DaVe86 wrote: | | Dave The Man wrote: | | Quote: | | I also agree that if Ball is in the team, then I'd go Thomas ahead of Adams. I think Adams is a Ball replacement, but don't necessarily think we should have both in the side when Pendlebury and Beams also can play in and under. |
Why would you play Thomas over Adams when Ball in the same side? |
Because I if Ball is in the side, then he is there to be under the packs, whilst THomas is a more explosive player from stoppages but probably needs a guy to feed it out first.
I would say Adams is more of a direct comparison to Luke Ball, so we probably don't need both.
I wouldn't be against playing both Adams and Ball and I'd like to see it happen. I just think if it comes to Thomas v Adams for the side, Thomas probably is a better structural fit if Ball is already in the team |
I rate Adams considerably better than Thomas.....still, wtfwik? |
I think Adams is a better in & under player & can hold his tackles better, but Thomas can deliver the ball to the forwards a lot better. I guess it's a case of which is more important. Personally I don't know. |
Thomas Kicking is a bit more Consistent then Adams but last 2 Games in the VFL I seen Adams kicking getting better. Was really good vs Geelong
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
dalyc
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dave The Man wrote: | | woftam wrote: | | RudeBoy wrote: | | DaVe86 wrote: | | Dave The Man wrote: | | Quote: | | I also agree that if Ball is in the team, then I'd go Thomas ahead of Adams. I think Adams is a Ball replacement, but don't necessarily think we should have both in the side when Pendlebury and Beams also can play in and under. |
Why would you play Thomas over Adams when Ball in the same side? |
Because I if Ball is in the side, then he is there to be under the packs, whilst THomas is a more explosive player from stoppages but probably needs a guy to feed it out first.
I would say Adams is more of a direct comparison to Luke Ball, so we probably don't need both.
I wouldn't be against playing both Adams and Ball and I'd like to see it happen. I just think if it comes to Thomas v Adams for the side, Thomas probably is a better structural fit if Ball is already in the team |
I rate Adams considerably better than Thomas.....still, wtfwik? |
I think Adams is a better in & under player & can hold his tackles better, but Thomas can deliver the ball to the forwards a lot better. I guess it's a case of which is more important. Personally I don't know. |
Thomas Kicking is a bit more Consistent then Adams but last 2 Games in the VFL I seen Adams kicking getting better. Was really good vs Geelong |
And shite (kicking wise) the last time he played in the seniors .. Can't remember against who though.
_________________
Four legged animals good, two legged animals better |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
In: Adams Keeffe
Out: Ball Brown
Wonder why Ball is out but Adams can finally play in his Correct Postion
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
We have the AssHole Stevic as an Umpire 
_________________
I am Da Man
Last edited by Dave The Man on Thu May 29, 2014 6:31 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
