deledio3 said:
No, I'm one of the biggest Tambling fans you'll ever see. I'm not the most biased supporter going around that's for sure.
-
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.
Tambling (merged)
- Thread starter nut
- Start date
No, I'm one of the biggest Tambling fans you'll ever see. I'm not the most biased supporter going around that's for sure.
Disco08 said:
Because he doesn't have the smarts, composure, awareness and clean hands to be a consistently effective inside ball winner. A consistent effective ball winner isn't just about going in hard, it's about being aware of your surroundings, being able to read the fall of the ball, and being composed in the heat of battle so you don't (a) lose your feet (b) get pushed off the ball, and (c) fumble the ball. You also need to have the vision, awreness and skill level to effectively dispose of the contested ball.
Going off on a tangent here.
It's about the ability to improvise when you are being tackled and scragged to the ground. Do you panic and hold onto the ball while being tackled so it's not turned over or do you look through the corner of your eye, and quickly dish off to something that looks yellow and black? It's also about having clean enough and quick enough hands to perform this.
Too many times, the likes of Tambling, Tuck, Jackson, Johnson and Raines etc. either fumble the ball in tight when going for it, or hold onto it like a vice once they get a grip on it. As a result the ball is either fumbled away or our man is brought to the ground with ball in his hands. You need to have strong, yet soft hands, to be able to one-grab and quickly dish off. None of our so-called on-ballers, besides Foley are anywhere near good enough in this area of inside midfield work. Coughlan is up to standard, but he has other areas that let him down.
This is the area of most concern at our club and Tambling is not the answer. We are living in hope if we think he will develop into a top class AFL standard inside midfielder and our time would be better spent looking and developing kids that possess the abilities described above.
Harry said:
Very few players have all these qualities from the day they first play AFL. Tambling is actually doing pretty well in tight given this is his first real extended go at it since he was drafted. The bigger problem right now seems to me to be his tendency to waste some of his kicks when under no pressure at all.
CptJonno2Madcow2005 said:
Excellent, you sound like a person who payed attention to Tambling's game and in that first half he was dominated by Pendelbury especially in the centre bounces. It's all about 'learning' and that's what Tambling is doing, he doesn't need to be on steroids to bulk up to push the opposition away. He needs to use his footy smarts to out manouvre his opponents. He did well in that second half and IIRC O'Bree had the job on him and Tambling did much better.
You're a great observer of the game CJM2005. Tambling is developing slowly and will be a better player in years to come, that's when I'll open and start chewing a few on here who have been bagging Tambling from day one, actually I can't wait.
Disco08 said:
All of what Harry just said....PLUS because he hasn't got the CONSISTENT abilities that Harry said for a start he cannot even use his SIZE to cause some damage in the middle.
For his size....his age...to gain some more experience...and to use one of his assets (his pace), then the wing is the place to play Bling.
At least then we are not having to rely on him to be consistent to get it out of the middle, to hold tackles, etc...as there is more freedom out on the wing and if he can work hard enough and run into space to provide options for our half-back line when coming out of defence, then that might also give us a link-up player that we didn't have on the weekend, and why we had such a high handpass-to-kick ratio.
Bling isn't a "physical" player and doesn't have the demeanour to be one....so horses for courses....and start playing players in positions that best benefit them and the TEAM. (see Lids starting on the forward line as well when he should be in the middle in place of Bling!
)
Hancho said:
As a long term Bling supporter I’ve already planned what my avatar will say when Bling finally starts to dominate.
Of course step one of that plan is Bling finally starting to dominate
Liverpool said:
None of Harry's subjective musing had anything at all to do with his size, which as I've said is equal to or more than any number of consistently good inside midfielders.
So, again, why is his size alone going to restrict him from becoming this type of player?
Harry said:
Cracking post Harry.
The above is in a nutshell why Leysy's never (unfortunately) held out much hope for Tambling becoming a bonafide AFL player.
Some guys just have that innate balance, vision & poise, some haven't. It's also something that can't be taught.
Until (hopefully) guys like Collins, Connors, Cotchin, Deledio & maybe Edwards who do have good degrees of the above attributes mature & join Foley in the midfield we will be strugglers in this league.
Disco08 said:
I know it didn't...that why I used the word "PLUS" in my first sentence....something you conveniently left out when you quoted my sentence.
And I've never said 'size alone'....but I think it is the most important factor when talking about a player who isn't consistent in the middle and lacks in other areas that are required in the midfield.
I also think because I think that Bling shouldn't be in the middle means I am bagging the bloke.
Not at all....I think he has some good qualities but those qualities (like his pace and flashy skills) are better served out on a wing where he can utilise them.
The people I am bagging are the recruiters who continually draft small-framed players that will never dominate in the middle....and to top it off, they draft them in the top-10!
The other person I will bag is Wallace for wasting what talents Bling has by not using him in a position that he show his talents and help the team.
I am NOT bagging Bling.
Disco08 said:
Hope he's proven wrong duckman, but afraid leysy doesn't.
Hold out more hope for the 5 guys mentioned in my post to be honest. 4 of which have been drafted in the past 2 years by Jackson which is at least something promising about our list ILO.
Disco08 said:
I would have thought that after gaining Lids in that draft that surely an excellent tall would have been the way to go with their next pick....not a player that is best suited out on a wing.
The difference between our recruiters and other teams recruiters seems to be the short-sighted approach we take.
Because someone stars in junior footy then they think they will automatically star in senior footy....without looking at, have they reached close to their body mass already while other juniors still have room to get bigger and stronger?
Take a look at that Shane Edwards article again where they say this:
Edwards, who arrived at the Punt Road, Melbourne-based club with a slightly built 67kg frame, has worked hard to build up his lean body, adding 9kg already and looking to continue his work in the gym until he weighs 80kg.
Gee, Dal Santo, Hodge, Cross, Judd, etc must be shaking in their boots at this bloke getting all the way up to 80kg... :hihi
Again....another top-30 pick wasted on a small-framed player who will play his best footy off a half-back flank.
But back to Bling.....to me, a top-10 pick should be someone that we should develop to either be a Brownlow Medal chance in the future or at least an All-Australian chance.
This shows that our pick has been worthwhile and we made a correct choice.
Can you see Bling being a Brownlow Medal of All-Australian midfielder???
Fair dinkum some of you blokes are a joke. One of Blings innate abilities is his manoeuvrability. It is not his speed or his size but his vision that lets him down. He is probably our best lateral mover since Tourney. But his ability to sum up the ground in front of him and see where he needs to go with the ball will come in time. Like many of our young mids what he needs is senior players and bigger bodies to put themselves on the line to create space for him and Foley and Lids etc to go to work.
Disco08 said:
Personally no. Of course I hope I'm wrong, but if I was a betting man I'd say no. Football smarts, awareness and composure are areas which are difficult to greatly improve IMO. As the old saying goes you either got it or you don't. Let's put more energy and resources into kids that have got it. I'd much rather see we place more focus onto Connors for an inside mid role, cos I think he's definately got it if he can get fully fit.
I'm not writing off Tambling and think he can be servicable on a flank and a deep forward, but don't think he's an answer to our midfield woes.
Liverpool said:
I seem to remember a 79kg Kerr flattening Daniel Cross once after giving him a bath for most of the game. I don't think he was laughing as they stretchered him off.
Liverpool said:
Yep, it's that easy. That's why there's 100 potential Brownlow and AA players running around every year, not to mention the smokies picked up later in their respective drafts.
Liverpool said:
Who knows? If his current performance is say 70% of what he's capable of producing when he reaches his prime, then yep, he can possibly be that good. That's the thing about developing players though Livers, you have to let them develop before you know what you've got. Very often they can look like nothing at all and then all of a sudden something clicks and they're dominating. There's no exact science to it or golden rules other than giving them every opportunity to learn what they need to learn at the pace they need to learn it.
Liverpool said:
Well as long as you are starting with realistic expectations.
Lets see, there are 22 All Australians a year... Based on a average ten year career for a top ten pick (they dont average that but you seem to have a lot of faith in high picks) that means there are 100 top 10 picks in the AFL at any one time. That means that even if the All-Australian team is exclusively made up of high picks, only one in five of top picks in the AFL at any one time are all-Australians.
