Coburgtiger said:Yep. What about the rest of the post?
Sorry I didn't realise you expected a response to it all.
Coburgtiger said:I'm as big a Vickery supporter as there is. But even I have to admit that he's been poor the last three weeks.
He snagged a few against the essendon 3rds, third best defender. Which is good, he more or less did his job.
If he did his job it seems strange for him to be the sensible option to drop. Ty's stats were similar to Liam's with 3 goals thrown in and against superior opposition.
Coburgtiger said:To me, Beanie not only presented better, kicked better, and created more, he actually played a better big man game.
.
I can't comment much on that. Others who saw Liam indicate he was improved but still didn't really stand out for elevation. I don't think he got votes and he wasn't named in the best players.
Coburgtiger said:He would have had more marks, and more contested marks. Granted, Vickery kicked more goals, but the opposite story has been true many weeks this year, so that's clearly not the indicator.
Very similar actually. Maybe a couple more marks and one more contested mark at a lower level of football. I agree goals aren't the indicator. I've posted examples of other things the club obviously want of Liam. It's good to read the club acknowledge his efforts. It shows they don't have some vendetta against him and they call it as they see it.
Coburgtiger said:Watching them both, it seemed that Beanie could offer a bit more at the moment. And Vickery could probably do with a bit of practice to sort out his game in the 2s.
FWIW, my solution to this would be to play Griffiths as first ruck, Vickery as second, and Hampson out. Beanie comes in as a forward. But apparently we're never going to try that.
That doesn't quite make sense to me when you think Ty is the sensible option to drop yet you'd still play him.
Again apologies for not responding in more depth earlier. I'm pretty much limited to my mobile phone at the moment and I find it hard going.