Simpson - the next Blakey

[Shinboners]

After reading the threads on the best roles for McKernan and Colbert, what does everything here think about grooming Adam Simpson to be the next John Blakey.

Blakey has been our specialist tagger ever since he walked into Arden Street. There have been so many times when he's been sent to minimise the effect of players such as Jarman and Hird. However, he cannot go on forever. Earlier in 2000, Nathan Buckley and Collingwood was on fire, but when we played them, Simpson put Buckley out of the game. Later in the season, Pagan tried the same trick, this time on Kouta and Carlton, and Simpson was carved up....but such was Kouta's form, no-one could have shut him down. Still, with Simpson's work on Buckley still fresh in the mind, should we be grooming him for the role that Blakey has filled for us?

Some stats:

John Blakey: 187 cm and 83 kg.
Adam Simpson: 185cm and 87 kg.

The other thing is what the future role for Simpson will be. He has consistently won the ball out of the middle for us, however, his disposal still leaves a lot to be desired. With the recruitment of Sinclair, McLaren, Smith, and Harris, plus with the possibility of Pickett being played in midfield, all of whom have disposal skills better than Simpson, there is the distinct chance that he will have to find a new role within the team. One of Simpson's main strengths is his stamina, so he should be able to run games out like Blakey. Also, with a tagging role, his main job is to get between his opponent and the ball, hence his inability to kick directly to one of our players will be less of a liability.

Any thoughts on this?

[andrewsharrock]

I agree Shinboner. Every team needs a Blakey type player. Simpson can do this role admirably. His strengths are endurance and discilpine, the key attributes to a great tagger. We need to reshape our midfield with players who can hit team mates on the chest, and as you correctly pointed out this is not Simmos strength.

He has been great for us over the past 4 years or so. Lets hope he keeps it up

Cheers

[Aussie_Roo]

You're right Shinboner, we do need another John Blakey type in the side. At this stage, Simpson does appear to be the best option. He is a good mark, and like you previously said he did an excellent job on Buckley earlier on in the year. I'm not a fan of tagging, I like to see each team's best players go against each other. I'm not sure, if I'd want them playing the same role in the team, as it deprives us of another attacking player...

[Rooboy 96]

Originally posted by Shinboners:
plus with the possibility of Pickett being played in midfield

So why does everyone want Pickett to be a midfielder... when he is one of the best HBF in the league...

[Carey_is_King]

He's a terrific player, but I am not sure he is a terrific HBF. He is too loose, which looks ok when he wins the ball, but bloody ordinary when he doesn't. He would put the wind up a few opponents at the centre bounces, that's for sure, and his ball handling skills would be a treat to watch there.

------------------
Trample the Weak,
Hurdle the Dead.

[Shinboners]

Agree with C-I-K that his ball winning and disposal skills would be magical to see when he's in the middle. As for Pickett's play off the ball, he did very well for two seasons until teams worked him out and deliberatly exploited his loose marking in 2000. However, his play did tighten up late in the season, so hopefully it'll be less of a problem in 2001.

The idea of Pickett being in the centre (and really, we'd be hoping that Pickett follows in the footsteps of another player that did the switch from the half back flank to the middle in Andrew McLeod...but we can do without the McLeod injuries) hinges on finding someone else that can play half back flank. Troy Makepeace, while he's done well as a rookie, still has to do more before I'm convinced that he can follow in the footsteps of Pickett and Laidley. Meanwhile, Clayton Lasscock hasn't made a senior appearance yet, although a few people seem to regard him highly. The last option is using Colbert as a half-back flanker, but I still can't see him as a permanent half-back flanker.....it'd be a waste of talent if you couldn't move him around the field.

[Aussie_Roo]

Originally posted by Rooboy 96:
So why does everyone want Pickett to be a midfielder... when he is one of the best HBF in the league...

Because he is a ball magnet (ie: plays too loose in defence, and would be better suited if someone was matching up on him)

[Rooboy 96]

Sorry I am still not convinced that changing Pickett's position is important... if he is such a ball magnmet leave him at half back where most forward moves begin ...

[DEVO]

Are we all assumming that Blakey is playing his final season in 2001. He is fit enough and dedicated enough to play into his late thirties at least. Personally, I hope his gives Michael Tuck's record a real shake.

Pickett and Kingy should become a part of our midfield rotation. The speed and drive these two players can give us through the centre would one of the best midfields in the league, even more dangerous.

[kymhodgemansmo]

Pickett is ideal for the midfield and if he can drag his sorry ass from the ground and get fit enough he will be awesome for us there.

As for Lasscock I have heard similar stories, but there is also David King who can be sent back there from time to time to provide impetus bearing in mind that not everyone can play in the midfield.

A centreline of Stevens, Harvey and Pickett is a fairly exciting prospect with the option of winger types such as King, Grant (if he recaptures his class and hunger), simpson who has done a job in the past and you have a very flexible midfield.

At least Pickett has the ability to elude and deliver, as does Harvey, while Stevens will be the tough nut.