Goodes = Mathew Hayden

[573v30]

Goodes is on his way to another Brownlow if he doesn't get suspended or cited by the MRP.

When was the last time Haydos won a Brownlow?

[ROK Lobster]

Its unfair on a player to say that just because the end result wasnt a win that they cant turn a game.

Very few players in history fall into the category of winning a game on their own and if so it is most likely the odd game here or there as has been quoted for Goodes in this thread. Even plugger at his very best kicked bags of goals in many games but more times than not St Kilda still lost. Would you say that plugger kicking eight or ten in a losing team was just being selfish and not bringing the rest of his team into the game?

A player can only try to lift those around him by playing at his best, its rare they can bring players into the game other than to inspire others to follow suit. Unfortunately no one followed suit on saturday.

No one said he was selfish. No one said that Goodes should have won the game on Saturday. The comment was that Goodes often seems to play at his best when the result is no longer in issue (a couple of exceptions have been noted) and that I consider that this detracts slightly from his reputation as a brilliant player.

[ShockOfHair]

The Hayden comparison is a bit unfair - Queenslander-Christian-amateur cook vs all-round good guy with street cred.

Goodes certainly gets a lot more Brownlow votes than he deserves, and he gets highly rated because he's the only two-Brownlow player.

He had a crap season last year and polled 15? votes. He's an outside midfielder with brilliant reflexes who can take big marks, break the lines, get his hands on the ball 30 times a game -- all the stuff that earns you Brownlow points.

If Brownlows were awarded to players for turning games, then Kirk would have a couple.

Goodes won us the Freo game as people have pointed out, and he did a few really key things in the 05 GF.

Fact is, not many players can turn games. Right now we have just Goodes, Kirk, Hall and to a much lesser extent McVeigh and Jolly.

The Cats have Ablett, Selwood, Johnson, the Hawks have Hodge, Buddy, Rioli, etc. 2012 looks bleak from here.

[giant]

While I pay no credence to the OP, among the love fest for Goodes needs to be a recognition that he dropped two fairly simple marks less than 20m out and was as big an offender as anyone in the first half when it came to fumbling the clearances.

Nevertheless, showed great endeavour and class thereafter.

[Mr Magoo]

Selfish is the wrong word, I guess I was referring to the individual brilliance issue verse an inate ability to turn the game. I just dont know that anybody really has the ability to turn a game as opposed to just using their individual brilliance to influence the performance of others.

I think it is inaccurate to refer to goodes as someone who doesnt turn it on when the chips are down. I seem to remember some of those games against Adelaide in adelaide where we nearly came over the top of them and it was due pretty much only to Goodes.

What I do believe about Goodes is that his best can be very good but sometimes his worst is terrible. What I dont seem to see though is a consistent theme of times in games when it happens. Goodes can be awful when we are paying well and excellent when we are terrible, it seems to be more an issue of when he is mentally switched on , rather than when the team is up or down, struggling or not.

[Cardinal]

While I pay no credence to the OP, among the love fest for Goodes needs to be a recognition that he dropped two fairly simple marks less than 20m out and was as big an offender as anyone in the first half when it came to fumbling the clearances.

Nevertheless, showed great endeavour and class thereafter.

We RWO posters are a perfect bunch. I'm so perfect in real life that if I was a professional footy player I would be close to having 100% efficiency, always kick straight for goal, and never drop a ball. In fact I'm sure the only reason my efficiency would be less than 100% is because of those few times I disguised my deliberate kick out of bounds as a kick to a collegue.

[ROK Lobster]

I was getting ready to eat my words half way through the final term. Then Goodes missed the set shot (choke) and went missing. Did he touch it after that? Pefect time for the man who wants to be captain to show some leadership this afternoon but when it was in the balance and there to be won he went AWOL.

[Xie Shan]

It seems a little churlish of you to bump this thread ROK after Goodes' game today, but yes I did think when he passed off to Jolly that he should have shown some leadership and kicked the goal himself. Still, he almost turned the game in our favour, which I guess was the original point of your thread... he came close but didn't actually win the game for us. He's still a fantastic player though!

[DeadlyAkkuret]

You're an *insert insult so my post isn't deleted*

Goodes was our best today, but that's not good enough because he didn't kick the winning goal after the siren? How you can defend Hall yet make ridiculous remarks about Goodes is beyond belief.

[ROK Lobster]

It seems a little churlish of you to bump this thread ROK after Goodes' game today, but yes I did think when he passed off to Jolly that he should have shown some leadership and kicked the goal himself. Still, he almost turned the game in our favour, which I guess was the original point of your thread... he came close but didn't actually win the game for us. He's still a fantastic player though!

It wasn't that, it was when Kirk's girly kick dropped short and Goodes marked and missed the gettable shot. I think churlish is a bit hard - today was the perfect example of my point? He was everywhere until it was there to be won, then nowhere...

[DeadlyAkkuret]

It wasn't that, it was when Kirk's girly kick dropped short and Goodes marked and missed the gettable shot. I think churlish is a bit hard - today was the perfect example of my point? He was everywhere until it was there to be won, then nowhere...

The reason it was there to be won in the first place was due to Goodes' efforts during the entire game.

[ROK Lobster]

The reason it was there to be won in the first place was due to Goodes' efforts during the entire game.

And then he went missing - that is the point. Sheesh. Do you read the posts you respond to or just have some sort of "criticism alert" that throws you into hysterical ill thought-out response mode?

[ROK Lobster]

I get it perfectly, you think he disappears when the game is there to be won and I believe you're wrong. Your childish reaction was one I expected.

If I am wrong, where did he go for the last 10 minutes?

[DeadlyAkkuret]

And then he went missing - that is the point. Sheesh. Do you read the posts you respond to or just have some sort of "criticism alert" that throws you into hysterical ill thought-out response mode?

Just because he doesn't/didn't win us the game in the last 5 minutes, that doesn't mean he went missing. If Goodes gets 10 possessions in the first half of the final quater, gets us back in the game, but doesn't win it off his own boot, that (in my opinion) isn't the definition of going missing.

If he kicks 3 goals in the first half and collects 20 possessions when we're 50 points up, then isn't sighted for the majority of the 2nd half, that's "going missing".

[liz]

If I am wrong, where did he go for the last 10 minutes?

Last 10 minutes?

He scored one, set up another very gettable one for Jolly and missed another shot himself.