Bombertalk

Been thinking....and yes my brain hurts. I reckon the sub could be the thing that provides NLM with the role that is almost perfect for him. You all know I think he is an avearge to below average AFL footballer, BUT he is average to below average in a lot of different scenarios. He can play tall, small, can pinch hit a key position, or rotate through a mid-field, and while never being very good, he may be good enough to use as a stop gap for an injury to everyone except Hille or Ryder, and we can also use his freshness and pace when everyone else is knackered if we were to have no injuries early in a 4th quarter.

Thoughts oh wise ones.

The sub rule is perfect for utility types like Natrat. If someone goes down he can play anywhere on the field to replace them.

I still think Natrat has a lot to offer the team, his hardness and experience is still important IMO... (maybe im one of the few fans of Natrat on here)

I'm ONE Mrs Mercs

i like NLM, I think his role might get replaced by guys like crameri or hardingham.

He has improved over the last 2 seasons - the best form he's ever shown. Has played some good games. Has also shown some rubbish - just like the rest of the list in that time.

But yes, I think the sub role is a good one for him. Just as Barnard became the ideal bench player, NLM might become the ideal "sub" player.

My only concern is would his match fitness drop off by being a sub every week? He will still need to be capable of playing a full 4 quarters.

Never really understood the bad rap he gets - not our worst by the length of the MCG. I think he has been a solid contributor and role model throughout his career and I expect he will continue to do so.

List Depth my friends - we re starting to see the Knights Legacy - Our players from 23-33 on our list can all stake a claim in the best 22

Windy_Hill wrote:Never really understood the bad rap he gets - not our worst by the length of the MCG. I think he has been a solid contributor and role model throughout his career and I expect he will continue to do so.

List Depth my friends - we re starting to see the Knights Legacy - Our players from 23-33 on our list can all stake a claim in the best 22

I give him a bad wrap because he does a lot of basic things poorly. He lets his opponet get goal side too often when he is in defence, and lets his opponet run off him when he is forward. With his physical ability, he should be a lot better player than he is.

There were a lot of highlights on Sunday, but my personal favourite was when NLM got the ball in our forward pocket in the 4th quarter, hesitated, and had his kick smothered. Some joker yelled out "put your vest back on Lovett Murray!". I just about pissed myself .

Being serious though, yeah, he's a decent sub. I have him as about or 7-8th best forward, 7-8th best midfielder, and 10th best defender, but he can do all three. He could hypothetically cover an injury to most players as he can play anywhere (except the ruck) and he can provide some physical presence in bursts.

jimmyc1985 wrote:as he can play anywhere (except the ruck)

I seem to recall he has even played in the ruck (was it the Elim Final against Adelaide a couple of years ago)

Windy_Hill wrote:

jimmyc1985 wrote:as he can play anywhere (except the ruck)

I seem to recall he has even played in the ruck (was it the Elim Final against Adelaide a couple of years ago)

Yes and that went very well!


Someone behind me kept shouting out "super-sub" whenever NLM got the ball, had to laugh as he didn't really do too much.

robrulz5 wrote:

Windy_Hill wrote:

jimmyc1985 wrote:as he can play anywhere (except the ruck)

I seem to recall he has even played in the ruck (was it the Elim Final against Adelaide a couple of years ago)

Yes and that went very well!


Someone behind me kept shouting out "super-sub" whenever NLM got the ball, had to laugh as he didn't really do too much.

Not saying it went well....god forbid no. But you get my point

Difficult to say at this point, because who is know whether he would have been selected under the previous interchange arrangements?

That bit of pointless speculation to one side, of those players who previously contested for the 4th spot on the interchange, the substitute rule will probably benefit players with a specific suite of skills, not necessarily the 'best' player among them. From that perspective, the sub rule might help NLM for a couple of weeks, if the view of the selection committee is that Lovett-Murray best possesses the skills neccessary to play the subtitute rule.

On the other hand, unless there is an injury early in the match, or he gets promoted to the 21, I can't see him playing any more than 2 quarters a match at the most. Eventually, he would need to go back to Bendigo to play a full match (or two or three or four). At that point someone else will get the chance and may perform better. Also, the coaches' views on the role of the sub may change as the season progresses.

So, to reiterate what I said at the beginning, too early to say.

Maybe. As long as we continue to not get early injuries so that he can come on late in a game when everyone else is tired.

Did I read somewhere that the Sub will be able to play VFL/SANFL etc in that weekend?

Is Canberrabomber really another account set up by Robbie so that he can agree with himself?

My opinion is yes NLM seems to be the perfect sub and can see him filling that role for us nicely

It seems the sub ruke then raises the interesting question about whether teams need to develop All Rounders who can play a multitude of positions. Obviously Lovett Murray fits this bill nicely. A wonder if there are other players on our list that could fill range of roles?

Windy_Hill wrote:It seems the sub ruke then raises the interesting question about whether teams need to develop All Rounders who can play a multitude of positions. Obviously Lovett Murray fits this bill nicely. A wonder if there are other players on our list that could fill range of roles?

Surely that would be Jay Neagle - he can play forward and back - and he's got a huge motor

Gimps wrote:

Windy_Hill wrote:It seems the sub ruke then raises the interesting question about whether teams need to develop All Rounders who can play a multitude of positions. Obviously Lovett Murray fits this bill nicely. A wonder if there are other players on our list that could fill range of roles?

Surely that would be Jay Neagle - he can play forward and back - and he's got a huge motor

Was thinking exactly that....genius from our revered coaching panel

Hardingham is another that can play back, forward or mid... probably along with Natrat our only all rounder players.

FWIW I'd rather have Reimers as the sub, and definitely him ahead of NLM once Pears is back.