VFL Round #6: Northern Blues vs Essendon

[laj]

Surely not. Graham is not getting a game simply because big bad mick plays favourites. Once we slay the big meanie weanie coach everything will magically turn around and we'll become a juggernaut again.

At least that's what i'm lead to believe by many on here.  :-\

Perhaps Mick doesn't play the kid because he isn't good enough. Radical thinking i know.

One gets to show there wares by playing VFL. If they do well then they get to play AFL. Then you judge them on their AFL performance. Graham is doing very well with the NBs but then is judged on an AFL game where he was sub, come on at 3/4 time got 5 touches, more then Murphy and Gibbs combined in that qtr, then was dropped.

How would Mick know if he was going to do well at senior level based on that?

Kruddler defending his mate Mick again. Once again Kruddler backs the wrong horse. Knows it but doesn't want to look "wrong".

[madbluboy]

Mick needs to play Wiley and Boekhurst. Carlton get flogged and those two are worst on ground. Why did we pick up those duds? Mick needs to be sacked.

[Gointocarlton]

One gets to show there wares by playing VFL. If they do well then they get to play AFL. Then you judge them on their AFL performance. Graham is doing very well with the NBs but then is judged on an AFL game where he was sub, come on at 3/4 time got 5 touches, more then Murphy and Gibbs combined in that qtr, then was dropped.

How would Mick know if he was going to do well at senior level based on that?

Kruddler defending his mate Mick again. Once again Kruddler backs the wrong horse. Knows it but doesn't want to look "wrong".

No not entirely correct. Young players would be given KPI's and other criteria to meet and areas to improve on before they become regulars in the Seniors. Graham has clearly not met these criteria and its not necessarily only Mick who sets them, it will be Wiley, Webster and other line coaches also. The notion that a coach won't play a player because he "doesn't like him" is totally rediculous.

[kruddler]

How would Mick know if he was going to do well at senior level based on that?

Kruddler defending his mate Mick again. Once again Kruddler backs the wrong horse. Knows it but doesn't want to look "wrong".

Do you even read what is written or do you just see my name and trawl out the same old crap that is in no way relevent to the topic at hand?

GI2C has answered your question. Wonder if you'll say he is just looking after Mick as well?

You do realise that this whole argument came about because someone OTHER than Mick said that Graham wasn't good enough for AFL.

[flyboy77]

Graham's form has warranted a decent run at senior level by any normal person's rationale...

This is simply impossible to argue against (without even mention the diabolical form of those in the senior 22 most weeks).

[NudeNut]

No not entirely correct. Young players would be given KPI's and other criteria to meet and areas to improve on before they become regulars in the Seniors. Graham has clearly not met these criteria and its not necessarily only Mick who sets them, it will be Wiley, Webster and other line coaches also. The notion that a coach won't play a player because he "doesn't like him" is totally rediculous.

Seriously? Then their KPI's are wrong. I suppose Daisy and Gibbs are meeting their KPI's every week???
If a kid is BOG nearly every week in the two's and the 1st's are playing crap footy, you play him.
Anyone who doesn't think Mick plays his favorites is kidding themselves.

[LP]

Not doubting any of that. I've said for a long time that development is a big problem at our club.....this extends well before Mick arrived.

MM certainly hasn't fixed it, it could even be going backwards!

[Gointocarlton]

Seriously? Then their KPI's are wrong. I suppose Daisy and Gibbs are meeting their KPI's every week???
If a kid is BOG nearly every week in the two's and the 1st's are playing crap footy, you play him.
Anyone who doesn't think Mick plays his favorites is kidding themselves.

Read my post, I said "young players" as in those trying to break into the seniors.

[MilkIt]

Unfortunately Karroto, the mail I have is that he won't be getting a game anytime soon. Not regarded AFL level and has been told as much by one of the assistants. An assistant who has been bandied about as a potential replacement for Mick. Only what I've heard.

Any idea what part of his game they don't rate? They must think he is a terrible footballer if players like Watson and Bootsma get more than 11 games to prove themselves.

Obviously I don't know the whole story but I don't like the sound of it, especially if he's contracted for another year.

[PassIt2Carrots]

No not entirely correct. Young players would be given KPI's and other criteria to meet and areas to improve on before they become regulars in the Seniors. Graham has clearly not met these criteria and its not necessarily only Mick who sets them, it will be Wiley, Webster and other line coaches also. The notion that a coach won't play a player because he "doesn't like him" is totally rediculous.

Absolute BS, what about every other player are they meeting their KPIs?? We are losing by 13 goals every week but only Graham isn't meeting KPIs I've heard it all now.

It is absolutely obvious Mick don't like Graham, plays him as sub and drops him the next week around 7-8 times last year, does the same this year. Mick doesn't rate him or whatever pissy reason, just like he underrated Betts , Garlett and Robbo. Mick has a history of pointing the finger at players and blaming them, this is just another case of that. The side is on the bottom and he's about to be sacked for a reason you do realise don't you?