DesEnglish wrote:
bondiblue wrote:
You are suggesting Murphy offers this week in week out?
Murphy has been as consistent as a new draftee this year.
Murphy escapes scrutiny, and Murphy's output should not be compared with Cripps and Curnow who show more commitment to the contest than Murphy in spades.
I can understand how Cripps and Curnow earn their spots, and there's no argument any of the young players could take their spot, but they same can't be said about Murphy. I'm not an my own here, and the point is, Murphy divides Carlton fans: that alone says something that his time as an auto selection is almost up. I expect him to continue to provide leadership for the remainder of the year, but come the last few rounds, and finals are not on the radar, I wouldn't be surprised to see MC try other players, looking to the future, ahead of Murph.
Last week he scored a few coaches votes.
He had 22 disposals and 1 tackle; a few clangers in that too.
The way some supported Murphy's case here was that he was a revelation.
That was his best game for the year: its round 10.
Not disagreeing but I thought Murphy was important against *. For me that was his best game of the year
I thought apart from his horrible first quarter, Marc played really well the remainder of the Richmond game.
Having said that, I thought Fisher played better despite being injured. Fisher still hasn't returned to the team.
I thought Marc's round 2 game was his best thus far. After that, other than the North game, where he got coaches votes for his 20 odd possessions and 1 tackle, I thought he's been carried.
Marc's game against *Druggies I thought was valuable because he laid a couple tackles in the last, but before the last qtr he was ... lets say carried.
In our win against Doggies he was a no how, got smashed against Saints ....
Marc Murphy is selected by MC week in week out. That should say it all.
We have to accept that the MC selects him for a reason, so I support that, but it does raise more questions for me than it answers given Marc's form fluctuates on a weekly basis.
Maybe there's no competition for his spot because:
(a) Long list of injuries
(b) No Reserves competiton, and the fact no scratch matches doesn't give the MC
(c) The need for experience around the youngsters
(d) MC expect Marc to have an impact
The point is, despite being inconsistent and not racking up any numbers to write home about, he is selected by the MC, week in week out....and there's no one knocking the door down. Maybe because the MC is expecting 3 good practise games in a row, which Kennedy and Moore achieved, but there hasn't been much match practise for anyone the last few weeks. Maybe that's what is saving Murphy from ommission. Just sayin' its not all black n white, just because Murph is selected even when his form over a 3-4 week period doesn't warrant selection from my perspective.
I question Teague's suggestion that there's pressure on spots, because the team is virtually the same whether we win or lose, other than injury. Form doesn't seem to be playing a part.
I like the ballsy decisions Rhyse Shaw made with the Polec, even after he was voted best on ground in that game vs Carlton, when he had more disposals, tackles and metres gained than Murphy playing in a losing team. For those that don't know, Polac was dropped.
Teague says he likes to back his players. It seems he does this whether they are consistent or not. Thems the facts.
Come on Fisher, you can do it.