Author Topic: Matt Thomas [merged]  (Read 34109 times)

Offline big tone

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4404
Re: Matt Thomas [merged]
« Reply #330 on: May 27, 2014, 10:58:07 PM »

Have you had a chance to watch the game on TV yet WP?
If so was it as bad as you first thought?
I watched it again to see if I had missed something the first time and i definitely didn't. Played a fantastic game IMO.
I too am baffled that Miles didn't get a game, but Thomas deserves his spot.

Yep finished watching it today while home sick

Thought his 2nd half was a lot better than his first. But stand by my thoughts about him being a ball butcher. The number of times his handballs put his teammates under pressure especially in the first half was poor at best.

Have said it about him before but he needs to play within his limitations. Tries to do too much when he needs to take the first option.

Will keep his spot this week but I'd still rather see a younger bloke get a game ahead of him. Just looking to e future
His first quarter was excellent on the weekend. Not really sure what you expect from a guy we elevated from the rookie list? We all know he is not Chris Judd.
86% says his efficiency wasn't bad either. His job is to get the footy out remember, not to make sure his teammates are in the right spot.
I just think with such soft players for so long it's nice to have a bloke really hard at it and going 100%.

Offline WilliamPowell

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 39404
  • Better to ignore a fool than encourage one
    • One Eyed Richmond
Re: Matt Thomas [merged]
« Reply #331 on: May 28, 2014, 07:14:59 AM »

Have you had a chance to watch the game on TV yet WP?
If so was it as bad as you first thought?
I watched it again to see if I had missed something the first time and i definitely didn't. Played a fantastic game IMO.
I too am baffled that Miles didn't get a game, but Thomas deserves his spot.

Yep finished watching it today while home sick

Thought his 2nd half was a lot better than his first. But stand by my thoughts about him being a ball butcher. The number of times his handballs put his teammates under pressure especially in the first half was poor at best.

Have said it about him before but he needs to play within his limitations. Tries to do too much when he needs to take the first option.

Will keep his spot this week but I'd still rather see a younger bloke get a game ahead of him. Just looking to e future
His first quarter was excellent on the weekend. Not really sure what you expect from a guy we elevated from the rookie list? We all know he is not Chris Judd.
86% says his efficiency wasn't bad either. His job is to get the footy out remember, not to make sure his teammates are in the right spot.
I just think with such soft players for so long it's nice to have a bloke really hard at it and going 100%.

Interesting, at the game I thought his first qtr was really poor, said it to the people I was at game with. Said at the time got plenty of it but his handballs to the wrong option was terrible. Gave him kudos though for his 2nd efforts. His job might be to get the ball but he job is also to hit a target by hand and his biggest problem IMV is takes one step to many instead of dishing off to the 1st option. If he has a teammate clear then he gives it off not take an extra couple of steps and giving off to someone surrounded by 2 players

Have to say yesterday after watching the replay my view didn't change if anything I ended up more critical (perhaps it was the flu drugs  ;D)

I accept he is a rookie but once he takes the field he isn't a rookie he is a senior player of the RFC just like all the others.

Re: this 86% efficiency I've said it a couple of times would love to know what constitutes a "clanger" and what constitutes an efficient disposal because to me a disposal to a teammate under pressure that lands at his feet is not an efficient disposal but I also doubt it would be recorded as a clanger
Yes he is tough at it but we have kids on our list who are tough at it as well but they are not getting an opportunity to show us what they can do and for some of them they need to be given games ahead of this bloke (eg Arnott & Helbig). Why? because they are coming off contract and we need to see what they can do/offer to see whether they are worth keeping.
"Oh yes I am a dreamer, I still see us flying high!"

from the song "Don't Walk Away" by Pat Benatar 1988 (Wide Awake In Dreamland)

Offline MintOnLamb

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 3562
  • You have to think anyway, so why not think big? DT
Re: Matt Thomas [merged]
« Reply #332 on: May 28, 2014, 09:08:19 AM »

Have you had a chance to watch the game on TV yet WP?
If so was it as bad as you first thought?
I watched it again to see if I had missed something the first time and i definitely didn't. Played a fantastic game IMO.
I too am baffled that Miles didn't get a game, but Thomas deserves his spot.

Yep finished watching it today while home sick

Thought his 2nd half was a lot better than his first. But stand by my thoughts about him being a ball butcher. The number of times his handballs put his teammates under pressure especially in the first half was poor at best.

Have said it about him before but he needs to play within his limitations. Tries to do too much when he needs to take the first option.

Will keep his spot this week but I'd still rather see a younger bloke get a game ahead of him. Just looking to e future
His first quarter was excellent on the weekend. Not really sure what you expect from a guy we elevated from the rookie list? We all know he is not Chris Judd.
86% says his efficiency wasn't bad either. His job is to get the footy out remember, not to make sure his teammates are in the right spot.
I just think with such soft players for so long it's nice to have a bloke really hard at it and going 100%.

Interesting, at the game I thought his first qtr was really poor, said it to the people I was at game with. Said at the time got plenty of it but his handballs to the wrong option was terrible. Gave him kudos though for his 2nd efforts. His job might be to get the ball but he job is also to hit a target by hand and his biggest problem IMV is takes one step to many instead of dishing off to the 1st option. If he has a teammate clear then he gives it off not take an extra couple of steps and giving off to someone surrounded by 2 players

Have to say yesterday after watching the replay my view didn't change if anything I ended up more critical (perhaps it was the flu drugs  ;D)

I accept he is a rookie but once he takes the field he isn't a rookie he is a senior player of the RFC just like all the others.

Re: this 86% efficiency I've said it a couple of times would love to know what constitutes a "clanger" and what constitutes an efficient disposal because to me a disposal to a teammate under pressure that lands at his feet is not an efficient disposal but I also doubt it would be recorded as a clanger
Yes he is tough at it but we have kids on our list who are tough at it as well but they are not getting an opportunity to show us what they can do and for some of them they need to be given games ahead of this bloke (eg Arnott & Helbig). Why? because they are coming off contract and we need to see what they can do/offer to see whether they are worth keeping.
Its the try to get a win vs play Arnott or Helbig, In all reality the Gold Coast And GWS Draft scenario has really stuffed up the game, We should be targetting a lot of their guys who are not getting a game and who are better than what we have on our list eg Dom Tyson BUT I must say it is refreshing to see the verve Thomas plays with. Miles should also be getting a game as he is younger and has more upside. It must be tough for the selection panel as they know what a shocking feedback the club receives after every loss, so if we play em young and lose, play them old and lose is a no brainer = play young and lose, but when we select our best possible team with no chance of player development that is the conundrum they are faced with. I like Essendon playing young Daniher, sure he isn't ready but they are persevering and getting games into him, Derickx is actually going OK for Sydney and what are they doing? just playing him every week, he is working it out and really that is exactly what we should have done with him. We seem to be excellent at drafting players then stuff them around in the reserves until they lose all confidence.

Then there is the old v old scenario,
Should Foley be getting a game ahead of Thomas??
Should Newman even be getting a game?
We have been our own worst enemy hanging onto club favorites who really should be getting cycled out of the team.
We are showing loyalty to players ahead of loyalty to supporters.
Well there is a Richmond Rant for you!!

Offline Penelope

  • Internet nuffer and sooky jellyfish
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12777
Re: Matt Thomas [merged]
« Reply #333 on: May 28, 2014, 09:36:20 AM »
Billy,
Did you notice the goals thomas set up with very creative and quick handballs when under immense pressure by releasing a team mate into space
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways my ways,” says the Lord.
 
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts than your thoughts."

Yahweh? or the great Clawski?

yaw rehto eht dellorcs ti fi daer ot reisae eb dluow tI

Offline WilliamPowell

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 39404
  • Better to ignore a fool than encourage one
    • One Eyed Richmond
Re: Matt Thomas [merged]
« Reply #334 on: May 28, 2014, 09:56:09 AM »
Billy,
Did you notice the goals thomas set up with very creative and quick handballs when under immense pressure by releasing a team mate into space

Yep, not disputing those but....

Also noticed the handballs to Cotchin (should have gone to I think it was Martin), Ellis, McDonough (to name 3) that put them under immense pressure and in the case of one of them (think it was Ellis) resulted in a terrible turnover for memory contributed to a GWS score.

It is those ones where he tries to do too much when the quick release was the first option that i have an issue with

That's why I say he should play to his limitations.  ;D

And I will acknowledge I'm not a fan  :thumbsup
"Oh yes I am a dreamer, I still see us flying high!"

from the song "Don't Walk Away" by Pat Benatar 1988 (Wide Awake In Dreamland)

Offline bojangles17

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5618
  • Platinum member 33 years
Re: Matt Thomas [merged]
« Reply #335 on: May 28, 2014, 07:17:13 PM »
I suggest you cast that roving eye to cotch's disposal too and see what you deduce  :shh
RFC 1885, Often Imitated, Never Equalled

Offline Diocletian

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18579
  • RWNJ / Leftist Snowflake - depends who you ask....
Re: Matt Thomas [merged]
« Reply #336 on: May 28, 2014, 07:53:24 PM »
Yeah we should try and trade Cotchin for another Matt Thomas type. Just hope there's a club out there that'll bite.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2014, 08:15:17 PM by Diocletian »
"Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good...."

- Thomas Sowell


FJ is the only one that makes sense.

Offline bojangles17

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5618
  • Platinum member 33 years
Re: Matt Thomas [merged]
« Reply #337 on: May 28, 2014, 08:36:00 PM »
Yeah we should try and trade Cotchin for another Matt Thomas type. Just hope there's a club out there that'll bite.
, what i say Is don't let a couple of lousy possessions cloud your judgement, dat would be plain ridiculous , no  ::)
RFC 1885, Often Imitated, Never Equalled

Hellenic Tiger

  • Guest
Re: Matt Thomas [merged]
« Reply #338 on: May 28, 2014, 09:21:39 PM »
Comparing Cotch to Thomas.
Close this thread. Enough in enough lol. :lol :rollin :lol

Offline big tone

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4404
Re: Matt Thomas [merged]
« Reply #339 on: May 28, 2014, 10:06:34 PM »

Have you had a chance to watch the game on TV yet WP?
If so was it as bad as you first thought?
I watched it again to see if I had missed something the first time and i definitely didn't. Played a fantastic game IMO.
I too am baffled that Miles didn't get a game, but Thomas deserves his spot.

Yep finished watching it today while home sick

Thought his 2nd half was a lot better than his first. But stand by my thoughts about him being a ball butcher. The number of times his handballs put his teammates under pressure especially in the first half was poor at best.

Have said it about him before but he needs to play within his limitations. Tries to do too much when he needs to take the first option.

Will keep his spot this week but I'd still rather see a younger bloke get a game ahead of him. Just looking to e future
His first quarter was excellent on the weekend. Not really sure what you expect from a guy we elevated from the rookie list? We all know he is not Chris Judd.
86% says his efficiency wasn't bad either. His job is to get the footy out remember, not to make sure his teammates are in the right spot.
I just think with such soft players for so long it's nice to have a bloke really hard at it and going 100%.

Interesting, at the game I thought his first qtr was really poor, said it to the people I was at game with. Said at the time got plenty of it but his handballs to the wrong option was terrible. Gave him kudos though for his 2nd efforts. His job might be to get the ball but he job is also to hit a target by hand and his biggest problem IMV is takes one step to many instead of dishing off to the 1st option. If he has a teammate clear then he gives it off not take an extra couple of steps and giving off to someone surrounded by 2 players

Have to say yesterday after watching the replay my view didn't change if anything I ended up more critical (perhaps it was the flu drugs  ;D)

I accept he is a rookie but once he takes the field he isn't a rookie he is a senior player of the RFC just like all the others.

Re: this 86% efficiency I've said it a couple of times would love to know what constitutes a "clanger" and what constitutes an efficient disposal because to me a disposal to a teammate under pressure that lands at his feet is not an efficient disposal but I also doubt it would be recorded as a clanger
Yes he is tough at it but we have kids on our list who are tough at it as well but they are not getting an opportunity to show us what they can do and for some of them they need to be given games ahead of this bloke (eg Arnott & Helbig). Why? because they are coming off contract and we need to see what they can do/offer to see whether they are worth keeping.
WP, no one with half a clue about footy could say he didn't have a great first quarter on the weekend.
Take another look mate, it's one thing to not rate the bloke, just like I hate Ellis but I can see when he does some good things.
Can anybody else with IQ that can watch it again and take real close notice of Thomas tell me if I'm wrong about Thomas' first quarter.
Not that it really matters but holy sh;7 WP, you are flat out wrong.  :thumbsup

Offline WilliamPowell

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 39404
  • Better to ignore a fool than encourage one
    • One Eyed Richmond
Re: Matt Thomas [merged]
« Reply #340 on: May 28, 2014, 10:21:15 PM »
WP, no one with half a clue about footy could say he didn't have a great first quarter on the weekend.
 :nopeTake another look mate, it's one thing to not rate the bloke, just like I hate Ellis but I can see when he does some good things.
Can anybody else with IQ that can watch it again and take real close notice of Thomas tell me if I'm wrong about Thomas' first quarter.
Not that it really matters but holy sh;7 WP, you are flat out wrong.  :thumbsup

 :lol :lol

 I am flat out wrong  ;D

 :nope

IMHO I am right  :thumbsup

They're just opinions, we all have 'em  :cheers
"Oh yes I am a dreamer, I still see us flying high!"

from the song "Don't Walk Away" by Pat Benatar 1988 (Wide Awake In Dreamland)

Offline big tone

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4404
Re: Matt Thomas [merged]
« Reply #341 on: May 28, 2014, 10:44:50 PM »
WP, no one with half a clue about footy could say he didn't have a great first quarter on the weekend.
 :nopeTake another look mate, it's one thing to not rate the bloke, just like I hate Ellis but I can see when he does some good things.
Can anybody else with IQ that can watch it again and take real close notice of Thomas tell me if I'm wrong about Thomas' first quarter.
Not that it really matters but holy sh;7 WP, you are flat out wrong.  :thumbsup

 :lol :lol

 I am flat out wrong  ;D

 :nope

IMHO I am right  :thumbsup

They're just opinions, we all have 'em  :cheers
It doesn't mean an opinion cannot be wrong.
You might say "the sky is pink" it's your opinion but if it's the middle of the night the sky is black, your opinion is WRONG.  :shh
Anyway my opinion is he played well in the first quarter, let's see what a few others think.
Also to start questioning the way the stats are taken to try and suit what you think you saw is a touch arrogant. Everyone gets judged on the same system and people with more football knowledge and experience than you work out the best way to do it.
Stick to your guns though, it's your opinion.  :whistle

Offline WilliamPowell

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 39404
  • Better to ignore a fool than encourage one
    • One Eyed Richmond
Re: Matt Thomas [merged]
« Reply #342 on: May 29, 2014, 07:15:11 AM »

It doesn't mean an opinion cannot be wrong.
You might say "the sky is pink" it's your opinion but if it's the middle of the night the sky is black, your opinion is WRONG.  :shh
Anyway my opinion is he played well in the first quarter, let's see what a few others think.
Also to start questioning the way the stats are taken to try and suit what you think you saw is a touch arrogant. Everyone gets judged on the same system and people with more football knowledge and experience than you work out the best way to do it.
Stick to your guns though, it's your opinion.  :whistle

You are correct, opinions can be wrong, you don't agree with mine so you say I am wrong. I don't agree with yours but I wont say you are wrong just that I don't agree. 

But each to their own  :thumbsup

Regarding stats being taken, I am not being arrogant. I know that everyone is graded the same way I am not trying to reinvent the wheel here.

I have asked a question; which by the way no one has even attempted to answer. I want to know how a "clanger" is determined and how a efficiency is determined. What's wrong with that? It might give me a better understanding with how the stats come out the way they do. Because week after week I look at the stats and scratch my head thinking how can that be?
"Oh yes I am a dreamer, I still see us flying high!"

from the song "Don't Walk Away" by Pat Benatar 1988 (Wide Awake In Dreamland)

Offline Dice

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 1357
Re: Matt Thomas [merged]
« Reply #343 on: May 29, 2014, 10:05:39 AM »
I have asked a question; which by the way no one has even attempted to answer. I want to know how a "clanger" is determined and how a efficiency is determined. What's wrong with that? It might give me a better understanding with how the stats come out the way they do. Because week after week I look at the stats and scratch my head thinking how can that be?

I hear ya !  I always wonder about the tackle stat. Seems like there's a thousand tackles every game yet at the end of the day a team gets credited with 60 odd. ? Some players seem to get a free ride with that stat too. See Tom Liberatore. Credited with 11 tackles last week. Double the amount of anyone else on the ground. I watched that game. Didn't notice him anymore than any other player in that regard.
 And clearances ? What happens when you beat three blokes at the bottom of the pack , get a quick kick 15 meters forward but it goes straight to the opposition who then kicks it back over your head for a goal. Is that a clearance or a clanger or both ??


Oh and I thought Thomas had a great first qtr by the way. Just my opinion  ;)
Tanking has put the club where it's at - Paul Roos

Offline WilliamPowell

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 39404
  • Better to ignore a fool than encourage one
    • One Eyed Richmond
Re: Matt Thomas [merged]
« Reply #344 on: May 29, 2014, 10:33:37 AM »
I have asked a question; which by the way no one has even attempted to answer. I want to know how a "clanger" is determined and how a efficiency is determined. What's wrong with that? It might give me a better understanding with how the stats come out the way they do. Because week after week I look at the stats and scratch my head thinking how can that be?

I hear ya !  I always wonder about the tackle stat. Seems like there's a thousand tackles every game yet at the end of the day a team gets credited with 60 odd. ? Some players seem to get a free ride with that stat too. See Tom Liberatore. Credited with 11 tackles last week. Double the amount of anyone else on the ground. I watched that game. Didn't notice him anymore than any other player in that regard.
 And clearances ? What happens when you beat three blokes at the bottom of the pack , get a quick kick 15 meters forward but it goes straight to the opposition who then kicks it back over your head for a goal. Is that a clearance or a clanger or both ??


Oh and I thought Thomas had a great first qtr by the way. Just my opinion  ;)

 :clapping :clapping

"Oh yes I am a dreamer, I still see us flying high!"

from the song "Don't Walk Away" by Pat Benatar 1988 (Wide Awake In Dreamland)