Big Boy McEVOY.

[skeptic]

I think they wouldn’t

[spert]

Pretty simple to me. Big boy plays for us last Saturday night, and not the Hawks. We win.

It's all history, but I reckon Hickey might have made a difference- just needed a couple of good grabs around the ground.

[Scollop]

Pretty simple to me. Big boy plays for us last Saturday night, and not the Hawks. We win.

It's all history, but I reckon Hickey might have made a difference- just needed a couple of good grabs around the ground.

Hickey 'was' good. He may or may not get back to that form. Richo put the brakes on his upward trajectory. As you said; "It's all history"

The way Pierce is going I would persist with him. He will learn how each of his opponents plays and will learn how to defend better against them by playing seniors - not by playing in the VFL. Same with Marshall. Give Rowan a full year and opportunity to retain the role as permanant ruck forward.

Marshall must improve his goal kicking ( I'd give him only next year to get it right ). Rowan seems to be on track but if he doesn't work hard and keep improving then we must be ruthless and keep changing until we find the right combo.

[rodgerfox]

Marshall must improve his goal kicking ( I'd give him only next year to get it right ). Rowan seems to be on track but if he doesn't work hard and keep improving then we must be ruthless and keep changing until we find the right combo.

Some decent coaching could sort it out pretty quickly.....

He doesn't concentrate on the job at hand when kicking for goal. His eyes are darting everywhere, even during his run up! If he actually focused on the target, and the ball drop he'd instantly be a better kick for goal.



We just absolutely suck at the most basic things.

[Scollop]

I saw one of those old 'The Grill' videos on the youtube afl channel and it had interviews with the coaches about who their pet players were and which players gave them grief or were difficult.

Richo said that most of the players would have said at the time that Gresh would be seen as his pet, and that Bruce would be one of the players that was difficult because Josh didn't want to listen to Richo's advice on set shot goal kicking

Hopefully Richo isn't giving advice to Rowan

[David-Lee]

Correct me if I'm wrong but he was out for 4-5 weeks with a broken cheekbone and his game was his first AFL g as me back?

Pretty decent but actually. 4 different articles claim his disposal efficiency and one percenters was elite before his injury. He always gets beat by running ruckman but when he gets the ball he uses it better than almost any other ruckman.

[skeptic]

Ben McEvoy vs Tom Hickey averages over their careers:

Goals - 0.4 to 0.3
* Inside 50s - 0.9 to 1.3
Goal Assists - 0.3 each
Score Involvements - 3.9 to 4.0
* Tackles - 3.1 - 2.6
Tackles inside forward 50m - 0.3 to 0.4
Rebound 50s - 0.5 to 0.6
Disposals - 11.6 to 11.9
Kicks - 4.6 to 4.8
Handballs - 7.0 to 7.1
* Contested possessions - 6.4 to 7.5
* Uncontested Possessions - 5.6 to 4.8
Intercept possessions - 2.5 to 2.4
* Turnovers - 1.2 to 1.9
* Marks - 4.2 to 3.3
Contested Marks - 1.5 - 1.2
Uncontested Marks - 2.7 - 2.2
Marks Inside 50 - 0.6 each
** Meters gained - 70.4 to 117.9
** Clearances - 1.8 to 2.5
Centre Clearances - 0.7 to 0.9
Stoppages - 1.0 to 1.6
Hitouts - 21.3 - 19.3

I think this puts the issue to bed... statiscally Ben marks the ball more and tackles more where Hickey is the better ruck and more effective around the ground.

They’re almost the exact same player... a ruckman with a marked deficiency in their game except one plays for the superstar club in Hawthorn where he is well supported, his weaknesses are covered and he has a champion team around him. The other is exposed frequently in a weak team where the development is poor.

Like I said before the statistics... of all the mistakes we’v made, if you even call this a mistake, I’m not crying over this trade.

This talk about McEvoy being a champion of the AFL, best ruck of generation, a vital loss, a supreme leader... it is REVISIONISTS B#!!$#!&

[SaintPav]

Marshall must improve his goal kicking ( I'd give him only next year to get it right ). Rowan seems to be on track but if he doesn't work hard and keep improving then we must be ruthless and keep changing until we find the right combo.

Some decent coaching could sort it out pretty quickly.....

He doesn't concentrate on the job at hand when kicking for goal. His eyes are darting everywhere, even during his run up! If he actually focused on the target, and the ball drop he'd instantly be a better kick for goal.



We just absolutely suck at the most basic things.

Auskick stuff!!!

[skeptic]

I would say that if ANYTHING...

Given BBM has improved over time especially later in his career and given Hickey’s 2016 is close to the better than McEvoy has consistently produced... the message here is that we should persist with Tom Hickey, which I can’t believe I’m saying, with the idea that with the right coaching and natural development, he’ll get better

[rodgerfox]

I would say that if ANYTHING...

Given BBM has improved over time especially later in his career and given Hickey’s 2016 is close to the better than McEvoy has consistently produced... the message here is that we should persist with Tom Hickey, which I can’t believe I’m saying, with the idea that with the right coaching and natural development, he’ll get better

Very fair point.

[chico2001]

Hickey would not tie McEvoys boot laces. Known fact. Would Hickey get a game at any top 10 side ? if so, trade him now...but...guess what, no-one wants him. I cant believe you are saying it either as would 50,000 other AFL football followers. Once again we have statistical evidence thrown up to justify a point of view when in truth the stats hide the true worth of a players impact on the game. Just like "Dunstan " averages 20 possessions a game...it is bulls***. A lot of work by the poster but to say that Hickey is the equal of McEvoy beggars belief. It doesnt put anything to bed it muddles the issue. I could go on but whats the point.

[chico2001]

Pretty simple to me. Big boy plays for us last Saturday night, and not the Hawks. We win.

It's all history, but I reckon Hickey might have made a difference- just needed a couple of good grabs around the ground.

Hickey 'was' good. He may or may not get back to that form. Richo put the brakes on his upward trajectory. As you said; "It's all history"

The way Pierce is going I would persist with him. He will learn how each of his opponents plays and will learn how to defend better against them by playing seniors - not by playing in the VFL. Same with Marshall. Give Rowan a full year and opportunity to retain the role as permanant ruck forward.

Marshall must improve his goal kicking ( I'd give him only next year to get it right ). Rowan seems to be on track but if he doesn't work hard and keep improving then we must be ruthless and keep changing until we find the right combo.

Would rather have Marshall than McCartin any day. If you want to get ruthless get rid of some of the other nuffies you have been supporting for years like Dunstan, newnes and others. Finally found a player who could be a good player moving forward and you want to give him one year. laughable comments.

[skeptic]

Hickey would not tie McEvoys boot laces. Known fact. Would Hickey get a game at any top 10 side ? if so, trade him now...but...guess what, no-one wants him. I cant believe you are saying it either as would 50,000 other AFL football followers. Once again we have statistical evidence thrown up to justify a point of view when in truth the stats hide the true worth of a players impact on the game. Just like "Dunstan " averages 20 possessions a game...it is bulls***. A lot of work by the poster but to say that Hickey is the equal of McEvoy beggars belief. It doesnt put anything to bed it muddles the issue. I could go on but whats the point.

Weird post.

In context my post really isn’t about building Hickey up...
It’s more about pointing out that this revisionist history of McEvoy is pure fantasy.

I’ve been on the play Pierce and Marshall bandwagon Longer than most

[spert]

Hickey would not tie McEvoys boot laces. Known fact. Would Hickey get a game at any top 10 side ? if so, trade him now...but...guess what, no-one wants him. I cant believe you are saying it either as would 50,000 other AFL football followers. Once again we have statistical evidence thrown up to justify a point of view when in truth the stats hide the true worth of a players impact on the game. Just like "Dunstan " averages 20 possessions a game...it is bulls***. A lot of work by the poster but to say that Hickey is the equal of McEvoy beggars belief. It doesnt put anything to bed it muddles the issue. I could go on but whats the point.

Put Hickey in Hawthorn and see what happens. McEvoy would have been very ordinary in most teams lower in the ladder (like he was a lot of times with us)

[Saintmatt]

I think the worst thing about the trade in hindsight - and this is not re-writing history - is that Ben would have quite seamlessly transitioned to becoming our next Captain. He was very much viewed as the heir apparent and in turn, we'd now not have had Geary as captain who, in all honesty - would struggle to get a game without the (c) after his name.

[Sainter_Dad]

I think the worst thing about the trade in hindsight - and this is not re-writing history - is that Ben would have quite seamlessly transitioned to becoming our next Captain. He was very much viewed as the heir apparent and in turn, we'd now not have had Geary as captain who, in all honesty - would struggle to get a game without the (c) after his name.

In our house (c) has become known as F@rk Geary - but in truth - he is good at what he is - a lock down player - the F@rk Geary comes when he tries to do things he is not designed for - like cute kicks etc.

[Gershwin]

Tell me why we shipped him off to Hawthorn again?

Clarko identified Ben as a player who had potential. We got a pretty good deal out of it and it was up to the Saints to get their recruiting and development right. The Hawthorn coach utilised Ben's strengths and didn't try and re-invent him. Ben has elite fitness and endurance and can be damaging with his overhead contested marking.

Tom Hickey was 8th in our Best and Fairest in 2016 and his fitness, contested marking and his goal kicking were all on an upward trajectory. Richo destroyed Tom's confidence after a few rounds into 2017 and Richo has a tendancy to scapegoat players and blame his players rather than working to their strengths. The Pierce/Marshall combination is more an aciident rather than good development and coaching ( and definitely our best option going forward ).

I agree with a few others that have suggested the trade was a good one. Our football development and our coaching is one of the reasons St Kilda are not higher up the ladder

In hindsight it was a rotten trade imho, but I am fully aware of alternative views.

I think the greater football public would agree with me.

I totally agree with you that it was a rotten trade.
He was only 24 when we traded him. Was always going to improve.
We got Savage and Acres but had to use pick 25 on a Ruckman to replace him. Could have used it on Zach Merrett who went at pick 26.

[bigcarl]

Tell me why we shipped him off to Hawthorn again?

Clarko identified Ben as a player who had potential. We got a pretty good deal out of it and it was up to the Saints to get their recruiting and development right. The Hawthorn coach utilised Ben's strengths and didn't try and re-invent him. Ben has elite fitness and endurance and can be damaging with his overhead contested marking.

Tom Hickey was 8th in our Best and Fairest in 2016 and his fitness, contested marking and his goal kicking were all on an upward trajectory. Richo destroyed Tom's confidence after a few rounds into 2017 and Richo has a tendancy to scapegoat players and blame his players rather than working to their strengths. The Pierce/Marshall combination is more an aciident rather than good development and coaching ( and definitely our best option going forward ).

I agree with a few others that have suggested the trade was a good one. Our football development and our coaching is one of the reasons St Kilda are not higher up the ladder

In hindsight it was a rotten trade imho, but I am fully aware of alternative views.

I think the greater football public would agree with me.

I totally agree with you that it was a rotten trade.
He was only 24 when we traded him. Was always going to improve.
We got Savage and Acres but had to use pick 25 on a Ruckman to replace him. Could have used it on Zach Merrett who went at pick 26.

I thought it was Savage and Dunstan.

[takeaway]

"I thought it was Savage and Dunstan."

And Acres

[skeptic]

Tell me why we shipped him off to Hawthorn again?

Clarko identified Ben as a player who had potential. We got a pretty good deal out of it and it was up to the Saints to get their recruiting and development right. The Hawthorn coach utilised Ben's strengths and didn't try and re-invent him. Ben has elite fitness and endurance and can be damaging with his overhead contested marking.

Tom Hickey was 8th in our Best and Fairest in 2016 and his fitness, contested marking and his goal kicking were all on an upward trajectory. Richo destroyed Tom's confidence after a few rounds into 2017 and Richo has a tendancy to scapegoat players and blame his players rather than working to their strengths. The Pierce/Marshall combination is more an aciident rather than good development and coaching ( and definitely our best option going forward ).

I agree with a few others that have suggested the trade was a good one. Our football development and our coaching is one of the reasons St Kilda are not higher up the ladder

In hindsight it was a rotten trade imho, but I am fully aware of alternative views.

I think the greater football public would agree with me.

I totally agree with you that it was a rotten trade.
He was only 24 when we traded him. Was always going to improve.
We got Savage and Acres but had to use pick 25 on a Ruckman to replace him. Could have used it on Zach Merrett who went at pick 26.

Just so I understand... what exactly is it that makes this a rotten trade in your opinion? McEvoy’s form since is it?

[bigcarl]

"I thought it was Savage and Dunstan."

And Acres

Ah, okay, three for the price of one.

Well it could still end up a win/win if we develop our guys properly.

[takeaway]

"I thought it was Savage and Dunstan."

And Acres

Ah, okay, three for the price of one.

Well it could still end up a win/win if we develop our guys properly.

True. Hawthorn drafted with Hartung with pick 24 which we gave them back as part of the deal. I've always liked Hartung, but he hasn't come on. Acres >> Hartung.

[Gershwin]

Tell me why we shipped him off to Hawthorn again?

Clarko identified Ben as a player who had potential. We got a pretty good deal out of it and it was up to the Saints to get their recruiting and development right. The Hawthorn coach utilised Ben's strengths and didn't try and re-invent him. Ben has elite fitness and endurance and can be damaging with his overhead contested marking.

Tom Hickey was 8th in our Best and Fairest in 2016 and his fitness, contested marking and his goal kicking were all on an upward trajectory. Richo destroyed Tom's confidence after a few rounds into 2017 and Richo has a tendancy to scapegoat players and blame his players rather than working to their strengths. The Pierce/Marshall combination is more an aciident rather than good development and coaching ( and definitely our best option going forward ).

I agree with a few others that have suggested the trade was a good one. Our football development and our coaching is one of the reasons St Kilda are not higher up the ladder

In hindsight it was a rotten trade imho, but I am fully aware of alternative views.

I think the greater football public would agree with me.

I totally agree with you that it was a rotten trade.
He was only 24 when we traded him. Was always going to improve.
We got Savage and Acres but had to use pick 25 on a Ruckman to replace him. Could have used it on Zach Merrett who went at pick 26.

Just so I understand... what exactly is it that makes this a rotten trade in your opinion? McEvoy’s form since is it?

I think McEvoy would have developed into a better player at St Kilda than he did at Hawthorn. And in saying that he has done well at Hawthorn. His leadership qualities were obvious and he was an important part of the team. Hickey was the back-up. I think morale would have suffered when he was traded.
We got Savage who has proven to be useful but no more than that and we used pick 18 on Dunstan who seems to have reached his ceiling as a good ordinary player. Then we had to use our pick 25 on a ruckman to replace McEvoy which ended up being Longer who again seems to be no more than an ordinary player. Now we are off looking for a ruckman again while Hawthorn don't need to.

[skeptic]

I think McEvoy would have developed into a better player at St Kilda than he did at Hawthorn. And in saying that he has done well at Hawthorn. His leadership qualities were obvious and he was an important part of the team. Hickey was the back-up. I think morale would have suffered when he was traded.
We got Savage who has proven to be useful but no more than that and we used pick 18 on Dunstan who seems to have reached his ceiling as a good ordinary player. Then we had to use our pick 25 on a ruckman to replace McEvoy which ended up being Longer who again seems to be no more than an ordinary player. Now we are off looking for a ruckman again while Hawthorn don't need to.

Fair enough that that’s your opinion but I can’t see anything to suggest that that would be the case. Less support and leadership = better player. By that logic we should have a team of superstars.

As for the compensation, I simply don’t accept the answer that because we didn’t use the picks well it was not a great deal.
It’s like arguing that if in the 2001 Superdraft we traded Everite for pick #5 and got Xavier Clarke that’s a worse deal than trading him for pick #13 and getting Nick Dal Santo

[desertsaint]

swapped mcevoy for savage and the pick that went on dunstan. if the trade didn't go ahead can only assume we would have used our pick on dunstan and not taken acres.
so it's mcevoy and dunstan versus savage, dunstan and acres.
which would be the better option?

still think we did okay. mcevoy was a very poor ruck for us. the hawks made him a much better one. he was always handy around the ground. but with savage never being more than a gop, and the other two not coming on as we would have hoped this year, it's certainly understandable to take the negative view.