Nick Malceski

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • TheHood
    On the Rookie List
    • Jan 2003
    • 1938

    #61
    Re: heath james

    Originally posted by lachlanc
    changing the subject yet again, can any of you sages tell me what's happening with Heath James? I see he kicked six in the twos a few weeks ago and yet his name never comes up for selection. Personally i always thought he looked a bit out of his depth and would think that he is on borrowed time and heading for de-listing. as i'm new to RWO i'd be curious as to whether there's any inside goss.

    by the way, i love this site. i've only just discovered it through my sister in law, who is also a mad swan fan. i'm originally from SA and grew up on Aussie rules but left before the Crows started to live in Sydney. The Swans are now my team in a big way.
    Welcome to the site lachlan. Hope you enjoy all the crazy posts and threads this place can throw up.

    It's a great vent for frustration and a nice way to celebrate the good moments too.
    The Pain of Discipline is Nothing Like The Pain of Disappointment

    Comment

    • giant
      Veterans List
      • Mar 2005
      • 4731

      #62
      Re: heath james

      Originally posted by lachlanc
      changing the subject yet again, can any of you sages tell me what's happening with Heath James? I see he kicked six in the twos a few weeks ago and yet his name never comes up for selection. Personally i always thought he looked a bit out of his depth and would think that he is on borrowed time and heading for de-listing. as i'm new to RWO i'd be curious as to whether there's any inside goss.

      by the way, i love this site. i've only just discovered it through my sister in law, who is also a mad swan fan. i'm originally from SA and grew up on Aussie rules but left before the Crows started to live in Sydney. The Swans are now my team in a big way.
      Can't tell you anuthing abt James but I'm fascinated about Bulahdelah - where the heck is that?

      Comment

      • lachlanc
        On the Rookie List
        • Jul 2005
        • 92

        #63
        Re: Re: heath james

        Originally posted by giant
        Can't tell you anuthing abt James but I'm fascinated about Bulahdelah - where the heck is that?
        2 and a half hours up the Pacific Highway and an hour north of Newcastle....Myall Lakes way

        no aussie rules here sadly...my son has to play soccer but at least its not rugby league
        lachlanc

        Comment

        • Schneiderman
          The Fourth Captain
          • Aug 2004
          • 1615

          #64
          Originally posted by Legs Akimbo
          Some predictions...
          I rate you at 5/7.

          Fixter - correct
          Dempster - correct
          Moore - correct
          Malceski - correct
          McVeigh - wrong. The kids only 20. If we (thankfully) gave Kirk till he was 26, why not McVeigh?
          Vogels - wrong
          LRT - correct
          Our Greatest Moment:

          Saturday, 24th Sept, 2005 - 5:13pm

          Comment

          • lachlanc
            On the Rookie List
            • Jul 2005
            • 92

            #65
            Originally posted by Schneiderman
            I rate you at 5/7.

            Fixter - correct
            Dempster - correct
            Moore - correct
            Malceski - correct
            McVeigh - wrong. The kids only 20. If we (thankfully) gave Kirk till he was 26, why not McVeigh?
            Vogels - wrong
            LRT - correct

            personally i think malceski is being groomed as a midfield replacement for willo when he goes. we need players like this coming through and while he might play on a half back flank to start with i reckon midfield is the ultimate position for him. i think roos is smart in the way he's developing a few of these simultaneously - moore, vogels, bevan, dempster etc. - but i do think malceski looks like the best prospect in a while
            lachlanc

            Comment

            • liz
              Veteran
              Site Admin
              • Jan 2003
              • 16778

              #66
              Originally posted by lachlanc
              personally i think malceski is being groomed as a midfield replacement for willo when he goes.
              I don't see Malceski as being a similar type of player to Willo. He doesn't have the same explosive pace, and I think the value in his field kicking is more his creativity than his outright penetration.

              No doubt he has a chance to become an important part of the midfield though, and hopefully he can establish himself over the next year or two while we still have Willo as well.

              Comment

              • lachlanc
                On the Rookie List
                • Jul 2005
                • 92

                #67
                Originally posted by liz
                I don't see Malceski as being a similar type of player to Willo. He doesn't have the same explosive pace, and I think the value in his field kicking is more his creativity than his outright penetration.

                No doubt he has a chance to become an important part of the midfield though, and hopefully he can establish himself over the next year or two while we still have Willo as well.
                take your point on the pace factor. i'm not saying he's exactly the same as willo - i'm just worried for our midfield after he retires (he will play next season, won't he?) and am thinking about who we are grooming to play a role in there, and i see malceski in that space (although maybe playing across the half back line and kicking deep to the fifty might work well). regardless, i think he's a major talent.
                lachlanc

                Comment

                • Jeffers1984
                  Veterans List
                  • Jan 2003
                  • 4564

                  #68
                  Originally posted by liz
                  I don't see Malceski as being a similar type of player to Willo. He doesn't have the same explosive pace, and I think the value in his field kicking is more his creativity than his outright penetration.

                  No doubt he has a chance to become an important part of the midfield though, and hopefully he can establish himself over the next year or two while we still have Willo as well.
                  Willo Junior (Willoughby that is) is Willo's replacement.
                  Official Driver Of The "Who Gives A @@@@ As The Player Will Get Delisted Anyway" Bandwagon.

                  Comment

                  • Legs Akimbo
                    Grand Poobah
                    • Apr 2005
                    • 2809

                    #69
                    Originally posted by Schneiderman
                    I rate you at 5/7.

                    Fixter - correct
                    Dempster - correct
                    Moore - correct
                    Malceski - correct
                    McVeigh - wrong. The kids only 20. If we (thankfully) gave Kirk till he was 26, why not McVeigh?
                    Vogels - wrong
                    LRT - correct
                    If we gave every kid 8 years to develop into a decent player, then we'd finish last every year. Opportunity cost - every spot on the list is one potentially taken away from another player. Hence the return on older players diminishes because they are taking opportunity from a potential young star (or hack) with more poaying years. It's a balancing act, but '26' is unbalanced. Kirk is an exception, but does not change the laws of probability.

                    The club need to balance compassion with managing the list. I am not saying 'ditch Mcveigh', but my gut feeling is he is not going to be a force in the game because of the limits imposed by his physical development. If he was hugely skilled and a great athlete, maybe, but he is neither.

                    The club would be irresponsible to not to consider him as trade material. Essendon have given us such wonderful talents as Michael Werner and Ed Consodine, so let's return the favour.
                    He had observed that people who did lie were, on the whole, more resourceful and ambitious and successful than people who did not lie.

                    Comment

                    • giant
                      Veterans List
                      • Mar 2005
                      • 4731

                      #70
                      There'll be uproar about trading a Sydney boy just as there was when we traded Stafford. Which of course is no reason not to do it.

                      I think Roos is very equivocal about McVeigh as evidenced by dropping him this week after on of our best wins.

                      But yes let's take the draft pick from Essendon rather than end up with any more of their up & coming "stars" like Werner & Considine!! [Nice memory there Legs!]

                      Comment

                      • stellation
                        scott names the planets
                        • Sep 2003
                        • 9721

                        #71
                        Originally posted by Legs Akimbo
                        If he was hugely skilled and a great athlete, maybe, but he is neither.
                        I thought he was viewed as a great athlete and (normally) has pretty decent skills.
                        I knew him as a gentle young man, I cannot say for sure the reasons for his decline
                        We watched him fade before our very eyes, and years before his time

                        Comment

                        • Sean
                          On the Rookie List
                          • Sep 2003
                          • 327

                          #72
                          Originally posted by Legs Akimbo
                          If we gave every kid 8 years to develop into a decent player, then we'd finish last every year.
                          We'd also finish last if we traded every 20 year old who hadn't yet reached their peak. Talk of trading guys like McVeigh & Schneider is crazy unless it was for something that we couldn't refuse - because we would just want to trade their replacements when they hit 20 and weren't world beaters.

                          Goodes peaked at about 23, Jude is now 25 (?), Kirk was probably 27, Hall 27, Williams around that age, Ablett is now 22 and is still improving. If a player looks like a dud you don't give him until 26 but if he has talent, which McVeigh obviously does, you don't look to get rid of him at 20.

                          Comment

                          • Schneiderman
                            The Fourth Captain
                            • Aug 2004
                            • 1615

                            #73
                            Originally posted by Sean
                            Goodes peaked at about 23, Jude is now 25 (?), Kirk was probably 27, Hall 27, Williams around that age, Ablett is now 22 and is still improving. If a player looks like a dud you don't give him until 26 but if he has talent, which McVeigh obviously does, you don't look to get rid of him at 20.
                            Nicely put.

                            The problem with Judd and L Ball is that they give every other player a bad name. Suddenly if you aren't a superstar by your second year you wont amount to anything.

                            Most importantly, there are plenty of others on our list who have much more to be concerned about than Schneider or McVeigh at this stage.
                            Our Greatest Moment:

                            Saturday, 24th Sept, 2005 - 5:13pm

                            Comment

                            • giant
                              Veterans List
                              • Mar 2005
                              • 4731

                              #74
                              Originally posted by Schneiderman
                              Most importantly, there are plenty of others on our list who have much more to be concerned about than Schneider or McVeigh at this stage.
                              Who would you trade before McVeigh at the moment? I don't think he's a dud which is what makes him tradable.

                              I just don't think he's fitting into the side or contributing his true worth - sometimes it's in both parties' interests to move on.

                              Comment

                              • barry
                                Veterans List
                                • Jan 2003
                                • 8499

                                #75
                                The only person McVeigh should be compared to is Salopek of Port who some beleieve we should have taken instead, and was taken right after McVeigh. Although many beleive McViegh was the right choice. 6 to one, half dozen to another.

                                I'm guessing many of you are saying: Salopek who?

                                Exactly.

                                Comment

                                Working...