View Full Version : Matthew Bate or Angus Monfries?
Keithy George
1 Jul 2006, 01:01
Taken Pick 13 and 14 in 2004 respectively.
At the time I wanted us to take Monfries, but now I'm pretty happy with Bate. Monfries will still be a very good player though.
Who would you take?
mcphee_is_a_gun
1 Jul 2006, 01:10
I'd take Monfries....
Doggies 06
1 Jul 2006, 02:56
This one is a "No Brainer"
Bate ....by the length of the Flemington straight :thumbsu:
vinnie_vegas69
1 Jul 2006, 03:19
Matty Bate.
I wouldn't take Angus Monfries PLUS *insert another Essendon young player* in a trade for Bate.
melbournemartin
1 Jul 2006, 04:06
Notice that the only person here who has said they'd take Monfries is an Essendon supporters while the neutrals and the dees fans go for Bate?
Monfries could and should and probably will turn into a decent midfielder with possibly a very good goal sense. I'm thinking maybe in the Shannon Grant mould? just maybe not as good cos Grant's boots are quite hard to fill.
As for Bate, ND described him as a player in the Kouta mold and I'm starting to see why. Thank god he hasn't be wasted in a key defence role (like he was briefly in the NAB cup) and he is a real impact player with a supurb left foot kick.
his first kick was not only a goal but a 60 metre one and besides Shannon Hurn I can't think of many others that have done that.
Bate also has a more mature body and his height gives him an extra dimension as you could throw him forward (once he learns how to) and expect a decent impact as a tall forward.
RogerRabbit69
1 Jul 2006, 10:09
Monfries .... just because most of these polls are generally started by supporters who know the result's going to go in favour of one of their players.
goal sneak
1 Jul 2006, 11:05
Monfries.. just.
I know as a melbourne supporter i should be choosing Bate but there is something special about Monfries as he showed earlier this year against the Lions. Think he is going to be one out of the box. In saying that i think Bate will be a good solid player for us.
Cassius_Clay
1 Jul 2006, 11:09
Monfries.
Monfries easy ! ate is the Master of Nothing ! \o/
Monfries >> Bate
One is a small, light and quite clever little footballer, whilst the other is 191cms, aggressive, strong, fast, and has the adaptability to play midfield, forward, or defence.
It's a very easy question. In fact, it's an unfair comparison.
Bias aside, it's easily the (handy) 'Option' for mine. The Option will be one of the elite players of his generation.
KING-JAMES
1 Jul 2006, 13:13
Everyone at Essendon loves little Angus and its easy to see why. He has to much courage for his own good, one day his gunna be broken in half. He is footy smart and knows how to get the ball. The type of player he is would be a very hard task in a bad side like essendon this year but his pulling it off well. Id like to see him playing for a quality team. Im very convinced he will be a very good football player and wont stop till he does become just that. As Dermi said last night he trains the house down to get the best out of his ability.
Matthew Bate is a great user of the ball and kicks big goals from 50-60 out. Looks a likey type could even end up a Key Position Forward. Runs the lines well.
Id be happy with either in my side, both look like being elite players if they continue this impovment. Either player would be a good selection just comes down to team preference.
LukeHodge15
1 Jul 2006, 13:13
bate, monfries getting better by the day (just lacks a yard)
tomthetiger
1 Jul 2006, 13:19
Monfries - No matter how much he tries to conceal it, deep down, we all know that Bate is a red head.
KING-JAMES
1 Jul 2006, 13:26
Monfries - No matter how much he tries to conceal it, deep down, we all know that Bate is a red head.
He aint fooling me
Geelong63
1 Jul 2006, 13:42
Bate ........Easily
Monfries just doesn't have the potential that Bate has.
Lord_Travis
1 Jul 2006, 16:39
I'm a Dees fan, so naturally I have bias, but Bate is just such an exciting prospect! With his ability, pace and size, he could play midfield or a key role up forward or back. He's played maybe 9-10 AFL games (?) in this, his debut season, and has already had an impact at senior level. Has kicked 2-3 50+ plus goals on the run, and has had some decent midfield stats to back it up. Alot of them have been hard ball gets too, not jjst cheap outside recieving stats. He could become an extremely good player if he keeps developing at a decent rate and doesnt get injured.
That said, I also think Monfries is a fantastic little footballer too. He will be dangerous around goal for another 10 years and will probably become a decent midfielder too.
Bother are great, but I take Bate ;)
Smokin_Joe
1 Jul 2006, 17:55
Gus :thumbsu:
Ling, Whitnall, Leppitch, Akermanis and Bate, they are all better players then Monfries.
Thurgood isn't
goDees22
2 Jul 2006, 17:47
Monfries - No matter how much he tries to conceal it, deep down, we all know that Bate is a red head.
:D haha, too true, he tried to dye it black but the redness is coming back already. Classic.
I would go with 'The Master' purely because of his versatility. He is big-bodied and is also quick, has great endurance, and a booming kick. Monfries is as tough as nails though, and will be a bloody good footballer from what i have seen of him, probably the most impressive youngster at Essendon
Mathew Bate- A tall big bodied midfielder who is far from slow. This bloke will be a superstar and could potentially play as a key position player.
windyhill
2 Jul 2006, 20:53
Bate looks good. How ould he look playing for Essendon. We are having the **** kicked out of us most weeks , Gus is probably one of the only shining lights.
Agree windy, has been very good while his older team mates have been up sh-t creek
I wouldnt be swapping Monfries for Bate.
whippersnipper
3 Jul 2006, 19:32
I know Monfries,. he's a good bloke. Saw him play against Brisbane earlier this year, was terrific. Bate has been solid, though. Still go with Monfries, just
Super Demon
3 Jul 2006, 21:31
As a Melb supporter I am going to say Bate
It seems that the majority of independant supporters agree that Bate is easily the better choice;)
Thunderstruck
4 Jul 2006, 14:36
Bate is going to be a solid footballer but not as good as Monfries will be. Monfries has that 'something special' auroa about him and no doubt will develop into one of the AFL's elite player once his body is bigger. A future captain of Essendon and potential brownlow medalist he is in the mould of Cousins IMO. Now that is a big wrap but he can do it.
TwoBlueEyes
4 Jul 2006, 15:18
Monfries no doubt. Reason why...
Bate has the body of a seasoned player already thus, is more developed and capable of playing a midfield role.
Monfries had a shoulder op over the pre-season i think which means he couldnt do weights and Essendon have kept him playing small forward roles because of this.
Monfries has more potential going purely on the fact Monfries is behind in his development compared to Bate.
Monfries is also very courageous and a proven goal-kicker.
No doubt Bate will be a very good player though.
No doubt Bate is a Very good Player, & will Be better than chooker and Sylvia
rick James
4 Jul 2006, 17:25
No doubt Bate is a Very good Player, & will Be better than chooker and Sylvia
Better than chook? Fair call that.
cussernaut
4 Jul 2006, 17:54
Monfries easy ! ate is the Master of Nothing ! \o/
Monfries >> Bate
sorry mate
and thanks monfries for your hollywood banana out on the full that gave us the game by a point.
Bate is one of the most exciting young players in the competition in terms of potential. I'd love to see him have a full game in the middle and see what he can do. I haven't seen enough of Monfries to make a good judgement, but Bate has shown in 7 games why Melbourne fans are so excited bout him.
froggyboy88
4 Jul 2006, 22:56
never herd of bate so i guess its monfries for me? Who is he and who does he play for? Has he played a game? This is serious.
froggyboy88
4 Jul 2006, 22:58
i guess it pays to read the post above lol
geelong_falcons22
6 Jul 2006, 01:52
i'm shocked by this poll
surely only a melbourne fan could vote for bate
monfries by so far its not funny
i'm shocked by this poll
surely only a melbourne fan could vote for bate
monfries by so far its not funny
Your level of shock tells me one of 2 things. You haven't seen Bate play, or you're footy dumb. Perhaps both.
There's a reason that Monfries was a somewhat surprising first round selection and Bate was always touted for such, despite being bottom age. In fact Bate had to get written permission from the AFl to be drafted due to being too young at the cut off.
Bate is bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and faster. He's clearly more versatile in that he can play midfield and KPP. With respect to Monfries, his type are a dime a dozen. Not so the 191cm Bate.
http://www.finalsiren.com/PlayerCompare.asp?SeasonID=2006&SelectedPlayers=1631,1525,&Compare=Go&Sort=AverageRating%20Desc
The stats represent Bate's first year and Monfries second. One's playing in a top 4 side, the other ...
There's a reason that Monfries was a somewhat surprising first round selection and Bate was always touted for such, despite being bottom age.
I'm interested to hear what that reason is, because as far as I'm aware and I do try to keep up with these things, Monfries was a completely unsurprising first round pick. Smacks of you speaking nonsense in order to back up your argument.
I like the look of Bate, to get back to the topic. Thought he seemed a bit of a Cameron Bruce type from my limited exposure. Obviously I'm very happy with Monfries.
rick James
6 Jul 2006, 10:15
I'm interested to hear what that reason is, because as far as I'm aware and I do try to keep up with these things, Monfries was a completely unsurprising first round pick. Smacks of you speaking nonsense in order to back up your argument.
I like the look of Bate, to get back to the topic. Thought he seemed a bit of a Cameron Bruce type from my limited exposure. Obviously I'm very happy with Monfries.
He's already bigger then Cameron Bruce, doesn't really play with the same finesse either.
Bate is an athletic, powerful, battering ram. Loves the hard stuff, very quick, loves to run into traffic, boots the ball a good 65 metres, has a quick handball he uses to keep himself out of trouble.
He's built like a young Koutoufides or Pavlich - that's about as close as finding a comparison as I can get. Of course I woldn't suggest he'll be as good as either of them, but he has that same body type they had at his age.
I'm interested to hear what that reason is, because as far as I'm aware and I do try to keep up with these things, Monfries was a completely unsurprising first round pick. Smacks of you speaking nonsense in order to back up your argument.
A Melbourne based recruiter stated that he wouldn't have even rookied Monfries. He's not a big fan of small midfielders unless they have that very special something. He was shocked when Monfries was drafted by the Bombres. That said, Monfries looks a fine young player. I just can't see anything like the upside of Bate though.
Monfries first year stats: http://www.finalsiren.com/PlayerCompare.asp?SeasonID=2005&Compare=Go&PlayerName1=angus+monfries&PlayerName2=&PlayerName3=&PlayerName4=&SelectedPlayers=
Longy413
6 Jul 2006, 11:07
http://www.footydraft.com/category/2004/2004-footydraftcom-mock-draft
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=draft&spg=display&articleid=178087
Two independant mock drafts from 2004, both have Monfries going in the first round. He was always going to be a first rounder, one persons opinion does not speak for the majority.
Speaking of upside, Gus' body is a long way from fully developed. He couldn't hit the gym last pre-season due to a shoulder reco. Yet I look at Bate and see a ready made footballer.
No doubt both have improvement, but if you want to talk about upside and future development, Gus has a lot more simply because he doesn't yet have an AFL body. Yet it doesn't seem to hinder him.
rick James
6 Jul 2006, 12:02
http://www.footydraft.com/category/2004/2004-footydraftcom-mock-draft
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=draft&spg=display&articleid=178087
Two independant mock drafts from 2004, both have Monfries going in the first round. He was always going to be a first rounder, one persons opinion does not speak for the majority.
Speaking of upside, Gus' body is a long way from fully developed. He couldn't hit the gym last pre-season due to a shoulder reco. Yet I look at Bate and see a ready made footballer.
No doubt both have improvement, but if you want to talk about upside and future development, Gus has a lot more simply because he doesn't yet have an AFL body. Yet it doesn't seem to hinder him.
Bate still has plenty of puppy fat, he's big already, but he's going to be huge and very very strong, and he's exceptionally quick. It's like looking at Kouta in his debut year, he looked ready, but he still got a lot stronger.
Bate has already shown he's physically strong enough for AFL - for a kid who just turned 19 to be that strong already is a good sign, he'll get much stronger by the time he hits 24 or 25.
People said McLean was ready-made and somehow used that as a reason to suggest he wouldn't get much better, yet he improves every time I see him play and is arguably the best player from his draft.
By the same token, Travis Johnstone is never going to be a tank, yet only a fool would suggest he didn't have a massive upside when he was drafted (in spite of his body never really being big) that he has since delivered on.
Not all players are meant to be physically intimidating, James Hird is another good example. Perhaps Angus is already at about the build he'll stay at. It won't matter, he's a fine player, they both are - most of their development from here, that matters, is the development between the ears.
Longy413
6 Jul 2006, 12:13
I wasn't suggesting that Bate wouldn't improve or that he has a limited for improvement.
However, AFL is a physically demanding game, especially on young bodies and you would expect Bate to be able to handle that better than Monfries at this stage.
Angus put on about 7kg's over pre-season. So his body is developing, but he wasn't able to seriously hit the weights, you'd expect that to happen this summer. The kid was drafted as a midfielder, yet has probably only spent 30 minutes of his career playing in the middle. A summer in the gym and I reckon we'll see him take his game to another level.
rick James
6 Jul 2006, 13:00
I wasn't suggesting that Bate wouldn't improve or that he has a limited for improvement.
However, AFL is a physically demanding game, especially on young bodies and you would expect Bate to be able to handle that better than Monfries at this stage.
Angus put on about 7kg's over pre-season. So his body is developing, but he wasn't able to seriously hit the weights, you'd expect that to happen this summer. The kid was drafted as a midfielder, yet has probably only spent 30 minutes of his career playing in the middle. A summer in the gym and I reckon we'll see him take his game to another level.
Fair enough, I'm a firm beleiver that endurance is mroe important than bulk in most cases.
We shouldn't really worry about comparing these two, we should focus on what's important - giving collingwood fans heaps of crap because they missed BOTH of them.
mcphee_is_a_gun
6 Jul 2006, 21:15
Your level of shock tells me one of 2 things. You haven't seen Bate play, or you're footy dumb. Perhaps both.
There's a reason that Monfries was a somewhat surprising first round selection and Bate was always touted for such, despite being bottom age. In fact Bate had to get written permission from the AFl to be drafted due to being too young at the cut off.
Bate is bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and faster. He's clearly more versatile in that he can play midfield and KPP. With respect to Monfries, his type are a dime a dozen. Not so the 191cm Bate.
http://www.finalsiren.com/PlayerCompare.asp?SeasonID=2006&SelectedPlayers=1631,1525,&Compare=Go&Sort=AverageRating%20Desc
The stats represent Bate's first year and Monfries second. One's playing in a top 4 side, the other ...
This is Bate's 2nd year in the sysstem too so don't give me that crap. And re your comment on one being in a top 4 team and one not. It is very easy to argue that if Monfries played for the Dees and Bate for us that Monfries could be a fair distance ahead of him. Theres no point making stupid statemwents like that.
fishbowl
6 Jul 2006, 21:47
I'll pick the Master any time. Monfries is a good little league player.
This is Bate's 2nd year in the sysstem too so don't give me that crap. And re your comment on one being in a top 4 team and one not. It is very easy to argue that if Monfries played for the Dees and Bate for us that Monfries could be a fair distance ahead of him. Theres no point making stupid statemwents like that.
Looking at Monfries first year in the Seniors compared to Bate's suggests perhaps Monfries should've been held back too. We had that luxury, perhaps you didn't.
Angus averaged less than 10 possessions in his first year at Senior level and Bate averages over 15 in his first Senior year at Melbourne.
Btw, Monfries probably wouldn't have tasted AFL footy yet if he was on our list. It's a feather in Bate's cap that he's now considered part of our best 22.
But don't worry, Monfries will be a handy little player.
It's a feather in Bate's cap that he's now considered part of our best 22.
Not quite, best 25 I'd say.
rick James
7 Jul 2006, 10:29
Not quite, best 25 I'd say.
Same. He's on the fringe, and should get given games purely on potential and development anyway.
Apparently Nathan Jones and Michael Newton aren't too far off either
Not quite, best 25 I'd say.
He's in mine. Sure, he's fringe but I'll happily debate the merit of Bate over other fringe elsewhere.
rick James
7 Jul 2006, 10:58
He's in mine. Sure, he's fringe but I'll happily debate the merit of Bate over other fringe elsewhere.
Well, the spot he's fighting for involves these players imo:
Moloney, Sylvia, Read
Now clearly he's not as good as Phil Read, but who is?
davey_magik
7 Jul 2006, 12:59
No doubt Bate is a Very good Player, & will Be better than chooker and Sylvia
Let's wait three years then come back to this.
In the meantime lets just enjoy they all play for us :D .
Bate is a freak. For a guy who is 191cm he can do the in and under stuff just as well as anyone. His game against Geelong in the wet was exceptional.
TwoBlueEyes
7 Jul 2006, 14:33
Just to add something from a non-biased supporter (as that this poll is clearly dominated by each teams supporters)
I made a point in an earlier post that should be recognised regarding each others development but I did read at the start of the year that Monfries in his first season, was in the AFL's top 5 or 10% regarding disposals per minute (game time). So Bate's stats may look better at face value but a bit of research would prove otherwise.
And just on a post by someone previous. He said Monfries' type is a dying breed of footballer and Bate has more upside because he's a 6'1" type (modern footballer). I know you're trying to argue Bate's point with that comment but it actually is against him because it shows that there are plenty of 'Bate' type footballers around whereas Monfries is a more rare player, whose size is very similar to that of Ben Cousins. Murphy for us is in that same mould too. Ain't nothin wrong with that. :thumbsu:
Keithy George
7 Jul 2006, 15:16
I don't get carried away with our recruits
For instance, I haven't been impressed with Sylvia so far, I think Bell is in danger of being shown the door, I'm not sold on Dunn yet (Yet..)
But Bate and McLean are two of the best pick-ups the Dees have had in a long time. I can tell that Bate will be a star, I think Monfries will be too - that's why its an interesting comparison.
Monfries is a skillful midfielder who has great tenacity and leadership for a 19 year old. Bate is just an outstanding prospect with unbelievable strength and balance - one of those players like Ablett and Judd (let me finish!) who breaks tackles. Both set for huge careers.
Both players will be very handy and should have been selected earlier than they were.
BTW, FWIW if the Bombers were fit and firing Angus would probably scrape onto the bench
Humpers
12 Jul 2006, 17:49
Bate should be a better player.
Monnfries is smart, tough and classy however probably lacks the leg speed to hurt teams.
mad-saint-guy
13 Jul 2006, 20:08
Monfries - No matter how much he tries to conceal it, deep down, we all know that Bate is a red head.
My sentiments exactly.
richyman
16 Jul 2006, 19:47
Bate by far
monfries cant play like him maybe in a few years.
Coughlan
16 Jul 2006, 19:57
Bate by far
monfries cant play like him maybe in a few years.
monfries cant play like Bate, because they are different types of players;) saying that then Bate cant play like Monfries either