#8 Marty Reppin' Gleeson - is “absolutely stoked” to re-sign through to 2020


#1

Yeah that’s where it’s at


#2
IIRC, Barnes and Ambrose were listed at the same height: 193

Patty is down at 185 cm and 77 kg on the EFC website.

I believe these stats were at birth.


#3

IIRC, Barnes and Ambrose were listed at the same height: 193


#4

The one thing that really surprised me upon meeting John Barnes was how short he was. I mean, not short short, but he was only marginally taller than me and I’m just marginally taller than average. Great bloke though.


#5

Quoted Post

Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Have you tread the Melksham thread?

Not that I want to get into this crappy debate, but what did Bomba do to Melksham at the end of last year?

And how is he playing now?

Yes but he persisted with him a lot longer than most on here wanted. Bomber T knew he was a good player, tried to teach him to have a defensive side which wasn't always successful then, but now we are reaping the benefits.

Look, I’m normally all for taking pot shots at DP, but I’ve always agreed with him on Melksham, and it certainly hasn’t been proven wrong. I’d argue it was pretty accurate.

Calling for people to be dropped doesn’t always mean they are rubbish and should be delisted. In fact, in Melkshams case, quite the opposite. I bet missing that final burnt at him all pre season.

Anyway… Gleeson!

And you’re one I don’t mind at present doing so, cos at least you have a go at me on what i’m saying at any particular time, not disliking me for anything i’ve said in the past, following me around and bagging me simply cos you don’t like me (which you may not, but at least you debate the fact at hand)

And exactly, if you want someone dropped it doesn’t make them automatically ■■■■, I’ve never said that, i’ve always advocated it must be the hardest arena to find form in when you’re out of it, in the seniors.

But CC has never liked me, Since I wouldn’t meet up with him to tell him what I thought of him to his face. Think it started cos I said most of the people I know of in the NT are alocholics, think it hit a nerve, ironically he wanted me to meet up with him at a bar, which I always found funny.

FWIW I’ve never suggest dropping Gleeson, Hell i’ve claimed this year that he and even ashby should be in the side ahead of Dempsey.
All I pointed out was that the comment gleeson won’t make the same mistake again or whatever it was, was a bit of a silly thing to say when it could be argued he’d already repeated it, and the fact players make mistakes.


#6

Quoted Post

If anybody should have had a hard tag, or even be double teamed, with 15 seconds to go in a match, it's Rioli.

We know this. We should know it double now.

The only saving grace was that during the game no player tried to take Rioli on in the tackle.


#7

We can pick on minor points all night long but ultimately we did it better, more often and for longer, resulting in a higher score. Yay us! Oh yeah Gleeson was pretty good against a great side; I think we’ll see him play really well against the also rans.


#8

Is it worth pointing out that Stanton was third man up at that last contest and let the ball out the back…?

F**k you Stanton haters, I love him.


#9

Quoted Post

Look this is a struggle for you I know wannabe, but you are getting 2 different points mixed up; I'll make it simple for you:

How many games should Melks have played in 2014?

DP: 6 or 7 (I’m guessing, but he whinged a lot)
CC: 16 or 17, which he did play & I reckon the club got it about right & dropped him at the right time.

How many games do you give a good AFL player to find a turnaround in form?

DP: 3 or 4 (Again guessing but going by my intuition here)
CC: 6-10 (because good players deserve a chance to turn it around)

Alright, you seem to think your points are so well made, well done. Obviously you rated him (Melk) as a “good” footballer early last year, since you think Bomber pulled the pin at the right time. Others beg to differ, but I guess you’re a pretty forgiving coach.

So was it:

6 good games followed by 10 poor games? (jeez his good games must have been stellar…)

or

10 good games followed by 6 poor games? (Good luck finding 10 highlights let alone 10 good games…)

Personally I thought he was really struggling, and could have done with a break from the big time to clear his head earlier, and that it wouldn’t have hurt to give someone else a go.


#10

Not sure it’s entirely Gleeson fault, he could have done better but Bruest is a very slippery motha and would have made if difficult to check him.

I think we should have had somebody guarding the crumbling lane from the pack to the goal, both our guys were off to the side too much and thus could effect a tackle.

In the frantic nature of the last minute it’s very difficult to get anything particularly with the desperation being displayed by both teams.

I think both sides we a bit lucky at times and unlucky at times in that ending.


#11

The player was tackled well, he put the ball on the ground, he then kicked it off the ground. All in a couple of seconds

Hird should have had a set play for that.


#12

Look this is a struggle for you I know wannabe, but you are getting 2 different points mixed up; I’ll make it simple for you:

How many games should Melks have played in 2014?

DP: 6 or 7 (I’m guessing, but he whinged a lot)
CC: 16 or 17, which he did play & I reckon the club got it about right & dropped him at the right time.

How many games do you give a good AFL player to find a turnaround in form?

DP: 3 or 4 (Again guessing but going by my intuition here)
CC: 6-10 (because good players deserve a chance to turn it around)


#13

Hibberd Hurley Gleeson

That is the half back line of the future ladies and gentlemen and aint it sweet.


#14

Quoted Post

Wannabe, are you demented or something? DP was saying move him up to the wing & that he made the same mistake as last season on Cyril, doesn't sound like he is saying give him a chance to develop.

And maths is obviously not your strong point; I said give good players 6-10 games to turn form around, he would probably say 3 or 4.

And when did I say anything about coaches having any rules like ‘guaranteed to play 6-10 games’ - it’s my rule, not any coach.

wah?

“But in DP’s eyes, he should of only played half a dozen games last year, not the 16 or 17 he did play, cause we had so many good players running around in the 2nds racking up possessions week after week. I give players at least 6-10 games to find form”

So did he say 6, or half a dozen, or what?

It’s only after that you go on to say “I said give good players 6-10 games to turn form around, he would probably say 3 or 4.”

I don’t want to argue about what someone “would probably say”, so whatevs.

What they did say, was this:

"One could argue that he hasn’t learnt from the hawthorn game last year when he was the one who left rioli alone.

The kid definately has a future and could be anything, but he needs to work on the defensive side of his game if they are gonna persist with him as a backman.
I actually hope they move him upto the wing at some point, if he has the tank to run through the middle.

He actually reminds me a bit of Micheal long, maybe not as quick, but just that uncanny ability to read the angles and just move a little bit, to make people miss him completely in a tackle. "

Sure, it’s not all glowing praise like you might want to hear, but suggesting he work on his defensive side to stay in the backline or that we move him into the middle shows interest in developing him rather than dropping him, I would have thought. There was a fari bit if praise at the end, but like I said you probably didn’t get past the first line.


#15

Quoted Post

Quoted Post
while hill was being dug out of the ground gleeson ran up to the stoppage to see what what jobe wanted to do with the spare man created by hill going off. Jobe sent him back and he seemed to take baguley's man while baguley then floated. I was actually concerned hill was doing the rope a dope and was going to drift out the back without a man. i think we made a number of errors at that stoppage given the situation:
  • Our first and most obvious goal is to force another stoppage
  • to that end tbell needs to neutralise the ruck contest, even to the point of giving away a free and forcing a slow play,
  • next we should be making sure we out number them at the stoppage, them having a spare back doesn’t matter at this point because if they win the clearance an kick backwards they lose.
  • we should be man on man at the stoppage with our spare number at the ruckmen’s feet ready to force a secondary
  • if we have another spare they should be 10 to 15 meters defensive side so he can react to a clean running clearance or 3rd man up getting the ball going their way.
  • we should preferably have an extra number down back too (really they could have had 3 defenders to zero inside our 50 for all i care with 15 seconds to go).
  • a high ball should be treated the same as a stoppage, we should be forcing another stoppage. get the ball out or to feet and lock it in. no crumbers should be allowed to run through the front and square at pace, block block block.
  • don’t fly 3 against 1 in the air, read the contest, if hurley and hooker are in the pack already having another small or medium defender fly is probably not going to make a difference.
  • in the event that the role any spare defenders up to the stoppage or forward obviously we sacrifice our spares to go man on man.

we pretty much failed on every ■■■■■■ count

On watching the replay, I did think to myself ‘what the fark is Carlisle actually doing?’

he seems to make a very late decision to go back and doesn’t make it to the marking contest as a consequence. You can see him just floating around the back of the stoppage before the pause play to check on hill. HE obviously make his way down after that but is still out of position by the time the ball comes in.

i’m sure they have analyzed the last 15 second to death this week and will be looking to improve their set ups for next time.


#16

Quoted Post

not unless they call for the stretcher or it's a blood rule
I mean the rule should be altered that if a player needs assistance the play should stop.

#17

Quoted Post

while hill was being dug out of the ground gleeson ran up to the stoppage to see what what jobe wanted to do with the spare man created by hill going off. Jobe sent him back and he seemed to take baguley's man while baguley then floated. I was actually concerned hill was doing the rope a dope and was going to drift out the back without a man. i think we made a number of errors at that stoppage given the situation:
  • Our first and most obvious goal is to force another stoppage
  • to that end tbell needs to neutralise the ruck contest, even to the point of giving away a free and forcing a slow play,
  • next we should be making sure we out number them at the stoppage, them having a spare back doesn’t matter at this point because if they win the clearance an kick backwards they lose.
  • we should be man on man at the stoppage with our spare number at the ruckmen’s feet ready to force a secondary
  • if we have another spare they should be 10 to 15 meters defensive side so he can react to a clean running clearance or 3rd man up getting the ball going their way.
  • we should preferably have an extra number down back too (really they could have had 3 defenders to zero inside our 50 for all i care with 15 seconds to go).
  • a high ball should be treated the same as a stoppage, we should be forcing another stoppage. get the ball out or to feet and lock it in. no crumbers should be allowed to run through the front and square at pace, block block block.
  • don’t fly 3 against 1 in the air, read the contest, if hurley and hooker are in the pack already having another small or medium defender fly is probably not going to make a difference.
  • in the event that the role any spare defenders up to the stoppage or forward obviously we sacrifice our spares to go man on man.

we pretty much failed on every ■■■■■■ count

On watching the replay, I did think to myself ‘what the fark is Carlisle actually doing?’


#18

Play should’ve been stopped until hill was off the ground.


#19

I can only remember Melk doing a run-with job a handful of times last year.

And it’s a bit early to call Melk an unqualified success. He was a first round draft pick, into his sixth season, and he would be in the 15-20 range of players on our list. When Hocking comes back, he could easily be squeezed. At the moment he’s doing a solid job, and deserves his spot.


#20

not unless they call for the stretcher or it’s a blood rule