Jump to content
Melbourne Football
Sign in to follow this  
Deluka

Stefan Mauk

Recommended Posts

bt50    3,322
10 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

You mean John Roberts? He's only 16-17 (can't quickly find his dob). We'll be sending them out in nappies soon. FMD, if CFG can't send us a marquee injury replacement from players already on their books then it's not worth being a member of the Group.

Meh on what i've seen of him and his record so far I'd be more than happy to chuck him in and give him a crack. Fuck this mollycoddling bullshit of waiting until players are ready etc, its setting them up to fail over the journey imo.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jovan    3,071
23 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

You mean John Roberts? He's only 16-17 (can't quickly find his dob). We'll be sending them out in nappies soon. FMD, if CFG can't send us a marquee injury replacement from players already on their books then it's not worth being a member of the Group.

They might send a replacement. 

My point was more in regards to Crowley and not being at A League level. 

But really at the end of the day we've got Cahill as a genuine striker. At A League level he is more than adequate infact if I was a gambling man I would put some money on Cahill being leading A League goalscorer this season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jw1739    7,092
19 minutes ago, bt50 said:

Meh on what i've seen of him and his record so far I'd be more than happy to chuck him in and give him a crack. Fuck this mollycoddling bullshit of waiting until players are ready etc, its setting them up to fail over the journey imo.

Your point is well made. In fact I've just read that linked article in the CFG thread http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/inside-city-football-group-manchester-citys-network-of-clubs-new-york-melbourne-girona-a7934436.html?amp where it says "...The data from the City Football Group’s shared services department says that in the last decade of Champions League competition, of the players involved at every club that has reached the quarter-finals, 83.5 per cent were playing senior minutes at the age of eighteen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bt50    3,322
2 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Your point is well made. In fact I've just read that linked article in the CFG thread http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/inside-city-football-group-manchester-citys-network-of-clubs-new-york-melbourne-girona-a7934436.html?amp where it says "...The data from the City Football Group’s shared services department says that in the last decade of Champions League competition, of the players involved at every club that has reached the quarter-finals, 83.5 per cent were playing senior minutes at the age of eighteen.

Exactly. Tbh i doubt Stefan Mauk would say that getting thrown in against Sydney that time was a bad thing for his career. IMO if you can't learn to deal with a setback like that early in your career, you're never going to have the mental toughness to succeed any high level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shahanga    3,616

Yes @jw1739, if they're ready they're ready.

Rooney played EPL at 16, wasn't Sterling 17, Kewell was starring at Leeds at 17 & Pele played for Santos at 17.

we get used to Aussie kids not being ready till they're 22, but it's not always the case.

dont throw him to the wolves, but if he looks ready, why not.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
haz    2,081
50 minutes ago, Shahanga said:

Yes @jw1739, if they're ready they're ready.

Rooney played EPL at 16, wasn't Sterling 17, Kewell was starring at Leeds at 17 & Pele played for Santos at 17.

we get used to Aussie kids not being ready till they're 22, but it's not always the case.

dont throw him to the wolves, but if he looks ready, why not.

Throw them in the deep end, if they can't swim.... Well goodbye. But if they can, they'll become a valuable team member. Take Tonyik for example, although he isn't the best CB, if he hadn't played last season he would have been much worse if he made his debut this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shahanga    3,616

Mauk showed the class needed from a #10 at times last night, but for mine the consistent performance wasn't there. 

With Carrusca, Budzinski and even Cahill lining up for his spot, he will need to lift or will soon find himself fighting just to get a bench position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jw1739    7,092
3 hours ago, Shahanga said:

Mauk showed the class needed from a #10 at times last night, but for mine the consistent performance wasn't there. 

With Carrusca, Budzinski and even Cahill lining up for his spot, he will need to lift or will soon find himself fighting just to get a bench position.

I hear what you say, but when the team's instinct is to pass the ball backwards at every possible opportunity, is it fair to judge the creative ability of the AM?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inferno    49
7 minutes ago, n i k o said:

Worked his arse off in the midfield last night. Solid Perfomance. 

Thought he was the worst on ground tbh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coys    75
1 hour ago, Inferno said:

Thought he was the worst on ground tbh. 

Watching a different game yeah?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JMSTEP123    27
4 hours ago, Inferno said:

Thought he was the worst on ground tbh. 

Brattan has a solid first half. Dropped back after a clip on the achilles. He looks the goods

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rass    1,001

Mauk played well but he's not a #10 in the way a Carrusca is. Pretty sure we would have created more chances and the linking with Ross would have worked better if he had come on.

Tbh, I'm not sure where you would play Mauk. He's a good player and i like watching him, but he seems like a Jack of All Trades/ Master of None type. E.g. he's not a starting winger, striker nor #10 - but he can play those positions if needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jovan    3,071
7 hours ago, rass said:

Mauk played well but he's not a #10 in the way a Carrusca is. Pretty sure we would have created more chances and the linking with Ross would have worked better if he had come on.

Tbh, I'm not sure where you would play Mauk. He's a good player and i like watching him, but he seems like a Jack of All Trades/ Master of None type. E.g. he's not a starting winger, striker nor #10 - but he can play those positions if needed.

Definitely not a winger and as the #10 or even second striker just doesn't have enough tricks (yet). I reackon his best hope of becoming a regular is to develop into box to box midfielder. 

But for us specifically I think he will play as the #10 and start until Budzinski is fully fit and then make way. It mirrors  a lit bit a couple seasons back when Mooy energed as true gun  and kept Koren out. Now I'm not suggesting Mauk is close to Mooy and definitely not suggesting Budzinski is the same as Koren its just an interesting situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dylan    4,157

I don’t even think Budzinski is an out and out 10? 

Carusca is probably the only one and really should be playing if we want McCormack or Bruno to be effective 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jw1739    7,092
7 minutes ago, Dylan said:

I don’t even think Budzinski is an out and out 10? 

Carusca is probably the only one and really should be playing if we want McCormack or Bruno to be effective 

Wazza has so many forwards he doesn't know what to do with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JMSTEP123    27
1 hour ago, jw1739 said:

Wazza has so many forwards he doesn't know what to do with them.

By Wazzas rhetoric it sounds like he does not discriminate and is aiming for a consistent team first and foremost. If players are scrapped by injury or illness then they will have to fight their way back in.

I think we are going to see much the same team over the next few weeks as we did on Fri - if it aint broken, dont fix it. Jakob @ left back worked for Wazza, why drop La Rocca or him or Jamieson. 

Mauk is a great acquisition because he is energetic, determined and showed good signs on Fri. It will be tough to get in the team for his position.

Ultimately it may require a change in our formation. Perhaps a 4411. Brandan and Kilkenny will naturally put pressure on selection, but they are not a given. If fitzy and kamau keep working hard and winning games for us, Brandan will find it hard to be in the starting squad.

I have said it before, this push for competition for positions will either destroy morale or exponentialliy improve our players and the squad. I hope the latter, as you see in many of the best clubs in the world. But there are not as many opportunities in Aus for second choices to get game time outside of formal fixtures and to keep fit and focussed. That is my concern

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coys    75

I thought Mauk showed glimpses of the class that I've always thought he had. His work rate is second to none on the pitch and although some of his passes and shots were abit off tonight he's only going to get better. 

He wasn't the best in the park and I don't think he will be consistently like mooy is but he will be essential for us going anywhere this season

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Embee    2,368

He's improved so much since he left us for Adelaide.

You could see his potential at that point but he's come back as a much better footballer, he's built up significantly from a physical standpoint too in my opinion.

Edited by Embee
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coys    75

For anyone questioning mauks loyalty to the club just look at his reaction to Valeris first challenge on Jakobsen.  I think he's well and truly grown up the last few years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kingofhearts    3,328

Always been a big fan of the kid,  people forget how good he was for us before we traded him away for 2 coke cans and a packet of chips

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
malloy    3,153
2 hours ago, kingofhearts said:

Always been a big fan of the kid,  people forget how good he was for us before we traded him away for 2 coke cans and a packet of chips

If Malik performed performed to the same level he is now when we got him it would have been an absolute steel.  Mauk had was looking to overseas and it was likely  (at the time) that it was going to be at the end of the season. We let him go six months earlier for a player we expected to perform well and in an area that we needed more coverage.

I liked Mauk when he was playing for us the first time, however I think, without the benefit of hindsight, we made the right decision.

Edited by malloy
spelling/grammar
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kingofhearts    3,328
2 hours ago, malloy said:

If Malik performed performed to the same level he is now when we got him it would have been an absolute steel.  Mauk had was looking to overseas and it was likely  (at the time) that it was going to be at the end of the season. We let him go six months earlier for a player we expected to perform well and in an area that we needed more coverage.

I liked Mauk when he was playing for us the first time, however I think, without the benefit of hindsight, we made the right decision.

 But Malik hadn't played a good game for Adelaide for a while when we had got him, and barring the two games this season has been average at best during his entire Melbourne city career. 

I understand from the clubs point of view that if they knew mauk was going that it was better to have something then nothing long term however, were we really better off having Malik compared to keeping Mauk until the end of the season? Have we really gotten better as a team since we got Malik?

We played finals that year too, imagine if we kept mauk instead of giving him to Adelaide to help win the premiership, who knows what could have happened.... 

We essentially gave Adelaide the final cog in their finals machine for nothing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
malloy    3,153
9 hours ago, kingofhearts said:

 But Malik hadn't played a good game for Adelaide for a while when we had got him, and barring the two games this season has been average at best during his entire Melbourne city career. 

I understand from the clubs point of view that if they knew mauk was going that it was better to have something then nothing long term however, were we really better off having Malik compared to keeping Mauk until the end of the season? Have we really gotten better as a team since we got Malik?

We played finals that year too, imagine if we kept mauk instead of giving him to Adelaide to help win the premiership, who knows what could have happened.... 

We essentially gave Adelaide the final cog in their finals machine for nothing.

 

If you are asking did we get better with Malik then you are misding my point. Mauk was not in our best XI, we needed more defensive midfield stock at the time. On all the information available at the time it was a good decision. 

 I am not going to argue that with hindsight it was a good decision because it wasn't and Malik has been a useless cunt for us

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×