Matthew Bate?

[GVGjr]

I thought he was a terrific junior footballer and think it's a bit of a shame his career stagnated this year. After reading that his manager Paul Connors talked him up and say how he wants to play for the Dogs and how he was willing to take a pay cut just to play football I was wondering if this is just a player manager doing the right thing by his guy up or if Bate is truly genuine and does see an opportunity with us?

I must admit I struggle to see why we are so interested in him given he isn't quick nor is he a key forward that Jones and Grant could play along side. Perhaps B-Mac has a specific plan and/or likes strong bodied players but on face value we seem to already have a couple of half forwards.

Why do you think Bate is so eager to come to us and why do we seem to be interested in getting him?

[Greystache]

Re: Matthew Bate?

The interesting this is Bate was supposedly one of the quickest players at Melbourne when he was drafted. Have injuries cruelled him, or has he bulked up too much? Could he slim down and rediscover his pace, and if so would he then be able to play any form of valuable role for us?

[Sedat]

Re: Matthew Bate?

The interesting this is Bate was supposedly one of the quickest players at Melbourne when he was drafted. Have injuries cruelled him, or has he bulked up too much? Could he slim down and rediscover his pace, and if so would he then be able to play any form of valuable role for us?

I posted on another thread the comments from a close mate of mine who is a Melbourne fanatic who knows his players inside out. He reckons the Bailey coaching group used him in the wrong way as the lead-up pseudo key forward, and that earlier in his career (under Daniher) Bate was something of an explosive clearance king during his short spells in the middle. He said his pace off the mark was much underrated. I take very little notice of Melbourne, so like other posters here I have Bate pegged as a Hahn type with similar physical attributes, which we clearly don't need. But my mate's comments were interesting, especially in light of us losing Ward from our midfield and stating an interest in some inside midfield cover this trade week.

Whilst it is nice to hear players wanting to come to our club, we need a more compelling reason to bring them over. Does Bate offer a compelling enough reason? If we have him earmarked for the same type of lead-up forward role that he's struggled at for Melbourne, I'm dead against getting him. But if we are looking a reinvigorated role through the midfield, I'm less skeptical and more open to the idea. Pick 39 is meh to me - he's on a similar level (different type of player obviously) to Hill last year and Hill was worth pick 37 and 66. Assuming we get 49 off WC for Hill (no certainty in light of the latest tweet from Emma Quayle), it's basically a slight trade down and we keep the same number of picks. Irrespective of the above, it doesn't excite me much to be honest because it is little more than tinkering around the edges and we need some significant renovations to our list.

[Hotdog60]

Re: Matthew Bate?

I'd heard that he had to bulk up and so it affect he's pace. The Dee's wanted him to play at CHF but played he's best footy in the midfield with less bulk. I can't remember the source as I been reading to much on players over trade week. It may have even been on the radio.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Matthew Bate?

[QUOTE=Sedat;246484]I posted on another thread the comments from a close mate of mine who is a Melbourne fanatic who knows his players inside out. He reckons the Bailey coaching group used him in the wrong way as the lead-up pseudo key forward, and that earlier in his career (under Daniher) Bate was something of an explosive clearance king during his short spells in the middle. He said his pace off the mark was much underrated.


This is interesting. If your mate is correct he may well be worth chasing as we need extra through the middle. I have to assume that BM is driving this, in which case he may well be thinking outside the square with this. I would hope that the only players we get are those with a fanatical contested ball attitude (since that is what we have been told is the main game for us). Clearly, if BM is after this bloke, he must think he has this attitude or that it can be tweaked relatively quickly.

If on the other hand he is just another fill in player, I would be devastated that little had changed.

[Ghost Dog]

Re: Matthew Bate?

[QUOTE=metal;246509]

I posted on another thread the comments from a close mate of mine who is a Melbourne fanatic who knows his players inside out. He reckons the Bailey coaching group used him in the wrong way as the lead-up pseudo key forward, and that earlier in his career (under Daniher) Bate was something of an explosive clearance king during his short spells in the middle. He said his pace off the mark was much underrated.


This is interesting. If your mate is correct he may well be worth chasing as we need extra through the middle. I have to assume that BM is driving this, in which case he may well be thinking outside the square with this. I would hope that the only players we get are those with a fanatical contested ball attitude (since that is what we have been told is the main game for us). Clearly, if BM is after this bloke, he must think he has this attitude or that it can be tweaked relatively quickly.

If on the other hand he is just another fill in player, I would be devastated that little had changed.

or there is a bit of ranga love going on ^_^
how's his disposal?
No point getting another pack splitter with suspect skills.

[azabob]

Re: Matthew Bate?

[QUOTE=Ghost Dog;246524]

or there is a bit of ranga love going on ^_^
how's his disposal?
No point getting another pack splitter with suspect skills.

I agree skills are a massive part of the game, but we still need "pack splitters" and I'd be happy to take one with Hahn's skill level.

We have lost 3 players who play with controlled aggression and split packs open.

Hudson, Hall and Ward.

Now im not sure if Bate actually plays this role or not.

[ledge]

Re: Matthew Bate?

I would prefer Bate than Reid so I think its an upgrade that way.

[Bulldog Revolution]

Re: Matthew Bate?

Until this year I'd always thought he was quite a good player

I've never noticed that he a was particularly slow, perhaps its more his agility than his straight line speed that is the issue.

I think if we are keen to have him and the price is low I don't mind having a go at him. The papers have reported we have been rejected in our approach of pick 39. I actually think pick 39 is too high a price to pay for him, and it would be our next pick with which I would want to get him.

He is desperate for a new start, and surely with only kids he must feel confident he could get a chance with us.

For me the thinking would be out Hill, in Bate.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Re: Matthew Bate?

I posted on another thread the comments from a close mate of mine who is a Melbourne fanatic who knows his players inside out. He reckons the Bailey coaching group used him in the wrong way as the lead-up pseudo key forward, and that earlier in his career (under Daniher) Bate was something of an explosive clearance king during his short spells in the middle. He said his pace off the mark was much underrated. I take very little notice of Melbourne, so like other posters here I have Bate pegged as a Hahn type with similar physical attributes, which we clearly don't need. But my mate's comments were interesting, especially in light of us losing Ward from our midfield and stating an interest in some inside midfield cover this trade week.

Whilst it is nice to hear players wanting to come to our club, we need a more compelling reason to bring them over. Does Bate offer a compelling enough reason? If we have him earmarked for the same type of lead-up forward role that he's struggled at for Melbourne, I'm dead against getting him. But if we are looking a reinvigorated role through the midfield, I'm less skeptical and more open to the idea. Pick 39 is meh to me - he's on a similar level (different type of player obviously) to Hill last year and Hill was worth pick 37 and 66. Assuming we get 49 off WC for Hill (no certainty in light of the latest tweet from Emma
Quayle), it's basically a slight trade down and we keep the same number of picks. Irrespective of the above, it doesn't excite me much to be honest because it is little more than tinkering around the edges and we need some significant renovations to our list.

Our recruiting this year of Sherman, DJ and Veszpremi was risky at best. Our forward line without Hall lacks class and physical power. Bate might just be an improvement in an attack that is still questionable. There appears to be little on offer that is any better in this current draft. Bate might also prove a useful back up to Boyd and Griffen in the midfield, with still some doubt on Cooney regaining his former brilliance.

[stefoid]

Re: Matthew Bate?

I like Sherman as a forward, I think he is dangerous now, and if he can round out his game defensively he will be a real asset. Needs to use that speed of his in both directions though.

Vezpremi I dont know anything about, and DJ I cant see his disposal getting any better, so...

[Remi Moses]

Re: Matthew Bate?

You gotta wonder why after delisting Miller neither Bate or Dunn stepped up to the breach.
The times of watched Bate he's been good, then he get's dropped.

[stefoid]

Re: Matthew Bate?

What about McAffer? Anyone have anything to say about him? A second rounder would probably get him if hes going to walk anyway.

Which would you prefer out of those two?

[KT31]

Re: Matthew Bate?

What about McAffer? Anyone have anything to say about him? A second rounder would probably get him if hes going to walk anyway.

Which would you prefer out of those two?

For me I think McAffer.
Not much in it though.
It all comes down to which pick.

[Doc26]

Re: Matthew Bate?

You gotta wonder why after delisting Miller neither Bate or Dunn stepped up to the breach.
The times of watched Bate he's been good, then he get's dropped.

Remi, I can't say I see Bate's role comparable to the role that Miller and Dunn tend to play.

I'm not quite sure where he would slot in, possibly fighting for Shaun's spot changing in the midfield on occasions.

I'm not sold on our apparent offer of pick 37 for him. Melbourne are certainly wantiing overs for him by knocking this back.