In contrast, Fox Sports News just reported that both Heeney and Reid will be back this week. Reminds me of a line from Industrial Disease by Dire Straits - "Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong."
In contrast, Fox Sports News just reported that both Heeney and Reid will be back this week. Reminds me of a line from Industrial Disease by Dire Straits - "Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong."
Today's a draft of your epitaph
I noticed that too Big Cat.. Mitchell got 30 possessions but some of his decision making is not that good. Did not see him lay too many tackles either. Poor Goodes days look over. Still got some good offensive moves but his defensive work is pretty ordinary.
- - - Updated - - -
I noticed that too Big Cat.. Mitchell got 30 possessions but some of his decision making is not that good. Did not see him lay too many tackles either. Poor Goodes days look over. Still got some good offensive moves but his defensive work is pretty ordinary.
Mitchell had 30 disposals at 53% efficiency with 9 tackles and 6 score involvements. Hannebery had 37 disposals at 54% with 10 tackles and 7 score involvements. Most would say Hannebery was clearly best on ground and rightly so. Based on the above stats Mitchell wasn't that far behind. Yes improvement is required but he has played far less afl games than Hannebery. 21 games for Mitchell versus 125 for Hannebery. Mitchell has to stayOriginally Posted by crackedactor
Not to mention the fact that Hanners is an excellent player and in great form at the moment. For Mitchell's impact to be comparable to Hanners' for the game suggests he was doing OK.
I thought those two were clearly Sydney's best at the weekend - that was obvious watching live (and I haven't watched a replay).
I thought it was obvious live that they were our best 2 by a decent distance on Saturday.
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
I am not saying to drop Mitchell but he often plays well in wet slippery conditions, then goes missing on dry days. Stats are not always truthful. Like for example playing defensive and kicking the ball to the boundary line instead of the centre of the ground or when you do kick it to a teammate sometimes there is another team mate in a better position. I known he is young and hopefully he will become much wiser, but I just like to see a good performance on a dry day. I believe this is the reason Horse has not played him that often.
Agreed (with Liz and mcs). Any fair-minded assessment would have to conclude that Mitchell was very good, especially for a 21 year old kid coming in for his first senior game in some time. Our clearances, particularly from the centre where we've struggled recently, was one of the few positives from the weekend.
I'd like to hear what those who were unimpressed by Mitchell thought of Parker, Kennedy, Jack or Bird's performances. Were any of them better than Mitchell?
I'm definitely on the side of play mitchell and allow Parker and Kennedy some more time forward.
On the evidence of Saturday's game, I'd be dropping a couple of defenders (and playing fewer back down there). Surely we couldn't have gifted more goals to the Dogs if we'd had half the players in defence? The Dogs would have had to pick up the ball themselves off the greasy deck rather than have it played into their arms by a Swans defender.
I forgot Heeney! Of course he should be back in. At whose expense? Now that's a hard one!
Now you see what I spend my week thinking about markus26
No it's not, what did Towers contribute?
I pose the question, would Towers or Laidler be getting games at Hawthorn? I reckon not, so weak links.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks