2010 Rate the Season: #1 Mark Seaby

[AnnieH]

Hi kiddies,

It's our favourite time of the year again ... the off season.

Time to rate the players.

First cab off the rank ... Mr Seaby.

Go for it.

[alison.z]

6 - Showed what he can do but was unfortunately cruelled by injury ... Pyke was good but I still think Seaby will be 2nd ruckman behind Mumford in 2011. Was also quite comfortable when forward or back which will help us with the new interchange rules.

[laughingnome]

Hit his straps early but cruelled by injury. 5.

[Bloody Hell]

Really leaving yourself nowhere to go. Someone doesn't play and he gets 5 and 6?

1 - Hope to see an improvement next season.

Dropped from No. 1 ruckman before the season started to No.3 based on output.

[Big Al]

2010 Rate the Season: #1 Mark Seaby

3 - Good before the injury. Not enough games to warrant a higher season rating. Will need to play well next year to get a game a in front of Mummy and the big Canadian.

[Trickster]

5
Neutral vote-he just didn't play enough to make any impact, showed signs of what he can do for the team

[Chilcott]

3 - Had some impact in the few games he played. Will go into 2011 as the third ruckman, so needs a big pre-season.

[caj23]

Won't bother rating due to injury interrupted season, but showed he is still ahead of Pyke in the pecking order and will start the year sharing the ruck with Mummy. Has the ability to go forward which will be an advantage for him given the new sub law

[RogueSwan]

I am not quite sure of the scale for these things.
Is 10/10 the best season anyone could have or is 10/10 the best that the individual in question could have had?
for example is a 10/10 season for Goodesy better than a 10/10 for Jetstar or 10/10 for Teddy.

Anyway I gave Seab's a 3. He played well for a quarter of the season (2) + 1 for crossing over from the dark side

[ScottH]

On his games I gave him a 6, showed potential.
On the season I gave him a 4, huge disappointment.

[laughingnome]

I am not quite sure of the scale for these things.
Is 10/10 the best season anyone could have or is 10/10 the best that the individual in question could have had?

That's really a personal call.

[Mountain Man]

I think you can only rank him on the games he played in season 2010. Sure, would have been better if he (and all others) could have played more.

In the five games he was on the ground for 62% of the time (one game was 1% - when he was injured). That is a pretty good length of time for a beginning of season ruckman, so the coaches certainly ranked him.

Mumford was there for 56.4% of the time, in those 5 games.

6 from me

[Robbo]

3 - Had some impact in the few games he played. Will go into 2011 as the third ruckman, so needs a big pre-season.

u mad?

[AnnieH]

I am not quite sure of the scale for these things.
Is 10/10 the best season anyone could have or is 10/10 the best that the individual in question could have had?
for example is a 10/10 season for Goodesy better than a 10/10 for Jetstar or 10/10 for Teddy.

The general idea is to rank them on the games they played.

For instance, you might have a ressie come in, play a spectacular game, get 10's for that game, then disappear.

By the end of the end season, we'll have a picture of who sits where.

[AnnieH]

As to Mr Seaby, I gave him a four. Had he played the whole season, and on his form in the first few games, I probably would have given him a 10. The potential is there.

Poor pet was just finding his feet when he tripped over one of them.



There's absolutely no reason we can't go into season 2011 with three healthy ruckmen. We'll be the envy of all the other clubs.
Versatility is the name of the game. Want a rest from the ruck ... go and play a bit of defence; go and kick a few goals.
All our ruckmen are capable of doing just that.
There's gunna be a catfight for positions.