Vogels and Grundy

[Bloody Hell]

1. Vogels

2. Grundy

Have been a big fan of Vogels for a long time. Thought he was good tonight (except for the missed goal) - took a couple of contested marks and gave an option. For mine showed he can offer something to the side.

Reg looked out of his depth. Not sure he can make it as a defender.

I wonder what the heirachy is planning for these guys in the future. Reg FF - Vogels CHF (though he'd be a better HFF)?

[sWAns63]

I don't think either would make very good defenders don't have good enough closing speed and their strength is lacking for strong opponents both to be in the forward line to fill gaps sometimes when the better players are injured like tonight.

[Wazza]

I was suprised they went with Grundy in defence and I was even more suprised when they left Jolly on Cox in defence.

The suprise to me was LRT is left in the reserves and they went with Heath for a defensive role.

Vogels did a couple of nice things but goes missing for periods.

Cheers

Waz

[Swansinger]

1. Vogels

2. Grundy

Have been a big fan of Vogels for a long time. Thought he was good tonight (except for the missed goal) - took a couple of contested marks and gave an option. For mine showed he can offer something to the side.

Reg looked out of his depth. Not sure he can make it as a defender.

I wonder what the heirachy is planning for these guys in the future. Reg FF - Vogels CHF (though he'd be a better HFF)?

Somebody needs to get in Vogels ear - or head ? - to tell him he IS a good player.
I feel he has not shown this yet - for my money he lacks confidence.

LUKE VOGELS YOU ARE A GOOD PLAYER

Reg is a forward - he gaves us nothing last night , but I have great hopes he will be a strong contributor - inside our ATTACKING 50.

[Jeffers1984]

The only way they can get experience in defense is if they play in the seniors full time. The Joke which is the reserves is hindering our defenders more than anything. LRT at least came in at a time when we were still with Port Melbourne while neither Reg (more of a full forward in my books) and Vogels (still not sold if he will make it at all) haven't had that luxury.

[Plugger46]

Vogels looks comfortable at the level, but Grundy looks completely out of his depth. Admittedly, it was a tough ask to come straight out of the canberra competition (where he's been played predominantly as a forward) and play as a defender in such a high pressure game.

Vogels is a keeper I think - jury is out on Grundy.

[Robbo]

Vogels looks like more of a footballer, has better hands and better footskills. He's a bit quicker aswell.

Grundy is trade bait, but I'm not sure anyone would want him.

[TMSS]

Vogels did a couple of nice things but goes missing for periods.

When he is missing its usually because he is on the interchange.
I think a few consecutive games would prove he has what it takes.
In my opinion leaving out Hall for the Richmond game would not only get him right but would provide this oportunity for Vogels to play. Also Vogels has played West Coast, Geelong and West Coast this year, tough opponents to find your feet against.

[dendol]

To be fair on Grundy, its hard to make any sort of statement about how good you can be when you come into the seniors for two or three games a season. Even if you play well, you know you are going to be dropped back into the Canberra league where the level drops to below U18.

[giant]

I think it's fair to say one of the learnings from last night is that Reg is not a defender. Don't think they had much choice in the absence of Tadhg, LRT & Leo - with Crouch also out that's 4 out of 1st choice defence missing.

[ScottH]

Grundy looked anything but a defender last night. Staker was just far too good for him.

[dawg]

Cant be to critical on either of them really, with the midfield well and truely getting the arses handed to them Vogels was never gonna see to much of it, and grundy in defence was really on the backfoot from the get go. They really need to given a constant run at this level before you can really judge if either of them are up to it or not.

[Nico]

Staker kicked 3 goals but I dont know that Grundy was on him for the full time. He worked very hard in the clinches. Staker had the drop on him a couple of times but so did Lynch on C Bolton. Those quick leads by forwards happen on the best of backs. Had 97% time on the ground.

Vogels for me drops too many marks and once the footy hit the ground last night wasn't real quick off the mark for his second efforts. 51% ground time didn't help his cause and for someone who was there to replace a key forward that doesn't make much sense. I can't work out why he wasn't at the top of the square to take the odd big mark, and he seemed to play way up the ground. In the 3rd Q at times we had no one in the forward 50 when the footy went in there.

[liz]

Grundy looked anything but a defender last night. Staker was just far too good for him.

Yep - and Staker's played 80 odd games, Grundy around 10 and none as a key defender. He's barely played a dozen quarters as a defender over the past two and a half seasons.

A lot of those 80 or so Staker games have been pretty ordinary too - including the 2005 GF where he was one of the Swans' best. Last night he was very potent in a side that was pumped and was pumping ball forward incessantly.

No-one is going to proclaim Grundy as our next FB based on that performance but equally well, it's daft to write him off on the basis of just that one game.

[stellation]

I thought that Heath positioned himself quite well when playing in defence, his main problem simply seemed to be the change up in pace and skill from Canberra to the AFL. He appeared to have been asked to play in defence with a primary purpose of actually defending, we don't bring in too many guys and stick them close to goal straight away with that as their main job. I wouldn't mind seeing him get another game or two.