The Potential Trading Of McMahon | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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.

The Potential Trading Of McMahon

Tigerbob said:
To put it in perspective, what is the tackling rates of Key position players to smalls?

I think to compare McMahon to three Key Position players is very cheeky and making stats favor your argument.

McMahon avoids physical contact. Those three guys welcome it. I fail to see how we can compare these players. ???
How is it cheeky?

I compared them because of comments like yours highlighted above. Posters love to heap praise on McGuane and Moore in particular for their apparent love of the physical stuff and yet a bloke like McMahon who is accused of being soft and a squib when it comes to physical contact averaged more tackles per game.

How can that be the case? Either McGuane and Moore aren't as hard at it as most of us like to think or McMahon isn't as soft as most of us like to believe. It has to be one or the other.
 
Tigers_06 said:
How is it cheeky?

I compared them because of comments like yours highlighted above. Posters love to heap praise on McGuane and Moore in particular for their apparent love of the physical stuff and yet a bloke like McMahon who is accused of being soft and a squib when it comes to physical contact averaged more tackles per game.

How can that be the case? Either McGuane and Moore aren't as hard at it as most of us like to think or McMahon isn't as soft as most of us like to believe. It has to be one or the other.

Physical contact and endeavour isn't limited to tackling.
 
From watching the games it's obvious McMahon doesn't avoid contact - he just isn't very strong so his attempts at the physical stuff are generally ineffective.
 
Disco08 said:
From watching the games it's obvious McMahon doesn't avoid contact - he just isn't very strong so his attempts at the physical stuff are generally ineffective.

He avoids it Disco by sitting off packs and not putting himself in the nitty gritty of packs and clearances. And that is not a knock on him, most guys his size do.
 
SCOOP said:
He avoids it Disco by sitting off packs and not putting himself in the nitty gritty of packs and clearances. And that is not a knock on him, most guys his size do.

Or more accurately most guys playing his role do. You need outsiders just as much as you need insiders. McMahon will go in for the tackle or the hardball if it's his turn (even though this is quite rare), the results just aren't any good usually.
 
Col.W.Kurtz said:
I've seen him bounce ineffectively off plenty of players too.

No more or less than any other Richmond player I've seen tackling. Front on is the hardest tackle of all.
 
Disco08 said:
From watching the games it's obvious McMahon doesn't avoid contact - he just isn't very strong so his attempts at the physical stuff are generally ineffective.

Actually I watched him exclusively as an experiment from time to time and for 15mins in one game I saw him basically moving into the fat side of the ground, away from both the ball and the opposition at every opportunity. It looked as though he would happily have been in the 10th row if he could get there. That is not the kind of game you can get away with unless the few touches you do get are of such polish and brilliance as to forgive your avoidance of contact or negative pressure the rest of the time. If his much hyped kicking skills were anywhere near the level we had all been told then this might just be acceptable. But he turns it over too. He's not Robinson Crusoe on that score, but he is supposed to be a stand out in that area.
 
KnightersRevenge said:
Actually I watched him exclusively as an experiment from time to time and for 15mins in one game I saw him basically moving into the fat side of the ground, away from both the ball and the opposition at every opportunity. It looked as though he would happily have been in the 10th row if he could get there. That is not the kind of game you can get away with

Teams switch play from one side to the other all the time, it makes sense for McMahon to be the player to be in space on the far side.
 
IanG said:
Teams switch play from one side to the other all the time, it makes sense for McMahon to be the player to be in space on the far side.

Why does it make sense for McMahon to be that player?
 
SCOOP said:
Why does it make sense for McMahon to be that player?

I would have thought that was self evident, he's a fast runner and yes his delivery can let him down but if he's in space its OK. Don't get me wrong I want McMahon gone but there are some aspects of the game he's suited to.
 
we won't get any picks for any of our players - mcmahon, raines or tuck. we'll just have to use our draft picks in the 80's and 90's.
 
Harry said:
we won't get any picks for any of our players - mcmahon, raines or tuck. we'll just have to use our draft picks in the 80's and 90's.

Thought Raines was basically a done deal. Dont ruin my day and tell me thats not the case.
 
GoodOne said:
Thought Raines was basically a done deal. Dont ruin my day and tell me thats not the case.

They'll go cold on him once Rawlings and McRae give them their thoughts
 
saints got a first hand look at what it takes to win a flag. any thoughts of taking a softie like mcmahon went out the window last saturday.
 
this thread has turned bin and should be locked. why are we even bothering to debate mcmahon? he's a dud, he's a squib, he's bin. even the man defending him (tigers_06) is advocating he be dumped. let's stop debating his ability and just hope to hell we can find a way to offload him.
 
I agree with Ian, but it's not his perceived 'softness' that bothers me. It's his disposal, he came to the club with a reputation of being able to use the ball. I'm yet to see evidence that he can do this adequately.