His disposal his a disgrace. Collingwood knew this, that's why they let him go!
His disposal his a disgrace. Collingwood knew this, that's why they let him go!
Last edited by troyjones2525; 5th July 2010 at 08:25 AM.
Pretty much. The only upside is his run and carry.Originally Posted by troyjones2525
He should never be allowed to take kick ins.
His work across the halfback line was very good yesterday, I can't agree with the premise of the OP>
Does God believe in Atheists?
On the other hand we can look at our kick ins v collingwood last week where malceski (and mattner I think) went short contrary to instructions and missed targets. Thereafter we went long to the wing. And not much improved there. I guess the point being that we don't really have any accurate kicks from there - and Tadgh doesn't appear to want it any more either. And Shaw does what we got him for better than anyone else back there - he gets it he runs and kicks long - it just so happens that we don't have forwards who play in front or know how to present
i think we have to face the facts that we have almost no-one who can take a contested mark. At the game yesterday seeing goodes playing at ff - ie two kicks in from the kick ins (of which there were very few due to the fact that richmond kepp kicking goals from marks taken in the corridor less than 20 metres out) left me with little hope that we had any chance of getting the ball from a kick in. With grundy unwilling to leave riewoldt it was even more obvious
Last edited by Melbournehammer; 5th July 2010 at 09:05 AM. Reason: added sentence
I thought Shaw was quite good.
If his disposal is so bad, why does he score well in supercoach points?
My beef with Shaw is that he's as easy to read and brainless as a News Ltd publication.
He'll run to the right a bit and then hit it long to the wing. Oh, and on occasion he'll miss a sitter from in front of the sticks.
-
i dont blame shaw for the kick ins it seems not matter who does it we have a team directive to go long and wide to a contest 99% of the time, feel free to chuck in a fancy tap on ur boot first.
I think he might provide a bit through the middle, he takes the game on unlike a lot of others. Plenty of people worse than him 2 of them are captaining the side
Theres not much left to say
Serviceable, but I don't think he's in the best 22.
The eternal connundrum "what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object" was finally solved when David Hasselhoff punched himself in the face.
I think there's only about six players in our best 22. Eight if we can get the two Stewies back on the field in the right clothing.
Because he gets a fair bit of it and when not under pressure disposes well. His deficiencies are not the sort that appear on a stat sheet. A crucial blunder at a critical time, constantly kicking wide and running wide. It looks spectacular when he takes off and runs, however, too often he is running wide which gives the opposition time to push back and man up. That is why often his runs end up with rebound goals.
He had observed that people who did lie were, on the whole, more resourceful and ambitious and successful than people who did not lie.
He may look flashy and give us some run and carry at times but surely everyone agrees that we could put a vespremi, rohan or merideth in the role he plays and they would match his speed with also some decent disposal by foot which is what really kills us! plus they they are all 8 to 10 years younger too!
So the Swans coaches were wrong to have him second in the B&F or was 2009 his one good year between being a Collingwood dud and a Swans dud?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks