Pre-season 2013

[Lowlander]

The fact that MVC are still paying ~half his wages is probably the best part.

This is news to me, can anyone elaborate on the terms of his contract?

 

[Capt. Awesome]

From what I understand and correct me if I'm wrong. Flores was on $1,000,000 with Victory and still had a year to go on his contract.

They wanted to offload him. We did a deal with Victory where we pay $500,000 and they pay $500,000. Everyone happy.

 

[bikinigirl]

. i can't comment on contract terms or dollars ... but the theory goes something like:

• flores was not fitting into ange's system
• being played in an unfamiliar role
• form came into question as a consequence
• so he wasn't guranteed a starting spot
• not good for a marquee ... and a giraffe came to prominence
• ange had his eyes on another marquee (or two ... or three now i think)
• so needed to off-load the contracted marquee
• ange (from the rich end of town) had a chat with arnie (from the ... well ... the central coast)
• a deal was done that suited all parties ... and this deal includes melbourne paying part of his contract (terminating would have cost them more i s'pose)
• flores flourishes ... coasties are happy

 

[12th player]

The Scum game


---------Reddy------
Morton----Seip-----Griffiths---McDonald/Neill
-------Caceres-----Pellers/Kalik-----
Duke-----McGlinchey------Kwasnik
----------Payne----------------

Would like to give Caceres a go at AM. Imo he's been wasted by playing him so deep and restricted. His vision, ball distribution and ability to beat a player would give us more creativity in attacking.


---------Reddy------
Morton----Seip-----Griffiths---McDonald/Neill
------------Pellers---------Kalik-----
Duke-----------Caceres----------McGlinchey
---------------Kwasnik---------------

 

[localpom]

Would like to give Caceres a go at AM. Imo he's been wasted by playing him so deep and restricted. His vision, ball distribution and ability to beat a player would give us more creativity in attacking.


---------Reddy------
Morton----Seip-----Griffiths---McDonald/Neill
------------Pellers---------Kalik-----
Duke-----------Caceres----------McGlinchey
---------------Kwasnik---------------

Even that is a good side, with the 12 players still left in Indo. Would still be competitive.

 

[Einstein]

Why are people including Pellers and Payne etc??

 

[dibo]

Good question.

I still don't get the "play Caceres at 10" thing. He's from South American stock, he's little and he can pass a bit - doesn't mean he's a #10, or that we should try to shoehorn him in there to unleash his creativity. You can be creative from more places than just #10. There are other factors too.

We have a marquee #10, who presumably we're not about to bench. He's even South American.

We have an international #7 who plays #10 very effectively at #10 as well, and is a more than able backup.

One of our dozen or so #9s is also a very effective #10, so if he comes back from China we're not exactly short there.

On the other hand, at the #6/#8 pair, we're short, and we're particularly short on ball-playing ability. This is more critical having lost Zwaanswijk to retirement, because it means we can assume that one half of the #3/#4 pairing is going to be a lot less productive.

I think the longer-term pairing will be Hutch and Caceres there to ensure we've got two players who can pass a bit and respect possession. If Caceres isn't in the engine room, I think he's more likely to go out to #11 and play the Olly role - sit narrow, allow a channel to release Rosey into, support the #10.

 

[bikinigirl]

I still don't get the "play Caceres at 10" thing.

<snipped the rest for brevity>

. mr dibo, sir ... could you please draw me a picture?

. i think i got most of it, but to educate the uninformed (me) ... could you layout your #'s as a line-up so i know what you are talking about

. ta muchly

 

[eenfish]

From what I understand and correct me if I'm wrong. Flores was on $1,000,000 with Victory and still had a year to go on his contract.

They wanted to offload him. We did a deal with Victory where we pay $500,000 and they pay $500,000. Everyone happy.

I thought the money was half of that. $500k at Victory, now on $250k at Mariners with the rest picked up by the Vics.

 

[eenfish]

. mr dibo, sir ... could you please draw me a picture?

. i think i got most of it, but to educate the uninformed (me) ... could you layout your #'s as a line-up so i know what you are talking about

. ta muchly

I think he is going for the old days when starting line-ups always had to use 1-11.

GK: 1
CBs: 3, 4
FBs: 2, 5
CMs: 6, 8
Wingers: 7, 11
Play maker: 10
Striker: 9

 

[bikinigirl]

I think he is going for the old days when starting line-ups always had to use 1-11.

GK: 1
CBs: 3, 4
FBs: 2, 5
CMs: 6, 8
Wingers: 7, 11
Play maker: 10
Striker: 9

. thanks ... i did understand him then

 

[dibo]

. mr dibo, sir ... could you please draw me a picture?

. i think i got most of it, but to educate the uninformed (me) ... could you layout your #'s as a line-up so i know what you are talking about

. ta muchly

What we play is a very close cousin of the textbook FFA 1-4-3-3, and all the functional roles are very similar.

For us, 7 and 11 tuck in more narrowly to be kinda level with 10.

This is because for us, very often we want to keep 7 and 11 narrower than 2 and 5, to allow 2 and 5 to get on beyond them to create overloads on the opposition 2 and 5.

This is where Rose and Bojic have been so effective for us. When Olly played 11, he's sit very narrow and Rose would go straight by. Olly would then drop into 5 if needed to cover that flank while Rose recovered ground.

On the other side, McGlinchey tended to stay higher, so when Pedj was caught upfield we'd have Sainsbury slide across from 3 to 2, with Zwaanswijk from 4 to 3 and Hutch drops from 8 in to 4.

Honestly, I've no idea how those interrelationships will work this year - all part of the fun of a new season.

 

[localpom]

I may have totally missed the boat on this one....but has there been an official announcent on who is captain/vice captain? We are all assuming Hutch stays on as skipper, and for me the logical vice captain would be Monty. Problem is one of those 2 may well make way for Caceres.

 

[bikinigirl]

. thanks dibo ... i just wanted to make sure i was putting the correctly numbered triangle in the correct place

. incidentally and completely off-topic ... if memory serves me correctly, this would have had us lining up in season one (based purely on shirt numbers) as:

Crawley
O'Sullivan - O'Grady - Spencer - Beauchamp
Gumprecht - Heffernan
Pondeljak
Hutchinson - Brown
Mrdja

. and i know the shirt number isn't critical but it has always added to my confusion when people refer to position numbers ... so again, thanks for clarifying

 

[Roy Law]

I think he is going for the old days when starting line-ups always had to use 1-11.

GK: 1
CBs: 3, 4
FBs: 2, 5
CMs: 6, 8
Wingers: 7, 11
Play maker: 10
Striker: 9

In the old days the Centre Half (that is CB to you) was the No 5; the FBs were 2 and 3; the Wing Halves (CMs to you) were 4 and 6 with one more defensive and one more attacking. The wingers were indeed 7 and 11; there were no play makers just Inside Forwards - nos 8 and 10 - one was the creative player, one a goalscorer and the Centre Forward was the No 9.

For the sake of nostalgia and to make P Jennings smile
1 Brown
2 Baker 3 Henry
4 Blanchflower 5 Norman 6 Mackay (this was known as the half back line)
7 Jones 8 Allen 9 Smith 10 White 11 Dyson (this was known as the forward line)
Subs - None!

 

[style_cafe]

What we play is a very close cousin of the textbook FFA 1-4-3-3, and all the functional roles are very similar.

For us, 7 and 11 tuck in more narrowly to be kinda level with 10.

This is because for us, very often we want to keep 7 and 11 narrower than 2 and 5, to allow 2 and 5 to get on beyond them to create overloads on the opposition 2 and 5.

This is where Rose and Bojic have been so effective for us. When Olly played 11, he's sit very narrow and Rose would go straight by. Olly would then drop into 5 if needed to cover that flank while Rose recovered ground.

On the other side, McGlinchey tended to stay higher, so when Pedj was caught upfield we'd have Sainsbury slide across from 3 to 2, with Zwaanswijk from 4 to 3 and Hutch drops from 8 in to 4.

Honestly, I've no idea how those interrelationships will work this year - all part of the fun of a new season.

Football Tetris...

 

[style_cafe]

Chuck Mile on the wing and put Matty up front and you've got yourself a deal.

Is Chuck Mile a new player?...lol

 

[Atomic]

Chuck Mile, Technical Manager at Mills James Productions
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/chuck-mile/17/85b/a0a

Nothing as yet on Wiki, but TWG are reporting that we've signed him

 

[12th player]

Good question.

I still don't get the "play Caceres at 10" thing. He's from South American stock, he's little and he can pass a bit - doesn't mean he's a #10, or that we should try to shoehorn him in there to unleash his creativity. You can be creative from more places than just #10. There are other factors too.

We have a marquee #10, who presumably we're not about to bench. He's even South American.

We have an international #7 who plays #10 very effectively at #10 as well, and is a more than able backup.

One of our dozen or so #9s is also a very effective #10, so if he comes back from China we're not exactly short there.

On the other hand, at the #6/#8 pair, we're short, and we're particularly short on ball-playing ability. This is more critical having lost Zwaanswijk to retirement, because it means we can assume that one half of the #3/#4 pairing is going to be a lot less productive.

I think the longer-term pairing will be Hutch and Caceres there to ensure we've got two players who can pass a bit and respect possession. If Caceres isn't in the engine room, I think he's more likely to go out to #11 and play the Olly role - sit narrow, allow a channel to release Rosey into, support the #10.

Mate, no need to get hysterical over an opinion. Other mariner's fans also have the right to voice theirs. Or is your opinion the only valuable one in this forum? I haven't seen any posts with " play Caceres at 10" and if it's posted, wtf is wrong with that?!! Everyone is entitle to their opinion. Isn't this a democratic forum ? What does being of "South American stock" ( who cares? the kid is aussie), "little" and "he can pass a bit" have anything to do with my previous post? FYI, the greatest number 10s in football history were "South Americans", "little" and like Caceres they also could "pass a bit" (a bit too much). Pele : 171cm & Maradona 165cm tall.
So, according to your point of view (which by the way I repect but disagree with), in the case of Flores, just for being a marquee player, he should not be benched ? Well, imo I don't care who it is. If a player doesn't perform he will warm up bench like anyone else. In regards to the international number 7 , the few times that he played AM he did not perform well as he does not feel comfortable playing that role and the number 9 you refer to, can only play that role in the HAL, nowhere else as we in Australia don't play with a real number 10.
The only bit of your post that I agree with is that we're short of ability in DM. I rate Caceres 10 times more than Hutch and Monty in the technical ability, possesion, ball control and passing department ( he's taller than both ). So, why does it have to be a longer term pairing of Caceres with Hutch or Mont ? Why can't it be now? Out of the 3, Caceres has been the better player in the pre season games.
I believe that If Caceres is to play DM he should be given the freedom to express himself (GA does not). He should be allowed to push forward when he sees the opportunity. If Caceres , Flores, Fitzy and Mac Glinchey play closer to each other their combos will give us lots of rewards.

 

[dibo]

Steady on pal.

After you wrote:

Would like to give Caceres a go at AM.

(and you're not the first to do so) I gave an opinion, as I'm entitled to do so. It wasn't hysterical, it wasn't denying you or anyone else the right to do so.

I gave reasons, and any reader of this thread can make their own mind up as to who they agree with.

I didn't say don't post, I said I disagree. As you note, the forum is a democratic place, so wind back the outrage and get back to talking footy.