Value of tough nuts

[CarnTheTiges]

Toughnuts like hardwick, mathews, soloman useful
Tough Titties like King useless

undecided on Hislop yet

Hislop is a bigger, less disciplined version of King.

 

[IrockZ]

so martin pyke was a hard player but had good skills too right. thats why he got cut by two or three teams. they obviously thought he had great footy skills...not.

Got cut because he's a headcase, not cause he couldnt play.

 

[structures]

Be tough all you want if you haven't got the skills it's all for nothing.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

King would be good value in a stronger side. If our opponents all have their hands full then nobody sticks up for King's opponent. Baker still gets a game every week at St.Kilda.

 

[Freezer]

King would be good value in a stronger side.

King wouldn't get a game in stronger side.

 

[Streak]

Just wondering what the value of tough nuts at a club are

Very valuable if you are at a cricket club.

 

[BBC]

King wouldn't get a game in stronger side.

Spot on, he's always going to be taken to the goal square by his opponent. Once there his lack of height and over head strength is exposed.

Fact is he cannot kick to advantage.

As for Hislop, I suspect the comparison with Pyke is valid. He is a head case at the moment but may straighten himself out eventually. He's worth one more year.

 

[Bill James]

Just wondering what the value of tough nuts at a club are and where the toughness should be directed. We have talked constantly about the need for the Tigers to toughen up. And granted it is an area that we are weak in. For this reason I know some have supported the addition of Hislop and King to the Tiger lineup. Does this help us. Does their toughness make up for other discrepanices.

I noticed looking at statistics on the weekend that King's a nd Hislop's combined contested possessions was ZERO. Is this possible. Could we safely assume that it makes sense that someone who is tough and eyes for the ball and ball only would manage some contested ball? Or is it the body on body, rough-em up tactics that makes the opposition think twice about going for the ball? Would we lost by 150 points instead of just 90 points if it wasnt for this toughness?

King and Hislop had 9 free kicks against between them. 3 tackles between them. They were both reported and suspended. Are we focusing on the wrong sort of toughness? Shouldn't we be looking for Cooney types who are tough at the ball, which flows on to a toughness at the man?

I think there a few rhetroical questions in there but I just question the need for this focus on toughness when it appears to be the wrong sort of toughness we are introducing. Are the Tiger selectors that ill-informed?

Good one Goodone. Another good thread would be Re: Value of footballers.

 

[tha8ball]

so martin pyke was a hard player but had good skills too right. thats why he got cut by two or three teams. they obviously thought he had great footy skills...not.
these days you cant put up with bad skills. as long and thhe tough nuts have reasonably good skills, thats okay. let the skillful players use the ball more often, make way for them to use it, help them out by roughing up the opposition (tough shepherd while they are chasing your skillful player, tag a dominant opponent out and frstrate the hell out of him, etc). if they use the ball fairly well, but intimidate the hell out of the opposion, i reckon they have definate value in a side. this i believe is especially true in the backline. make the fwds have that sense of im going for the mark, where is my opponent, is he gonna come in and smash me in the contest, shees should i sneak a peek and take my eye off the ball...

Is this serious?? Martin Pike was a damn good footy player. He got cut because he had a fair few off field issues. Matthews seemed to straighten this out...and he played some super footy off half back.