-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Nathan (Axel) Foley [MERGED]
- Thread starter yandb
- Start date
Hartbalme said:
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=risingstar&spg=display&articleid=279892
The Rising Star is a glamour event after all and Foley's style of play obviously doesn't fit the bill. He shapes like the $1500 racehorse who beats the million-dollar yearlings in the long run.
Ghost of Punt Road
Tiger Champion
hmmmm....
not impressed.
maybe those nice gents on the comittee don't know he is only 20 years old. I'd email the AFL, only the AFL doesn't have an email address. It all goes into the abbyss that is Telstra.
I suggest we all make Foley Banners for his 'Debut' commemoration against the Dees this week.
Maybe if we all say 'Rising star, N.Foley' they will get the message!
Maybe it's time for the RFC to put up an article clarifying how well he did and that he is eligible?
not impressed.
maybe those nice gents on the comittee don't know he is only 20 years old. I'd email the AFL, only the AFL doesn't have an email address. It all goes into the abbyss that is Telstra.
I suggest we all make Foley Banners for his 'Debut' commemoration against the Dees this week.
Maybe if we all say 'Rising star, N.Foley' they will get the message!
Maybe it's time for the RFC to put up an article clarifying how well he did and that he is eligible?
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Notice that the article is dated tomorrow morning at 9.00 am. Was it released too early?
Re: Nathan Foley
you can pull up what ever quotes you like they will show my criticism of a few constants.one of those constant criticisms has been the playing of underperforming senior players wheather they are underperforming or not well thats just my opinion.as for wanting the team to evolve around 1st and 2nd yr players well you just tinnkled with the truth a little there didnt you.i have called for 8 to 10 of our 21yr olds or under to be played each game and when injury or poor form happens drop them back and bring in another couple of kids. on the whole wallace has done this or been damn close to this formula all yr when the numbers have dropped to 4 or 5 kids ive jumped up and down.
i dont presume wallace gets everything right in fact im sure wallace will admit hes got plenty of things wrong so far. but hey you should know this. most posts you do you you seem to have read wallaces thoughts and seem to know his thought processes better than he does himself.
when it comes to foley my opinion is wallace has got it wrong. the core of the debate is should foley get more game time. well you have put up your spurious and damn laughable reasons why he shouldnt. using your flawed logic deledio polo raines and some others shouldnt be getting more than 60minutes a game because of their age.
foley spent last yr at coburg where he ran out full games amassing shedloads of possesions. he has a big motor. he is more than capable of playing MOST of a game in the ones. 90 odd minutes is not excessive for gods sake that means hes sitting a full quarter on the pine. hes fit damaging obviously capable and going by stats one of the better in and under young players going around.
oh and by the way williams played salopek surjan and pearce for 92 101 and 88 min respectively they are the same age or younger than foley. williams doesnt seem to be worried about burn out but hey what does williams know hes actually coached a premiership team..even young thomas a first gamer i think got more time than foley with 76min.
as i said the debate is about wheather foley should get more game time or not and the obvious answer to that is yes. will an extra 20 to 30 odd minutes hurt foley the obvious answer is no. i base these opinions on what ive seen and foleys past not on what i presume wallaces thinking to be.
firstly i dont need to defend myself im right.on the whole wallaces handling of the list has been okay ive never said otherwise. ihave been critical of some things though hence my input to this thread.Rayzorwire said:
you can pull up what ever quotes you like they will show my criticism of a few constants.one of those constant criticisms has been the playing of underperforming senior players wheather they are underperforming or not well thats just my opinion.as for wanting the team to evolve around 1st and 2nd yr players well you just tinnkled with the truth a little there didnt you.i have called for 8 to 10 of our 21yr olds or under to be played each game and when injury or poor form happens drop them back and bring in another couple of kids. on the whole wallace has done this or been damn close to this formula all yr when the numbers have dropped to 4 or 5 kids ive jumped up and down.
i dont presume wallace gets everything right in fact im sure wallace will admit hes got plenty of things wrong so far. but hey you should know this. most posts you do you you seem to have read wallaces thoughts and seem to know his thought processes better than he does himself.
when it comes to foley my opinion is wallace has got it wrong. the core of the debate is should foley get more game time. well you have put up your spurious and damn laughable reasons why he shouldnt. using your flawed logic deledio polo raines and some others shouldnt be getting more than 60minutes a game because of their age.
foley spent last yr at coburg where he ran out full games amassing shedloads of possesions. he has a big motor. he is more than capable of playing MOST of a game in the ones. 90 odd minutes is not excessive for gods sake that means hes sitting a full quarter on the pine. hes fit damaging obviously capable and going by stats one of the better in and under young players going around.
oh and by the way williams played salopek surjan and pearce for 92 101 and 88 min respectively they are the same age or younger than foley. williams doesnt seem to be worried about burn out but hey what does williams know hes actually coached a premiership team..even young thomas a first gamer i think got more time than foley with 76min.
as i said the debate is about wheather foley should get more game time or not and the obvious answer to that is yes. will an extra 20 to 30 odd minutes hurt foley the obvious answer is no. i base these opinions on what ive seen and foleys past not on what i presume wallaces thinking to be.
Re: Nathan Foley
Quite simple Disco, Peter Burgoyne barely played, while Johnson tagged Shaun (who we've since heard have his poor game explained by the death of a very close friend through the week) away from the clearances for a significant period of the match, so Port's 'normal' midfield rotations were somewhat depleted - their two best clearance players mostly absent. We rotated a lot of players through the midfield - as did Port - and if you look at our clearance stats they very much reflect this fact...how you come up with a case for Foley spending "almost the entire night" onball roving when we have the following clearance stats baffles me:
Tuck - 6
Krakouer - 3
Deledio - 4
Tambling - 3
...among others - 31 clearances in total of which Foley had 5.
Furthermore, unless you want to make the argument that Port's 'best' midfield doesn't include Peter Burgoyne but does include Dew and Salopek - neither of whom feature in the top 50 clearance players list yet they had 11 clearances between them for the night...which pretty much mirrors Foley's effort - then you must accept that it defies the laws of physics (let alone common sense ;D) to suggest Foley played on the 'best' Port midfield "almost the entire night" as you've suggested.
Did the kid do very well? Damn right he did as I've said repeatedly and voted accordingly, but why you want to perpetuate a debate which revolves around both elevating Foley's contribution to the non-reality of spending the entire night almost exclusively on Port's 'best' midfielders, while minimising or completely forgetting the onball contributions of the above players and numerous others (you are aware how many players start in the centre and on the ball around the ground aren't you?) is totally beyond me.
BTW, would it hurt so much to acknowledge you were being just the tiniest bit unfair with your claim I should apologise to claw for something I didn't do, but ironically he did?
Or is this a case of you thinking everyone here except me deserves a little politeness?
Disco08 said:
Quite simple Disco, Peter Burgoyne barely played, while Johnson tagged Shaun (who we've since heard have his poor game explained by the death of a very close friend through the week) away from the clearances for a significant period of the match, so Port's 'normal' midfield rotations were somewhat depleted - their two best clearance players mostly absent. We rotated a lot of players through the midfield - as did Port - and if you look at our clearance stats they very much reflect this fact...how you come up with a case for Foley spending "almost the entire night" onball roving when we have the following clearance stats baffles me:
Tuck - 6
Krakouer - 3
Deledio - 4
Tambling - 3
...among others - 31 clearances in total of which Foley had 5.
Furthermore, unless you want to make the argument that Port's 'best' midfield doesn't include Peter Burgoyne but does include Dew and Salopek - neither of whom feature in the top 50 clearance players list yet they had 11 clearances between them for the night...which pretty much mirrors Foley's effort - then you must accept that it defies the laws of physics (let alone common sense ;D) to suggest Foley played on the 'best' Port midfield "almost the entire night" as you've suggested.
Did the kid do very well? Damn right he did as I've said repeatedly and voted accordingly, but why you want to perpetuate a debate which revolves around both elevating Foley's contribution to the non-reality of spending the entire night almost exclusively on Port's 'best' midfielders, while minimising or completely forgetting the onball contributions of the above players and numerous others (you are aware how many players start in the centre and on the ball around the ground aren't you?) is totally beyond me.
BTW, would it hurt so much to acknowledge you were being just the tiniest bit unfair with your claim I should apologise to claw for something I didn't do, but ironically he did?
Or is this a case of you thinking everyone here except me deserves a little politeness?
Re: Nathan Foley
So you've never said Wallace isn't handling the list right, but you have been critical of some things about his list management?
Right...I'm glad that made sense to you claw!
If the "core of the debate" is Foley's game time, then how on earth are you on the one hand claiming that Foley's game Sat. night somehow proved ME wrong when you yourself have claimed below that he had less than 76 mins game time? It reinforces my point while completely undermining yours. Foley, along with a group of fellow youngsters, had a great influence in the centre, all of them with carefully managed onball game time. You'd apparently like him to live onball full time like it's footy from 20yrs ago, while Wallace - and every other coach I can think of - has the view that frequent rotations (especially if they're only young kids) of freshened players through the midfield is what gets the job done.
I know whose opinion I think is 'damn laughable' on this matter.
NONE of the kids you're talking about spent that on ground time exclusively on the ball - which is what you're expecting of Foley - but somehow you think the above supports your argument for Foley to play practically full games on the ball in his first season.
I don't have a problem with kids that age getting full or almost full games - we have up to 10 of them out there and you won't catch me complaining about it - but being onball for almost an entire game is a completely different story. Williams knows that, Wallace knows that...the entire football world apart from you seems to know that claw.
Rather than accept that we put up a great performance in midfield on the weekend (and the weekend before plus numerous other occasions this season) due to 7-8 mostly young kids being frequently rotated and given limited time on the ball, you apparently STILL want to argue for Foley to be camped there for 90+ minutes a game.
The midfield ain't broke...it's functioning better in the last two weeks than it has for a long, long time...but you apparently think you can fix it by doing the opposite of what Wallace has been doing so successfully.
the claw said:
So you've never said Wallace isn't handling the list right, but you have been critical of some things about his list management?
Right...I'm glad that made sense to you claw!
the claw said:
If the "core of the debate" is Foley's game time, then how on earth are you on the one hand claiming that Foley's game Sat. night somehow proved ME wrong when you yourself have claimed below that he had less than 76 mins game time? It reinforces my point while completely undermining yours. Foley, along with a group of fellow youngsters, had a great influence in the centre, all of them with carefully managed onball game time. You'd apparently like him to live onball full time like it's footy from 20yrs ago, while Wallace - and every other coach I can think of - has the view that frequent rotations (especially if they're only young kids) of freshened players through the midfield is what gets the job done.
I know whose opinion I think is 'damn laughable' on this matter.
the claw said:
NONE of the kids you're talking about spent that on ground time exclusively on the ball - which is what you're expecting of Foley - but somehow you think the above supports your argument for Foley to play practically full games on the ball in his first season.
I don't have a problem with kids that age getting full or almost full games - we have up to 10 of them out there and you won't catch me complaining about it - but being onball for almost an entire game is a completely different story. Williams knows that, Wallace knows that...the entire football world apart from you seems to know that claw.
Rather than accept that we put up a great performance in midfield on the weekend (and the weekend before plus numerous other occasions this season) due to 7-8 mostly young kids being frequently rotated and given limited time on the ball, you apparently STILL want to argue for Foley to be camped there for 90+ minutes a game.
The midfield ain't broke...it's functioning better in the last two weeks than it has for a long, long time...but you apparently think you can fix it by doing the opposite of what Wallace has been doing so successfully.
Re: Nathan Foley
And a lot of good that did them Clawsy. They lost. Just maybe Wallace is smarter than Williams. ;D
the claw said:
And a lot of good that did them Clawsy. They lost. Just maybe Wallace is smarter than Williams. ;D
Ghost of Punt Road
Tiger Champion
Send emails now to [email protected]
Bartlett I believe is still one of the judges on the panel, so bringing it to his attention is as good as any other way to get Foley up the limelight ladder.
Bartlett I believe is still one of the judges on the panel, so bringing it to his attention is as good as any other way to get Foley up the limelight ladder.
Message to Harry: Foley.
Well done Harry. Barring injury or some other unfortunate/bizarre incident ya’ boy Foley certainly looks like he’s gonna play more than the quota of games that we had a bet on.
His form this year has gone up not one, but several levels. And to be perfectly honest, if he gets more ground time, it could go up even further ! Geez !
Well done. Not that we disagree on too many players, but you win this instance hands down.
More than happy to buy that beer. (Some bloody stinking German beer isn't it ?)
Well done Harry. Barring injury or some other unfortunate/bizarre incident ya’ boy Foley certainly looks like he’s gonna play more than the quota of games that we had a bet on.
His form this year has gone up not one, but several levels. And to be perfectly honest, if he gets more ground time, it could go up even further ! Geez !
Well done. Not that we disagree on too many players, but you win this instance hands down.
More than happy to buy that beer. (Some bloody stinking German beer isn't it ?)
Rayzorwire said:
You completely dodged the initial questions.
Disco08 said:
You gave him 3 votes. It was impossible to not see the tide turn when Foley came onto the ground. Again, do you think Mark Williams was the only one to miss this and let Foley play the majority of his time on a 2nd string player? Is Kane Cornes a 1st string player in your eyes? What about Salopek and Thomson who were both first round draft picks and have started their careers very promisingly. As I said, this exact midfield has played very well in the last 6 weeks, and the P Burgoyne excuse is useless becuase he was out injured for basically the entire period.
BTW, Foley had 7 clearances. It might say 5 on the ProStats site, but the HS has him down for 7 and one of the commentators clearly said he had 7 early in the 3rd quarter, and they get their stats straight from the Champion Data live feed.
So Foley had nearly a quarter of the team's clearances despite his (ever increasing, but) limited TOG. Funnily enough Wallace does seem to be stretching out his TOG doesn't he? 73 minutes is quite a large step from the 60 he was getting up until a couple of weeks ago.
Rayzorwire said:
Saying Foley did not play the majoity of his game on a 2nd string player(s) is not denigrating the games of other players in the slightest. How do you even make that assumption?
Rayzorwire said:
You get what you give.
KB just got some emails about Foley's non nomination on SEN. Hungry went to say that he thinks Foley is very good little footballer that he thinks will get a nomination before the year is out. KB spoke about how good Foley is at the coalface and thought his effort Saturday night was first rate and he was most definitely in the best players on the ground.
It's pretty much a non entity with me, as long as he is playing good footy he doens't have to get any more attention from external outlets. Foley V Brock Mclean this week, will be crucial to the outcome of the game.
It's pretty much a non entity with me, as long as he is playing good footy he doens't have to get any more attention from external outlets. Foley V Brock Mclean this week, will be crucial to the outcome of the game.
