Nah, fair enough. Probably pre-empting some Blitzanoia that’s not there.
1 Like
Then i doubt you actually watch the games. Last week Brown had 18 disposals, 10 contested possessions, 3 goals, and 9 score involvements. That was almost a best on ground performance. Zero presence?
Smack had 4 disposals at 50% efficiency.
1 Like
I disagree. He was on the bench for the whole first half and was in the ruck for at least half the time in the second half. I thought we had an immediate improvement in stoppages with his extra aggression when he was in the ruck and at least provided a target and a contest in the forward line from limited opportunities when he was down there.
Yesterday on several occasions when were kicking the ball in long we had Daniher double or triple teamed and no other realistic dangerous option. When Daniher was in the ruck it was even worse.
For all Browns attributes he doesn’t provide much of an option in a pack situation which Smack certainly does. He took several contested pack marks yesterday alone.
11 Likes
We’ll just have to disagree. I’ve watched the first game 4 times now (sad) and Smack was a shadow of Brown. Brown will definitely play over Smack IF they are competing for the same spot. Brown is a better footballer, i don’t think Smacks size and aggression is enough to counter that.
1 Like
Brown and Smack simply don’t play the same role.
Brown is a hard running link up player with height that he often doesn’t use. He’s very versatile and can be used in most positions but can’t ruck.
Smack on the other hand is an aggressive high marking player who can bring the ball to ground as well as providing a strong presence and providing an outlet for kicks down to the wings
The decision on selection will more likely come down to team balance. I personally would prefer Smack to play as a relief ruck with Brown on the interchange relieving both forward and back.
But as much as I like what Brown brings to the table if it came down to a choice between the two of them I would choose Smack because I think he provides something that the team needs more.
It was probably the best 4 quarter game I saw him play yesterday, every time it was kicked to him he either marked it or brought it to ground and often either got the crumbs or fed it to a team mate
13 Likes
They dont play the same role, at all. They are not competing for one position
1 Like
Weirdly, I can’t picture Brown crumbing any goals at all, whereas I can recall McKernan kicking plenty.
From memory, Brown kicks almost all of his on the lead.
1 Like
Hey, i’m well aware. That’s why i highlight IF they are competing for the same spot. But what i said is i think Daniher will play, and i think there’s only room for one more tall forward. So i’m saying that while they don’t play the same roll, they can still be competing for the same spot.
Nobody is arguing that they play the same and it’s a choice between the 2.
Brown will get the gig.
Yeah. He gets most leading out to the 50m line. Something our team lacks.
1 Like
Depends how pedantic you want to be.
I daresay they’ve settled on Joey deep and Brown at CHF.
Other option is McNernan deep and Joey CHF.
They’re never going to play all 3.
3 Likes
Yeah. They want Joey parked in the goal square. I know a lot of people on here like him at CHF but the coaches like him right near the goals.
1 Like
The big problem they had yesterday was when Joe was in the ruck and Belly on the bench, there was no one to kick to or even provide a contest. Smack provides at least that contest.
I don’t particularly care who he replaces but I think he’s very important at this stage for team balance and I would be very disappointed if he didn’t play. In their current form I would even prefer him over Daniher but that’s a different argument.
5 Likes
Or they just prefer Brown’s form to McNernan’s.
Is it so crazy?
Is there another vfl practice match next week? If so, it would be a good opportunity to give a number of underdone and poorly playing senior players another run, ie; Daniher, Raz, Zerrett, Zaha, Langford, Parish, Bags
That’s part of the point i’m making… So i hope it’s not crazy.
They won’t get approval to play any of the poorly playing ones you’ve listed. They need special permission just to play underdone players.
Edit: that’s if there is even a VFL game
*Clutches pearls
Wrong - I watched both games, fully.
Brown played a full game last week and McKernan only came on after half time. His presence in the ruck gave us a lift during Q3 despite his lack of height because he at least competes. Forget the number of hitout stats, Zac Clarke was putrid in the ruck in the first half.
Brown played quite well but it was the game of a 4th tall/medium size half forward flanker rather than as a true KP player. He has some smarts and 2 of his 3 goals were snaps IIRC. One was from an easy mark on the lead. Again, he just played like a tall small.
I’ve got no issue playing him as a quasi 4th tall (Swans won their last GF playing Goodes as a 4th tall) but it should not be at the expense of McKernan given the options McKernan brings to the side, that’s all. Otherwise Daniher then has to ruck and he really has little idea about how to ruck, even against moderate AFL ruckmen. He should never play ruck because he’s not any good at ruck craft and the opposition don’t fear him there. They fear him when he plays forward. McKernan allows us to play Daniher 100% forward.
7 Likes
I wouldn’t disagree with that. I do believe though, that he is still easing into it.
1 Like
Of course McKernan lifted the game because Clarke was getting murdered. It was more about Clarke’s output than Smack. With Belly in there it wont be an issue.
We’ll just have to disagree. Like i said above, if they have one spot for those 2 blokes, Brown will get it. And i know they play differently.