Nathan (Axel) Foley [MERGED]

[gustiger12]

Let Foley fly around under the radar for a bit longer. Let other teams underestimate him. Its all good for Foley and the Tigers. His just rewards will come, but while he can mount a sneak attack on the opposition lets not complain. ;D

 

[Ghost of Punt Road]

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.

Thanks for letting me know, I got time to email but not to listen.

Thanks and well done to the other people who spammed KB

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

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.

He may attract the attention of Cannonball Pickett.

 

[lamb22]

Phanto, would you have Foleys TOG figures  for this year.  I would imagine that Foley is probably top 20 in the league for disposals, clearances and tackles per TOG.  Grateful if you could provide Foley's TOG figures if possible.

Cheers

 

[the claw]

Re: Nathan Foley

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.

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!

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. 

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.

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.

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.

you are either very stupid or just incapabl;e of having an honest debate. firstly what part of, on the whole wallaces handling of the list has been okay, ive never said otherwise. ive been critical of some things though, dont you understand. i would have thought most 5 yr olds would of got the gist of what i meant.but oh no not you. that makes you one of stupid or just plain mischievious i guess the former going by the dribble ive had to endure so far.

as for the kids ive mentioned its more likely they spent all of their game time or the vast majority playing either onball or midfield.but this is dismissed out of hand.well before you dismiss a point you could at least find out what you are saying is correct.anyway you attribute to me that foley has to play on ball whilst on the ground where have i said this he can play in the forward line.going by your comments you think foley can play nowhere else but onball. well ireckon hed make a great front and square crumber an example of this was the hand ball he got out to krakouer for a goal. also his pace of the mark and his strong tackling would help keep the ball in.

now the comment about not accepting we put up good performances in the midfield the last 2 games. again you can read my mind and like to put words in my mouth. i dont recall saying we were bad midfield. ithought we were okay for the record. we are missing coughlan to a degree. the only player whos filled cogs shoes is foley. in fact i would go so far as to say wallace was forced to bring foley on early in the game because we were getting beat in the engine room. your trouble is you assume to much you think you can read peoples thoughts. not just mine but wallaces as well.

as for the 7 or 8 kids being rotated thru mid field on ball getting limited time well you must have been watching a different game to me.mids and onballers were tivendale 93 min. krakouer 102 min. tuck 92 min. polo 102 min. tambling 84min. white 85min. hyde 85 min johnson 101 min. and delidio 75 min they all got significantly more game time than foley with the exception of delidio, with arguably much less impact on the game.i see its alright for some kids to get plenty of time but its not right for foley and why because he plays onball and you dont think hes capable of playing 90 odd minutes and you dont think hes capable of playing anywhere else but in the midfield. oh and because terry thinks so to that has to make it right. i swear if wallace said worms were good for you you would be in the garden every morning with the birds digging for them.

finally foley has shown he is capable of more game time. hes shown hes not going to burn out and hes shown hes a ball magnet whose efforts all yr have shown he deserves some reward for effort. i always thought you give your better players as much time as possible and foley is one of our better onballers. but of course im sure you will find some spurious argument why we shouldnt play him and at the same time find some ridiculous reason why ray hall is irreplacable. isnt it typical of some fools they find reasons to keep good kids down while promoting the virtues of some very ordinary players.

 

[Rayzorwire]

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.

You completely dodged the initial questions.

You've dodged all the points in my last post and many more before them.

How can Foley 'spend almost all night on the best Port midfielders' when we rotated 7-8 players through the centre and Port did virtually the same? How can Foley 'spend almost all night on the best Port midfielders' when by your own admission he only spent 73 minutes on the ground?

As I've said, what you've asserted about Foley's game is impossible...

Don't you think Williams could see as well as the rest of us that Foley was the one turning the game in our favour as soon as he was on the ball? Don't you think he'd have used what he thought was his best option the try and stop him? Kornes, Salopek, Thomson, Burgonye and Surjan have been very good in the last 6 weeks and Foley was a big part of making them look pretty useless.

We had a stack of different players who won clearances as I've already shown. An opposition coach is not at this stage going to regard Foley as ahead of the likes of Tuck, Johnson, Deledio and even Tivendale (who has been important in clearances in recent weeks). As I've also said, you can't shut down everyone in the centre, so by the time Williams would have regarded Foley as hurting him at all ahead of others in the centre, the damage was mostly done. This is the sort of even midfield spread which wins games and makes finals sides - you can't shut everyone down, so someone will always end up hurting you on one of the rotations.

How can the Burgoyne's, Cornes, Salopek, Surjan and Thomson (6 players) ALL comprise a 1st string midfield? Do 6 different players (Dew and others making 7+) all start in the centre square and all follow the ball round the ground? Or are some of them 1st string midfielders given the most onball time and the others of them 2nd/3rd string midfielders?

Unless you'd like to make the argument that a side can start 7-8 players in the centre at once, then only 3 of them can by definition be 1st string midfielders and the rest are not - they come in as 2nd and 3rd rotations players. One of Port's normal 1st string midfielders was injured all game, another had his game affected by a death through the week (their two biggest clearance winners). Foley started only the 2nd quarter on the ball against what was left of Port's normal 1st string midfielders. The majority of the rest of the game he was brought on when Port were rotating their 2nd/3rd string midfielders through the centre.

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?

I give all my votes based on a player's age, experience, game time and their overall contribution. Saturday night, given all these factors, Foley was BOG IMO. As for your repetition of why Williams didn't shut him down, see above.

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.

Ah, so now in this particular instance the site you link to to base your arguments about league clearance stats (and Foley's totals) on, just happens to get it wrong to that extent...most weeks for most players, or just by pure coincidence in this one isolated instance?

Kinda throws the whole list into serious question to me when we're talking about a stat which ranges from roughly 3-7 occurrences a week and it can be out by 2 given to one player and by default, therefore taken off another player's totals...

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.

I wouldn't call an extra 10-13 minutes game time a 'large step' up, it's merely in line with what every rotation will have to do the rest of the season now we're missing Coughlan. If Coughlan gets 75+ minutes a game onball then 5 other players will have to take another ~15 mins each, or some breakdown of those figures, or we'll have to play the kids who've come in like JON or White on the ball (which isn't happening ATM). Simple maths based on who we have left and who can play in midfield.

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?

Because we rotated 7-8 players through the middle and yet you've claimed Foley 'spent almost all night on the best Port midfielders'...rather than acknowledging the truth, which is that Tuck, Johnson, Tivendale (our three regulation 1st string midfielders without Coughlan), Deledio, Tambling and Krakouer shared roughly equal, or in several cases, bigger loads.

Or is this a case of you thinking everyone here except me deserves a little politeness? Smiley

You get what you give.

Numerous times in the past I've admitted I was wrong and/or apologised to you while we're debating a point Disco, so all I was referring to is exactly the same standard of behaviour I do and have given you. I don't particularly care if you don't want to hold yourself to that same standard, but if that's your attitude towards me then IMO it's a bit much to expect me to spend hours upon hours debating with you over something so silly, when you think throwing out false accusations at me and being proven conclusively wrong doesn't warrant any further comment or any form of apology...when you apparently refuse to ever concede you're the slightest bit wrong...and that never holding anyone else (including yourself) to the same standard you demand from me is acceptable.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Re: Nathan Foley

you are either very stupid or just incapabl;e of having an honest debate. firstly what part of, on the whole wallaces handling of the list has been okay, ive never said otherwise. ive been critical of some things though, dont you understand.

The two statements are mutually exclusive. You can't say on the one hand you've never disagreed, then on the other hand say you have been critical. How simple can it be?

now the comment about not accepting we put up good performances in the midfield the last 2 games. again you can read my mind and like to put words in my mouth. i dont recall saying we were bad midfield. ithought we were okay for the record.

If you're still criticising Wallace over Foley's game time in the midfield, then you are therefore not accepting that the midfield is working as well as it can...is that correct or not? Because that's exactly what I've said.

The rest of your post amounts to nothing more than a lot of waffle about Wallace and I being 'fools' and you knowing better.

From your armchair in WA - without watching a single training session, without being on the bench during games, without knowing a damn thing about how players are handling their workload in the transition from reserves to seniors, you presume to know more about our players, their physical capabilities and direct matchup potential than our coaching staff and senior coach.

You're a very impressive man to manage all that from your armchair claw...it's not the least bit delusional of you to think you know more and could manage player game time better than the people on the spot who have all the information you totally lack.

 

[lamb22]

Got a pm from Nathan's aunt who thanks us for the support given to Nathan on this forum. Very proud auntie who gets a buzz out of wathing him play but nearly "throws up' when seeing the courageous little fella dive under packs all the time.

Cheers to Nathan (and auntie) and hopefully to more game time in future.

Lamby

 

[Disco08]

You've dodged all the points in my last post and many more before them.

How can Foley 'spend almost all night on the best Port midfielders' when we rotated 7-8 players through the centre and Port did virtually the same? How can Foley 'spend almost all night on the best Port midfielders' when by your own admission he only spent 73 minutes on the ground?

As I've said, what you've asserted about Foley's game is impossible...

Foley spends every second he's on the ground playing on the ball. Kornes, Burgoyne, Salopek & Thomson spent the vast majoity of time on the ball for Port. These are their best midfield players. Furthermore Foley won all his clearances when the game was still being decided. And further still, while he has a direct opponent, it's not only that player that is trying to win each clearance, so essentially Foley (and others playing in close) are competing with 2 or 3 other players for the hard ball gets at any one time.

You'll also note that I said "Port's best midfielders", not Port's best midfield rotation. So trying to claim that I should be limiting that tag to 3 players was a waste of time, wasn't it?

Also, isn't it pretty obvious that when I say "most of the night" that I'm referring to the time he spent on the ground?

Ah, so now in this particular instance the site you link to to base your arguments about league clearance stats (and Foley's totals) on, just happens to get it wrong to that extent...most weeks for most players, or just by pure coincidence in this one isolated instance? Smiley

Sorry, I always thought ProStats just took their data from Champion Data, but after checking their site they do in fact compile their own. My mistake.

I wouldn't call an extra 10-13 minutes game time a 'large step' up, it's merely in line with what every rotation will have to do the rest of the season now we're missing Coughlan. If Coughlan gets 75+ minutes a game onball then 5 other players will have to take another ~15 mins each, or some breakdown of those figures, or we'll have to play the kids who've come in like JON or White on the ball (which isn't happening ATM). Simple maths based on who we have left and who can play in midfield.

I'd say going from roughly 50% game time to 66% is a large step up. We'll have to agree to disagree I suppose. It'll be interesting to see if he keeps getting stretched out a bit.

Numerous times in the past I've admitted I was wrong and/or apologised to you while we're debating a point Disco, so all I was referring to is exactly the same standard of behaviour I do and have given you.

lmao. You apologised to me once (after you'd once again questioned my intelligence and I'd shown you why you were wrong) and aside from that you apologise to absolutely no-one when they disagree with you. What you do do though, is question their intelligence and do your best to belittle them. lol, that's gold.

As for continuing this agrument, I can't be bothered anymore. I'll just say that this post of yours is the one that sparked this debate and I still think it's utter rubbish (I'm not talking about the statistical errors either):

He's getting his possessions competing against the 2nd/3rd rotation midfielders generally. He's averaging ~14 touches a game at this stage and has had four single digit possession games and three 10 possession games (7 of 12 appearances in other words). If he's going missing more than every 2nd game against the 2nd/3rd midfield rotation, then IMO he's not close to starting on the ball against the 1st midfield rotation yet.

Finally, he's not seasoned enough to spend more time on the ball than he already is.

You see, if, IYO, Foley is getting his stats generally against the 2nd and 3rd midfield rotations, then so is every other midfielder in the game because while there are rotations, the best onballers spend far greater amounts of time there. They don't just take off all their good players when Foley comes on. So why even make the distinction?

 

[Ghost of Punt Road]

I got footywire to change his listed age back down from 25 to 20. He is not allowed to buy alcohol in the US any more ;D

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_rankings?rt=RA

Now he gets ranked in the 'rising stars' section, and is number 13 and climbing

 

[Anduril]

You sure are one committed President GHW :clap :clap

 

[Ghost of Punt Road]

Committed?

Yes I should be

 

[the claw]

Re: Nathan Foley

you are either very stupid or just incapabl;e of having an honest debate. firstly what part of, on the whole wallaces handling of the list has been okay, ive never said otherwise. ive been critical of some things though, dont you understand.

The two statements are mutually exclusive. You can't say on the one hand you've never disagreed, then on the other hand say you have been critical. How simple can it be?

now the comment about not accepting we put up good performances in the midfield the last 2 games.  again you can read my mind and like to put words in my mouth. i dont recall saying we were bad midfield. ithought we were okay for the record. 

If you're still criticising Wallace over Foley's game time in the midfield, then you are therefore not accepting that the midfield is working as well as it can...is that correct or not? Because that's exactly what I've said.

The rest of your post amounts to nothing more than a lot of waffle about Wallace and I being 'fools' and you knowing better.

From your armchair in WA - without watching a single training session, without being on the bench during games, without knowing a damn thing about how players are handling their workload in the transition from reserves to seniors, you presume to know more about our players, their physical capabilities and direct matchup potential than our coaching staff and senior coach.

You're a very impressive man to manage all that from your armchair claw...it's not the least bit delusional of you to think you know more and could manage player game time better than the people on the spot who have all the information you totally lack. 

ah when all else fails throw up the coach and staff know better excuse its so funny my sides are aching.
and your assuing things again. you know nothing about me and have even less of a clue about what knowledge i have or dont have about players. i find it very hard to debate with fools and know it alls of which you are both. and like disco i to cant be bothered with you anymore.

 

[Ian4]

Looks like Plough is developing yet another player.

I reckon he could be developing a Tiger version of a Libba.

don't ever put down axel like that!!!

who decides on the rising star nominations? because if he doesn't get it this week there will be an abusive email from myself heading in someone's direction this week. i'm also gonna email the SEN soapbox and white line fever

How are things down in Altona this morning Ian Thorpe ?

what they read out my email?? ;D which show? i've been too busy to listen to SEN or white line ferver the past 36 hours

 

[Rayzorwire]

Foley spends every second he's on the ground playing on the ball.

Yet earlier you said...

He's not spending all his ~60 mins on the ball either

That just makes his ability to win clearances even more impressive.

...

Also, considering that the best midfielders play in the middle, as Foley mostly does...

"Every second"...or "mostly"...or just change your position back and forth to whichever suits best?

Kornes, Burgoyne, Salopek & Thomson spent the vast majoity of time on the ball for Port. These are their best midfield players.

There you go again Disco - I know you understand what I'm talking about, you just refuse to acknowledge it. Both the Burgoyne's top the PA clearances. Including the other players you've listed, how can five different players "spent the vast majoity of time on the ball for Port?"

If only three can be in the centre at one time, they can't all spend "the vast majoity of time on the ball for Port." Some of them are 2nd stringers...which has been my point all along.

You'll also note that I said "Port's best midfielders", not Port's best midfield rotation. So trying to claim that I should be limiting that tag to 3 players was a waste of time, wasn't it?

You've complained that I said Foley won a lot of his clearances against the 2nd and 3rd string midfielders because apparently you think it's some sort of put down - it's not, it means he's beating or competing well against the players he should be mostly up against. My argument all along has been that by definition there can only be three first string midfielders...while you'd apparently like to include every Port midfielder bar Dew.

Also, isn't it pretty obvious that when I say "most of the night" that I'm referring to the time he spent on the ground?

No, "most of the night" means most of the game in most people's book I would have thought. Anyway...

lmao. You apologised to me once (after you'd once again questioned my intelligence and I'd shown you why you were wrong) and aside from that you apologise to absolutely no-one when they disagree with you. What you do do though, is question their intelligence and do your best to belittle them. lol, that's gold.

No Disco, I apologised because I'd attributed posts to you concerning Hall which you hadn't made, had nothing to do with questioning your intelligence. The only time I've made any comment about anyone's intelligence is after they've already done exactly that to me first - much as claw has done on this thread and continues to do. I figure if someone wants to hand it out then they've set the tone for the discussion and I can therefore also just speak my mind without needing to worry overly much about being polite. On one occasion (with Jonno) I came back too hard at him in the to and fro and apologised for doing so.

As for me never admitting I'm wrong, you might refresh your memory as to the discussion we had about where Thorpe would go in the draft, and the conversation I had with lamb on this thread where he points out that I'd wrongly included Foley's last season stats in my assessment - for just two recent examples of many. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong or out of my depth (as in the Thorpe case) - it's the honest thing to do and there's little point to me in arguing a demonstrably wrong position weakly.

You only ever seem to read and remember things which confirm to you the decision you made about my online persona long ago, disregarding or ignoring everything else which contradicts your opinion. Not much I can do about that really...except point out you're wrong and no doubt have that ignored as well.

You see, if, IYO, Foley is getting his stats generally against the 2nd and 3rd midfield rotations, then so is every other midfielder in the game because while there are rotations, the best onballers spend far greater amounts of time there. They don't just take off all their good players when Foley comes on. So why even make the distinction?

Because there should be a distinction. I don't hear you or anyone else giving Dew a massive rap for winning six clearances on Saturday night mostly against our young 2nd and 3rd string midfielders. Same reasons why not should apply to Foley - the big difference between their performances and mine and others rating of them was their respective ages and experience in the centre...the other criterion - against who - should still apply. It applied less on Saturday night than it has in past games from Foley (which was when I made that statement), but it still applied nevertheless.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Re: Nathan Foley

ah when all else fails throw up the coach and staff know better excuse its so funny my sides are aching.
and your assuing things again. you know nothing about me and have even less of a clue about what knowledge i have or dont have about players. i find it very hard to debate with fools and know it alls of which you are both. and like disco i to cant be bothered with you anymore.

You're right claw, I know nothing about you, but I'd be willing to bet the farm that you know infinitely less about Foley's physical capabilities regarding game time, how he pulls up after a run on the ball, after a game and after training, and who he's capable of matching up on at this stage of his career, than Wallace and the coaching staff do.

As I said before, you're downright delusional to think you know about the above than the coaching staff who work with Foley virtually every day.

Is Wallace a 'know it all' too now...or just a 'fool' when his football knowledge and player management skills are compared to yours?

 

[Shers]

Even though Razorwire loves Razor more than he may sometimes justify, since 12am today (last 45 minutes) he's made some good points which I can't fault.
And even though I don't think he's the best CHB going around (not that I am suggesting Razorwire is suggesting this either), I've met Ray and he's a lovely bloke, and, importantly, for the money he's on, he's doing a pretty good job, and tries his best.
I know that last comment sounds soft, but all you Ray haters, bring up some players who do better than he does who are on the same money he is, or less.

 

[Shers]

And I've also realised that I've commented on Ray Hall on an Axel thread, for which I apologise, and I'll try not to do again.

 

[GoodOne]

Nice article in today's Melbourne Sun about Foley (in case it hasnt been mentioned before)

 

[Disco08]

Sorry, I know I said I was done arguing, but one last go.

"Every second"...or "mostly"...or just change your position back and forth to whichever suits best?

nitpick, nitpick. What difference does it make?

There you go again Disco - I know you understand what I'm talking about, you just refuse to acknowledge it. Both the Burgoyne's top the PA clearances. Including the other players you've listed, how can five different players "spent the vast majoity of time on the ball for Port?"

If only three can be in the centre at one time, they can't all spend "the vast majoity of time on the ball for Port." Some of them are 2nd stringers...which has been my point all along.

A game has 120 minutes (for argument's sake). Three players play on the ball at any one time, which makes 360 minutes. If four players between them spend 320+ minutes on the ball, that's a vast majoity right? In alot of cases, the 3 starting on ballers will spend between 90 and 100 minutes on the ball. Yet Foley doesn't generally get his clearances against them somehow?

Just because a team can only start 3 players on the ball does not mean that the players who do not start on the ball are lesser players. In fact, often the contrary is true because a tagger may start in the middle, or a team may keep a midfielder back to have fresh legs later in quarters where more damage can be done against tired legs. There are many teams with 4 or 5 (or more) on ballers who are top shelf. In some cases you could say one team's 5th or 6th best on baller is better than another team's 2nd best on baller.

You've complained that I said Foley won a lot of his clearances against the 2nd and 3rd string midfielders because apparently you think it's some sort of put down - it's not, it means he's beating or competing well against the players he should be mostly up against. My argument all along has been that by definition there can only be three first string midfielders...while you'd apparently like to include every Port midfielder bar Dew.

You're devaluing his clearance stats by saying he generally doesn't win them against the other team's best players and are drawing your conclusion that he's not ready to start on the ball on that, which, as I said, I think is absolute rubbish.

And I didn't inlcude Dew becuase he spent very little time, if any, starting in the centre square.

No, "most of the night" means most of the game in most people's book I would have thought. Anyway... Smiley

You know that I know Foley was on the ground for 73 minutes becuase it's been talked about in this thread. I'd say armed with that information everyone would know exactly what I was referring to.

I don't hear you or anyone else giving Dew a massive rap for winning six clearances on Saturday night

Funny that. I barrack for Richmond.

the big difference between their performances and mine and others rating of them was their respective ages and experience in the centre...the other criterion - against who - should still apply.

I'd say most people who gave Foley votes for his game against Port were doing so because they could see his influence on the game and the damage he was doing not only by winning the hard ball and getting his team moving but also with his disposal. I would guess that not one person considered the fact that Foley was younger and less experienced (He's older than two of his direct opponents, Salopek and Thomson btw).

Because there should be a distinction.

Why? As I've pointed out, despite rotations the best on ballers play the majority of the game on the ball. And becuase of rotations all on ballers are going to face the 2nd and 3rd string rotations at some point during a game, and win clearances against them. If you make the distinction for Foley you have to make it for everyone else, in which case it's ridiculous to make a distinction.