-
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
Ghost of Punt Road
Tiger Champion
Re: Nathan Foley
I love watching him hurl opposition thugs three times his size into the fence... :clap
I love watching him hurl opposition thugs three times his size into the fence... :clap
Re: Nathan Foley
Keep telling yourself that MB and then keep making a goose out of yourself with your impeccable player critiques :spin :rofl
mb64 said:And no thanks for your imput Lamb.Nonsense as always.lamb22 said:mb64 said:
Another battler like Hyde hey! At least he's not a dud like Pettifer. Thanks for your input Molly Briggs
Keep telling yourself that MB and then keep making a goose out of yourself with your impeccable player critiques :spin :rofl
Re: Nathan Foley
This coming from someone who labelled Rory an elite player.lamb22 said:mb64 said:And no thanks for your imput Lamb.Nonsense as always.lamb22 said:mb64 said:
Another battler like Hyde hey! At least he's not a dud like Pettifer. Thanks for your input Molly Briggs
Keep telling yourself that MB and then keep making a goose out of yourself with your impeccable player critiques :spin :rofl
Re: Nathan Foley
Ha Ha nice try - but didn't your mother tell you good boys shouldn't lie.
mb64 said:This coming from someone who labelled Rory an elite player.lamb22 said:mb64 said:And no thanks for your imput Lamb.Nonsense as always.lamb22 said:mb64 said:
Another battler like Hyde hey! At least he's not a dud like Pettifer. Thanks for your input Molly Briggs
Keep telling yourself that MB and then keep making a goose out of yourself with your impeccable player critiques :spin :rofl
Ha Ha nice try - but didn't your mother tell you good boys shouldn't lie.
Re: Nathan Foley
My mother told me not to read the rubbish you post.lamb22 said:mb64 said:This coming from someone who labelled Rory an elite player.lamb22 said:mb64 said:And no thanks for your imput Lamb.Nonsense as always.lamb22 said:mb64 said:
Another battler like Hyde hey! At least he's not a dud like Pettifer. Thanks for your input Molly Briggs
Keep telling yourself that MB and then keep making a goose out of yourself with your impeccable player critiques :spin :rofl
Ha Ha nice try - but didn't your mother tell you good boys shouldn't lie.
Re: Nathan Foley
Why dont you listen to her ?
mb64 said:My mother told me not to read the rubbish you post.lamb22 said:mb64 said:This coming from someone who labelled Rory an elite player.lamb22 said:mb64 said:And no thanks for your imput Lamb.Nonsense as always.lamb22 said:mb64 said:
Another battler like Hyde hey! At least he's not a dud like Pettifer. Thanks for your input Molly Briggs
Keep telling yourself that MB and then keep making a goose out of yourself with your impeccable player critiques :spin :rofl
Ha Ha nice try - but didn't your mother tell you good boys shouldn't lie.
Why dont you listen to her ?
Re: Nathan Foley
I should of on this occaision.lamb22 said:mb64 said:My mother told me not to read the rubbish you post.lamb22 said:Ha Ha nice try - but didn't your mother tell you good boys shouldn't lie.mb64 said:This coming from someone who labelled Rory an elite player.lamb22 said:mb64 said:And no thanks for your imput Lamb.Nonsense as always.lamb22 said:mb64 said:
Another battler like Hyde hey! At least he's not a dud like Pettifer. Thanks for your input Molly Briggs
Keep telling yourself that MB and then keep making a goose out of yourself with your impeccable player critiques :spin :rofl
Why dont you listen to her ?
Re: Nathan Foley
thats a good idea evo a starting 18 mostly under 24 sounds terrific to me. and evo if you think 50 to 60 minutes game time is adequate well im shocked. we have 3 blokes imo who CONSISTENTLY win the ball for us inside, one of them in cogs is gone. I dont expect the weeble to get 120 min tog but i would of thought 80 to 90 minutes is reasonable.evo said:
Re: Nathan Foley
No it's not obvious Disco, for all the reasons I've posted already...and no, his fitness won't allow it. If it did, Wallace may give him the time with Coughlan out. Instead he's putting some of the responsibility for covering Coughlan onto Tivendale and Johnson (who both stepped up and did the job last week), then sharing the rest between a number of players. He's doing so because they have the mature bodies that can cope with the workload. Rather than assuming Wallace and the coaching staff have somehow simply missed how great Foley is, how about accepting the reasoning behind their wise decision to limit his game time?
There hasn't been any strange voodoo magic behind our 2nd half season fadeouts in recent years...it's been a simple case of not having the midfield players needed to do so, and therefore putting too big a load on some players. By the halfway point of the season they're knackered and more often than not carrying soreness and injuries into each game - the end results of this problem speak for themselves. This year we'll hopefully have managed players well enough so that all of them can run out a season at the level required for us to be successful. Foley is part of why we are doing better at it this year and we're managing him so he won't be dead on his feet by round 15-16...he'll be able to tackle the last few games at his best and do so into the finals if we get that far. He's not ready to carry the midfield on his shoulders - Coughlan still wasn't last year (let alone 2004) and I half suspect we went a long way toward stuffing Johnson's body expecting him to do it in 2004.
There's a few I wouldn't have from that list either because their wage doesn't come close to matching their consistent output, or their clearance stats are irrelevant when the quality of those disposals is analysed carefully. Foley's contribution has been valuable, but he's not close to playing starting rover yet - he's probably 2 seasons away from being physically capable. A full game at Coburg is played at a very different pace against very different opposition...it's a huge difference for an onball player...as is the step up between limited game time against select opponents and starting on the ball with major game time against the best in the business.
Disco08 said:
No it's not obvious Disco, for all the reasons I've posted already...and no, his fitness won't allow it. If it did, Wallace may give him the time with Coughlan out. Instead he's putting some of the responsibility for covering Coughlan onto Tivendale and Johnson (who both stepped up and did the job last week), then sharing the rest between a number of players. He's doing so because they have the mature bodies that can cope with the workload. Rather than assuming Wallace and the coaching staff have somehow simply missed how great Foley is, how about accepting the reasoning behind their wise decision to limit his game time?
There hasn't been any strange voodoo magic behind our 2nd half season fadeouts in recent years...it's been a simple case of not having the midfield players needed to do so, and therefore putting too big a load on some players. By the halfway point of the season they're knackered and more often than not carrying soreness and injuries into each game - the end results of this problem speak for themselves. This year we'll hopefully have managed players well enough so that all of them can run out a season at the level required for us to be successful. Foley is part of why we are doing better at it this year and we're managing him so he won't be dead on his feet by round 15-16...he'll be able to tackle the last few games at his best and do so into the finals if we get that far. He's not ready to carry the midfield on his shoulders - Coughlan still wasn't last year (let alone 2004) and I half suspect we went a long way toward stuffing Johnson's body expecting him to do it in 2004.
Disco08 said:
There's a few I wouldn't have from that list either because their wage doesn't come close to matching their consistent output, or their clearance stats are irrelevant when the quality of those disposals is analysed carefully. Foley's contribution has been valuable, but he's not close to playing starting rover yet - he's probably 2 seasons away from being physically capable. A full game at Coburg is played at a very different pace against very different opposition...it's a huge difference for an onball player...as is the step up between limited game time against select opponents and starting on the ball with major game time against the best in the business.
Ghost of Punt Road
Tiger Champion
Re: Nathan Foley
He needs to play more than half a game. Rising star nominations are not given for 3-4 clearances and 15 posessions.
In the same week some other kid who played the entire game will get 22 posessions.
From watching Nathan at Coburg last year, he really doesn't have instinct to go for goal. In games with over 40 posessions he didn't kick a point. That said, when he is near goals he has all the tools he needs to be a resting forward pocket.
Maybe if he developed his forward skills he could stay on field longer?
Ian4 said:
He needs to play more than half a game. Rising star nominations are not given for 3-4 clearances and 15 posessions.
In the same week some other kid who played the entire game will get 22 posessions.
From watching Nathan at Coburg last year, he really doesn't have instinct to go for goal. In games with over 40 posessions he didn't kick a point. That said, when he is near goals he has all the tools he needs to be a resting forward pocket.
Maybe if he developed his forward skills he could stay on field longer?
Re: Nathan Foley
Rayzor, if you look at what I've said I agree that it's probably Foley's fitness that is stopping him from playing more. I've said it in nearly every post
I've made on the subject. What I totally disagree with is the assertion by you that Foley is somehow getting these phenomenal stats by not having to oppose the top players. Most teams (except maybe Carlton, Essendon and North) have their top midfielders in the game and on the ball for at least 90 minutes. So if Foley is playing on the ball for 60+ minutes, how are they avoiding eachother? I also disagree that his numbers won't increase relative to the amount of time he spends on the ground. In the next few years I doubt very much, with the likes of Tuck, Coughlan, Deledio, Hyde, Tambling etc all moving through our midfield that Foley is likely to be the main target of a team's attention.
Do you think if he played say 90 minutes (again, IF HIS FITNESS ALLOWS IT) that his output would increase roughly 50%?
Those players' salaries are irrelevent, except to illustrate how valuable Foley is when he's capable of ranking alongside them in one of the most crucial catagories in today's game at a fraction of the cost. Btw, whose wages don't match their output IYO?
Again, care to name which ones? You'll die defending Ray Hall's disposal but deem these players clearance stats irrelevant because of poor disposal. LMAO.
Rayzor, if you look at what I've said I agree that it's probably Foley's fitness that is stopping him from playing more. I've said it in nearly every post
I've made on the subject. What I totally disagree with is the assertion by you that Foley is somehow getting these phenomenal stats by not having to oppose the top players. Most teams (except maybe Carlton, Essendon and North) have their top midfielders in the game and on the ball for at least 90 minutes. So if Foley is playing on the ball for 60+ minutes, how are they avoiding eachother? I also disagree that his numbers won't increase relative to the amount of time he spends on the ground. In the next few years I doubt very much, with the likes of Tuck, Coughlan, Deledio, Hyde, Tambling etc all moving through our midfield that Foley is likely to be the main target of a team's attention.
Do you think if he played say 90 minutes (again, IF HIS FITNESS ALLOWS IT) that his output would increase roughly 50%?
Rayzorwire said:
Those players' salaries are irrelevent, except to illustrate how valuable Foley is when he's capable of ranking alongside them in one of the most crucial catagories in today's game at a fraction of the cost. Btw, whose wages don't match their output IYO?
Rayzorwire said:
Again, care to name which ones? You'll die defending Ray Hall's disposal but deem these players clearance stats irrelevant because of poor disposal. LMAO.
Re: Nathan Foley
He is quickly becomming my favorite player his clearance work is very good I think when we have Foley, Tuck & Johnson in the middle hard to see us losing a clearance. Might turn into the Flea mark 2.
He is quickly becomming my favorite player his clearance work is very good I think when we have Foley, Tuck & Johnson in the middle hard to see us losing a clearance. Might turn into the Flea mark 2.
Re: Nathan Foley
Ok, must have been everyone else making the case for further ground time for Foley based on his stats, and you just making a case based on his stats as to his worth...which is something I've never challenged. What I've said with regard to his stats is that his matchups where he's winning the ball are invariably on 2nd/3rd rotation midfielders - which is true. As often as possible he's thrown into the centre when the top opposition midfielders are resting. We generally rest ours when they rest theirs as do most teams. And as I said, he's not spending all his time onball.
I've never said his numbers won't increase, just that at this stage they won't double as some seem to think (even though his fitness makes this a completely hypothetical situation). Never said that he will be the main focus of attention either, merely that IF he becomes a prolific ball winning inside mid starting in our first rotation he'll face a lot more scrutiny than what he currently gets. Both Tuck and Coughlan have struggled with that type of attention...players spend a little while at first under the radar, then if they are playing well they end up bringing more attention on themselves - provided their disposal is generally up to scratch. If it isn't then the opposition gives them as much ball as they can win and just waits for them to cough it up. Whether or not a side is able to cover ALL our midfield options will count a long way towards our success in years to come...that's what makes a premiership contender midfield...the opposition can't tag/smother/beat everyone at once.
Not at the moment, no...but again, part of that is fitness, part of it is when he's getting most of his clearances ATM.
Salaries are not at all irrelevant to me when you make the assumption that I would jump at having all those players in our side...unless you want to just ignore the fact that they come with a price tag. What I said was that a few of those players are overpaid OR their disposal makes how many clearances they get not necessarily a plus.
Overpaid for genuine output:
Stevens
Hasleby
A few others are very borderline but I'm trying to put the rating in context of their last couple of seasons and not just this one (e.g. Jason Johnson just for starters).
Lack of quality disposal largely overriding clearance stat worth:
Scotland
Vandenberg
Holland
Bentick
McGough
Again a few others are borderline. Haven't included any ruckmen for obvious reasons.
I didn't say they are irrelevant, just saying that these players are not necessarily as valuable as the raw stats suggest - a common problem with stats - because a number of these 'clearances' end up in the opposition's attack shortly afterwards. I've never been anything but candid regarding Hall's disposal, I just try and put it into context with his wider worth rather than hang him for his errors. Like most big men he's not a good standing spot kick to a 20-30m target, but with that I (unlike many) also recognise he can kick a very accurate 55m+ pass when he's on the run which is not common among players his size. On top of that his handball has improved a lot since his early years...but there again, he can have 10/1 effective and still be hung for the one by some...these are the things I take issue with.
Disco08 said:
Ok, must have been everyone else making the case for further ground time for Foley based on his stats, and you just making a case based on his stats as to his worth...which is something I've never challenged. What I've said with regard to his stats is that his matchups where he's winning the ball are invariably on 2nd/3rd rotation midfielders - which is true. As often as possible he's thrown into the centre when the top opposition midfielders are resting. We generally rest ours when they rest theirs as do most teams. And as I said, he's not spending all his time onball.
Disco08 said:
I've never said his numbers won't increase, just that at this stage they won't double as some seem to think (even though his fitness makes this a completely hypothetical situation). Never said that he will be the main focus of attention either, merely that IF he becomes a prolific ball winning inside mid starting in our first rotation he'll face a lot more scrutiny than what he currently gets. Both Tuck and Coughlan have struggled with that type of attention...players spend a little while at first under the radar, then if they are playing well they end up bringing more attention on themselves - provided their disposal is generally up to scratch. If it isn't then the opposition gives them as much ball as they can win and just waits for them to cough it up. Whether or not a side is able to cover ALL our midfield options will count a long way towards our success in years to come...that's what makes a premiership contender midfield...the opposition can't tag/smother/beat everyone at once.
Disco08 said:
Not at the moment, no...but again, part of that is fitness, part of it is when he's getting most of his clearances ATM.
Disco08 said:
Salaries are not at all irrelevant to me when you make the assumption that I would jump at having all those players in our side...unless you want to just ignore the fact that they come with a price tag. What I said was that a few of those players are overpaid OR their disposal makes how many clearances they get not necessarily a plus.
Overpaid for genuine output:
Stevens
Hasleby
A few others are very borderline but I'm trying to put the rating in context of their last couple of seasons and not just this one (e.g. Jason Johnson just for starters).
Lack of quality disposal largely overriding clearance stat worth:
Scotland
Vandenberg
Holland
Bentick
McGough
Again a few others are borderline. Haven't included any ruckmen for obvious reasons.
Disco08 said:
I didn't say they are irrelevant, just saying that these players are not necessarily as valuable as the raw stats suggest - a common problem with stats - because a number of these 'clearances' end up in the opposition's attack shortly afterwards. I've never been anything but candid regarding Hall's disposal, I just try and put it into context with his wider worth rather than hang him for his errors. Like most big men he's not a good standing spot kick to a 20-30m target, but with that I (unlike many) also recognise he can kick a very accurate 55m+ pass when he's on the run which is not common among players his size. On top of that his handball has improved a lot since his early years...but there again, he can have 10/1 effective and still be hung for the one by some...these are the things I take issue with.
