Team Structure

[SDR223]

It's taken 18 rounds but I think we've finally got our team structure right.

Hurley, Fletcher, Hooker, McVeigh and even Stanton down back is working great.

And I think the addition of Hardhingham in the forward line has added another element and is working well with Neagle, Gumbelton, Davey, Monfries/Zaharakis with Ryder/Hille Resting.

Our team now looks more settled and confident in the backline and going forward.

I think even with Gumbeltons injury we need to keep the structure as similar as possible.

[HFF_07]

I think two things have certainly stood out in recent weeks..

Michael Hurley has been moved back into defence where he is a dual All Australian (duely as an U/18) and made a name for himself.

Jay Neagle has certainly straightened us up with a big body who you can kick it long too. No offence to Hurley, but Jay has been so much better than Hurley.

Really like the way we are lining up at the moment.

[Darealrath]

Agree it's working well, but it also highlights the difference it makes when our midfield plays well. Makes it so much easier for our backs and forwards.

[HFF_07]

Agree it's working well, but it also highlights the difference it makes when our midfield plays well. Makes it so much easier for our backs and forwards.

Good big guys can cover average little guys.

See Essendon 2000, apart from Hird, all the other guys were solid midfielders that were supplying the better talls in the comp at that time (Lloyd, Lucas, Flethcer, Wellman).

[Darealrath]

Good big guys can cover average little guys.

See Essendon 2000, apart from Hird, all the other guys were solid midfielders that were supplying the better talls in the comp at that time (Lloyd, Lucas, Flethcer, Wellman).

I reckon there has been a shift in the age of flooding. Less reliance on gun bigs at either end and more reliance on winning and using the footy.

[Mumbo Jumbo]

The better positioning of players like Houli, Dempsey, Lonergan of late just highlights how much the coach ****ed up for so much of this year.

Why is the coach so slow in making changes that the fans can see months earlier?

[Call Me Cake]

Why is the coach so slow in making changes that the fans can see months earlier?

Yeah, because everyone saw the Stanton move down back, and Hardingham's good form months earlier... :rolleyes:

Give credit where it's due. And before you start bringing up Hardingham, he was actually playing down back for most of his time in the VFL, and wasn't doing so well either until recent times, to which he earned his spot in the side.

Sure, Knights may make some slow calls, like Houli for example, but IMO, he's done a few things to concrete this side despite the injuries and suspensions we've had. He's no mastermind as of yet, but from what I can see, his "earn it, or lose it" stance seems like it'll pay off in the near future...

[Donakebab]

Houli last night was not the player he was earlier this year or in previous years. It's obvious that he has worked a ton on his game and good on him for it, but to say he should have been in the side months earlier when he was still working out his flaws is stupid.

[Sigmund]

Good big guys can cover average little guys.

See Essendon 2000, apart from Hird, all the other guys were solid midfielders that were supplying the better talls in the comp at that time (Lloyd, Lucas, Flethcer, Wellman).

Have to disagree with this HFF.. While the talls you mentioned were all champions of the club, don't forget about guys like Joe Misiti, Jason Johnson. Champions of the club and wonderful footballers

[Mumbo Jumbo]

Yeah, because everyone saw the Stanton move down back, and Hardingham's good form months earlier... :rolleyes:

Give credit where it's due. And before you start bringing up Hardingham, he was actually playing down back for most of his time in the VFL, and wasn't doing so well either until recent times, to which he earned his spot in the side.

Sure, Knights may make some slow calls, like Houli for example, but IMO, he's done a few things to concrete this side despite the injuries and suspensions we've had. He's no mastermind as of yet, but from what I can see, his "earn it, or lose it" stance seems like it'll pay off in the near future...

I'm not talking about the Hardingham call. But since you raised it, he was playing forward for the last few weeks before he was picked in the seniors. So Knights cannot take credit for that. Stanton I will pay. Good call so far.

It's the mistakes that are unforgiveable though; Dempsey as a loose defender, Lonergan not in the mid, Myers as a defender, Houli as a defender, Hocking too deep in defense, not picking a ruckman for a final... It's basic stuff and he's just far too slow.

[Call Me Cake]

So Knights cannot take credit for that.

Remember when Knights copped shit because Hardingham was taken ahead of Barlow? :rolleyes:

Ahh, the good old days...

Oh wait,

Mumbo Jumbo
Jul 2010

:cool:

Dempsey as a loose defenderI'll give you that, haven't seen too much of Dempsey to justify his spot in the side as of late.

Lonergan not in the midHow is this, "unforgivable"? Lonergan had two shots in the forward line, was placed in the middle with Stanton down back later on, big deal...

Myers as a defender, Houli as a defender, Hocking too deep in defense, not picking a ruckman for a final... It's basic stuff and he's just far too slow.Myers should have been included this week I'll admit, but Houli is far different to the player he was back then than the player he is right now. A lot more disciplined and has seen the value of working for his spot. Again, something Knights should be accredited for. Hocking actually played well down back last night, what game were you watching?...

As for the no ruckman in a final, well that is worthy of the "unforgivable" tag, but who knows what was on his mind at the time? Who knows if Bellchambers would have made a difference anyway? Adelaide completely pants-ed Carlton the week before, they had a ruckman. Still a dumb choice though.

You can never steer away from the responsibility of the players when it comes to executing what is asked of them. Apart from the few common mistakes any coach would make, I fail to see how he is "slow"...

It's a bit of a sea-saw atm, but let the man finish the year before we start branding him all sorts of labels...

[Mumbo Jumbo]

Remember when Knights copped shit because Hardingham was taken ahead of Barlow? :rolleyes:

Ahh, the good old days...

Oh wait,

Mumbo Jumbo
Jul 2010

As far as I'm concerned, Knights saw the potential and versatility of the player (he was known to play all over the ground in his East Fremantle days) way before everyone else, and deserves the credit for anything Hardingham does on the field this year.



My old alias is james_omahoney. You can go look through my posts if you like.

I had no comments on the Barlow/Hardingham pick because I knew nothing about it. What I'm talking about is positioning of players, specifically the mistakes. I'm saying Knights can't be given credit for the stroke of Hardingham as a forward.

You raised it as a point about Knights not being slow. I don't see how selecting a player in form and playing them in the position that they were most recently playing in the VFL negates the positioning mistakes of Knights this year and last.

I'll give you that, haven't seen too much of Dempsey to justify his spot in the side as of late.

My either. But if he's going to be there then it shouldn't be as a defender.

How is this, "unforgivable"? Lonergan had two shots in the forward line, was placed in the middle with Stanton down back later on, big deal...

Lonergan was being picked week after week in the forward line and in that position didn't deserve to be in the side. But for me, that's beside the point. He should either have been in the midfield rotating forward or on the bench, or not in the team. That's unforgiveable given what he showed in the midfield in 2008.

Myers should have been included this week I'll admit, but Houli is far different to the player he was back then than the player he is right now. A lot more disciplined and has seen the value of working for his spot. Again, something Knights should be accredited for.

He's a different player because he's playing in a different position. He's not a defender and was a star on-baller in his junior days. I faily to see how bringing him back in a different position demonstrates how he's improved, since we have no basis for comparison. From memory, all previous times he was picked back into the senior side he would play similar games, and struggle because he was played out of position.

Hocking actually played well down back last night, what game were you watching?...

Hocking was one of our best players earlier in the season playing on the half-back flank. Knights goes and puts him as a back pocket, having seen what a good medium forward like Steve Johnson did to him last year. No surprise that Lecras towelled him up. Not good enough from Knights. Hocking was good last night but it's not his best position. He is a fantastic back flanker on smaller players.


As for the no ruckman in a final, well that is worthy of the "unforgivable" tag, but who knows what was on his mind at the time? Who knows if Bellchambers would have made a difference anyway? Adelaide completely pants-ed Carlton the week before, they had a ruckman. Still a dumb choice though.

Yeah, it still makes me angry. I mean, who does Knights think he is, Kevin Sheedy? :)

You can never steer away from the responsibility of the players when it comes to executing what is asked of them. Apart from the few common mistakes any coach would make, I fail to see how he is "slow"...

He is slow because most of the changes have happened, which is great. But they've happened way too long after it was obvious they should be made.

I think you're down-playing his mistakes as 'normal' coaching mistakes. The only other coach I can think of who struggles to make obvious changes in games in Ratten. Knights makes them more frequently though, both at the selection table and on match day.

It's a bit of a sea-saw atm, but let the man finish the year before we start branding him all sorts of labels...

Anyway, that's my say. Maybe we should agree to disagree. I actually reckon you're a good poster on the board but I guess I'm letting my emotions of the horrible losses this year get to me. Oh well.

[Call Me Cake]

My old alias is james_omahoney. You can go look through my posts if you like.

Was taking the piss...

Lonergan was being picked week after week in the forward line and in that position didn't deserve to be in the side. But for me, that's beside the point. He should either have been in the midfield rotating forward, or not in the team. That's unforgiveable given what he showed in the midfield in 2008.

Fair enough. I still don't see how it's unforgivable. Knights has every right to experiment and try broaden a player's ability whenever he sees fit. But okay.

I had no comments on the Barlow/Hardingham pick because I knew nothing about it. What I'm talking about is positioning of players, specifically the mistakes.

You misunderstood the point of why it was brought up.

I'm saying Knights can't be given credit for the stroke of Hardingham as a forward.

Bullshit.

Knights saw the potential and versatility of what Hardingham could bring to this young side, and decided to take him. Hardingham was known to play all over the ground in his East Fremantle days, forward, midfield and down back. For this, Knights deserves the credit for anything Hardingham does on the field this year, as time and time again, he was given shit for picking him over Barlow, and yet, he has shown the supporters what he saw in the guy initially.

Anyway, that's my say. Maybe we should agree to disagree.

Fine by me. :thumbsu:

[Mumbo Jumbo]

Bullshit.

Knights saw the potential and versatility of what Hardingham could bring to this young side, and decided to take him. Hardingham was known to play all over the ground in his East Fremantle days, forward, midfield and down back. For this, Knights deserves the credit for anything Hardingham does on the field this year, as time and time again, he was given shit for picking him over Barlow, and yet, he has shown the supporters what he saw in the guy initially.

Fair enough.

I am happy to have Hardingham. I think he adds a lot of spark that could be useful in low-key games too. I'll give credit to the club for recruiting him, sure.

Anyway, doesn't negate the basic positional mistakes.

[Call Me Cake]

If that was the case, he would have picked him in the seniors and tried him as a forward before the switch to forward in the VFL. He waited until Grant tried him as a forward, suddenly realised he improved playing that position, then picked him.

Knights put Hardingham in the side against West Coast in the NAB cup, he didn't do so well from then on in.

Knights then gave the rookie a chance to work for his spot in the VFL, while he persisted with what he thought was a solid side from Round 1 onwards. Initially, Hardingham played most of this time in the backline, but did not show reasons for why he should be picked.

Recently, Hardingham started to gain a bit of touch and thus proved he was up for the rigors of senior football. Whether it had to do with him being put up forward or not, has nothing to do with with the big picture. The fact remains, PRIOR to being picked in the draft, it was well known that he could play anywhere, effectively. Knights understood that he was a versatile player, he knew Hardingham could prove himself wherever, it just so happened to be up forward at the time. Either way, none of it would have happened had Knights not have seen the potentials in picking the guy. And for this pick-up, he copped shit, particularly because of Barlow. One of the reasons why Hurley was picked was because he was also a versatile player and could kick with both feet, if you want me to dig up the article, I can.

Why wasn't Hardingham brought in when we had a leaky defense with Fletch, Slatts and Pears all out at once? It was because Hardingham had not earned his spot at the time, regardless of the position.

The bottom line: prior to being picked (after 4 drafts), Hardingham had proven himself in all parts of the ground (one of the main reasons for this was for the fact that he wanted to increase his chances of impressing recruiters), it has nothing to do with Grant. It had more-so to do with the player himself and Knights' decision to see the rookie as a future versatile prospect for the team.

11 November, 2009
In his own words
What type of player are you?
"A utility that can play at either end of the ground or in the middle if needed."

7k5fccSsPv4

Hardingham was always going to be a utility. Barlow wasn't.

[Mumbo Jumbo]

Questions:

1. Who actually picked Hardingham? I thought it would have been the recruiters, not Knights.
2. What did the club say when they picked him?

I ask because:

1. Hardingham apparently played almost exclusively down back in his breakout year in the WAFL
2. The understanding amongst supporters was that he was picked as a rebounding defender to fill a gap left by McPhee. The utility stuff was apparently a bonus on top of his selection as a running defender.

Do you know? I'm not too sure, but that was my knowledge at the time.


It seems as if you've pretty much agreed on all of the positional errors I mentioned, which was my point regarding being slow to make obvious changes. I don't see how some good calls negate all the bad ones. Good coaches make the good changes and only occasionally make bad ones. Knights has made far, far too many in selections and player placement on the field.

[Call Me Cake]

inb4 tl;dr

Who actually picked Hardingham? I thought it would have been the recruiters, not Knights.

The job of the recruiters is to keep Knights up to date with who's who, and what they've done or shown as a prospect to be picked. They advise him of their worth, but the buck always stops with Knights, the coach, himself.

What did the club say when they picked him?In terms of what they wanted in the following article (midfielders), he was given a mention, as his ability to play anywhere provided a reason to be mentioned in such an area. Hardingham saw a future for himself in the backline, however, it was well known by the club that he could play in various positions and were also well aware of his marking prowess, something attributable to both ends of the ground.

http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/news.asp?nid=7166
Essendon targets midfield support
The Bombers selected Kyle Hardingham with pick No.7 in the pre-season draft. The 21-year-old is a 184cm, 84kg midfielder/defender who won the East Fremantle senior best and fairest award this year.http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/news.asp?nid=7166

Hardingham apparently played almost exclusively down back in his breakout year in the WAFLYes he did, however, he played as a forward and in the middle before setting himself down back to increase his chances of being picked after being overlooked in four consecutive drafts.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/afl/7666830/bomber-buries-barlow-hoodoo/
Hardingham said as a youngster he would play football in his Kojonup backyard pretending to be a West Coast midfield star such as Ben Cousins, Chris Judd or Michael Braun.

But as he grew older he modelled his game on versatile Hawthorn gun Luke Hodge.

He played a lot of his football with East Fremantle as a small forward before moving into defence to prove his versatility to respective recruiters. But a switch back to attack in the VFL for Bendigo proved a masterstroke for Essendon ahead of his senior debut against the Kangaroos.http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/afl/7666830/bomber-buries-barlow-hoodoo/

The understanding amongst supporters was that he was picked as a rebounding defender to fill a gap left by McPhee. The utility stuff was apparently a bonus on top of his selection as a running defender.The club had plenty of options in covering McPhee's "gap"... if the understanding amongst supporters were anything to go by, you'd have known that his departure was a well celebrated one, with no "gap" to be seen.

Hardingham was known to be a versatile player, his own player. This "utility stuff", as you call it, was not a "bonus". He was going to be played in all sorts of places, it was always going to be up to Hardingham himself as to where he was most going to impress, to be elevated in terms of the senior side. Either way, Grant had nothing to do with anything, his versatility was well known before this. Hardingham had to earn his spot, regardless of what the position ended up being.

I'm not too sure.Figured.

It seems as if you've pretty much agreed on all of the positional errors I mentioned, which was my point regarding being slow to make obvious changes. I don't see how some good calls negate all the bad ones.It seems as if you keep editing your posts any way you see fit well after I had posted a reply to them. I'm having a headache trying to keep up with all of it...

I had agreed on some, and disagreed with others. Some of the changes seemed "obvious", while others, IMO, had not. I don't see how some bad calls negate the good ones. Every coach has a right to experiment and learn more about his team. Some calls don't work, while others do. It's still early days in terms of how the team will gel together.

Good coaches make the good changes and only occasionally make bad ones. Knights has made far, far too many.Dis-regarding the fact that the season, from a coaching point of view, is far from being over, you've pointed towards about 6 and I've agreed with around 3. I didn't react to your opinion on Knights making bad changes, but to your view of him being "slow"... something you based on "obvious" epiphanies, whereas I did not see them all as obvious.

From what I gather, you are implying that Knights is a bad coach. This is his third year, the second in which he was not needed to clean out old collected dust. My reasoning was to let him finish this year off before we start pulling out labels.

Anyway, how's that "agree to disagree" idea you proposed earlier? I'm growing tired of repeating myself.

(Don't take it personally though, I think you're a good poster too).

I actually reckon you're a good poster on the board but I guess I'm letting my emotions of the horrible losses this year get to me. Oh well.

[SDR223]

Nice debate fella's.

The good thing is that the structure is taking shape. It's taken a while but all things considered this can be excused.

[Sigmund]

Hey Mumbo Jumbo -- any reason you changed your user name?? I quite liked your old one???

[Mumbo Jumbo]

The job of the recruiters is to keep Knights up to date with who's who, and what they've done or shown as a prospect to be picked. They advise him of their worth, but the buck always stops with Knights himself.

Not sure that's accurate. Pretty sure the recruiters get a say in who's picked, even to a point of making calls. Can you actually demonstrate that it was Knights who wanted Hardingham, because the basis for your whole 'Knights get to take credit for Hardingham in the forwardline' is based on this?

I find it amusing when people are so quick to ping Knights on a draft blunder, but when things work out, it's nothing to do with him.

Fair enough, but that's not been me. In fact, I've never criticised any drafts under Knights' reign.

In terms of what they wanted in the following article (midfielders), he was given a mention, as his ability to play anywhere provided a reason to be mentioned in such an area. Hardingham saw a future for himself in the backline, however, it was well known by the club that he could play in various positions and were also well aware of his marking prowess, something attributable to both ends of the ground.

http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/news.asp?nid=7166

OK, so in this article about the selections from the official site, it names him as a midfielder/defender, not a forward. So that's why the club recruited him. Glad we cleared that up.


It seems as if you keep editing your posts any way you see fit, even well before I had posted a reply to them. Any chance you can try to stop this? As I'm having a headache to keep up with all of them...

No.

I had agreed on some, and disagreed with others. Some of the changes seemed "obvious", while others, IMO, had not. I don't see how some bad calls negate the good ones. Every coach has a right to experiment and learn more about his team. Some calls don't work, while others do. It's still early days in terms of how the team will gel together.

Bit of a cop out. There's experimenting and then there's sticking to a failed experiment. Knights, unfortunately, belongs in the latter.

Dis-regarding the fact that the season, from a coaching point of view, is far from being over, you've pointed towards about 6 and I've agreed with around 3. I didn't react to your opinion on Knights making bad changes, but to your view of him being "slow"... something you based on "obvious" epiphanies, whereas I did not see them all as obvious.

Plenty of supporters did, and now these changes have been made, proving the errors.

Houli, Dempsey, Lonergan, Myers you agreed were positional errors. That's 4 out of 5 (Hocking being the other one). Plus the ruckman selection error in the final. Pretty compelling.

From what I gather, you are implying that Knights is a bad coach. This is his third year, the second in which he was not needed to clean out old collected dust. My reasoning was to let him finish this year off before we start pulling out labels.

Anyway, how's that "agree to disagree" idea you proposed earlier? I'm growing tired of repeating myself.

Yes, I'm implying he is a bad coach.

[eth-dog]

I like it. I like the defense looking like:

Fletcher-Hurley-McVeigh
Stanton-Hooker-Hocking

and our forwards:

Zaharakis-Carlisle(w/o Gumby)-Monfries
Davey-Neagle-Hardinghame

[Call Me Cake]

Not sure that's accurate. Pretty sure the recruiters get a say in who's picked, even to a point of making calls. Can you actually demonstrate that it was Knights who wanted Hardingham, because the basis for your whole 'Knights get to take credit for Hardingham in the forwardline' is based on this?

I'm not basing anything on anything, it's the way it is known.

The recruiters advise, the coach makes the final decision. It's as simple as that. No matter how many times a recruiter may see worth in using a pick, it is ultimately up to Knights to give the all go in acknowledging that a player fits his game plan and future for the club, to which recruiters then sign the draftee.

There is a reason why many blew their load on Knights when Barlow broke out in his first game...

I've done my best to dig up as much references as I can, I expect you to know the simple stuff in the end.

OK, so in this article about the selections from the official site, it names him as a midfielder/defender, not a forward. So that's why the club recruited him. Glad we cleared that up.No, it wasn't "why" Knights decided he was right for the club, however if you had paid attention to what I had said before the article, you'd have known that IN TERMS of also keeping an eye on mildfielder (which was what the article was about, albeit early in November '09), he was mentioned BECAUSE of that versatility, APART from being a best and fairest winner down back.

If all articles were everything to go by, then the more recent second article (Bomber breaks Barlow hoodoo) I had posted would have mentioned him as playing in the midfield for East Fremantle... yet it didn't. It only mentioned his stints up forward and back.

I find it funny how you take the time to address the first article, yet you disregard the second.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/afl/7666830/bomber-buries-barlow-hoodoo/He played a lot of his football with East Fremantle as a small forward before moving into defence to prove his versatility to respective recruiters. But a switch back to attack in the VFL for Bendigo proved a masterstroke for Essendon ahead of his senior debut against the Kangaroos.http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/afl/7666830/bomber-buries-barlow-hoodoo/

Either way, it was well known that he was a versatile player, like Hurley, prior to being picked by Knights. Whatever his role was going to be, it was up to him to cement it. His versatility was something that pre-dates Grant (putting to bed your idea that it had originated with him), and was used as an advantage in earning his spot in the team after a string of woe performances. Why you keep beating a dead horse, I do not understand. Especially in a field (and about a player) that you claimed you knew nothing about.

Do what you want. Glad we cleared that up.

No.Haha, wow. What a cop-out. How the hell is someone meant to get their point across if you keep editing your posts AFTER they had posted a reply to them?

Alright, have it your way then.

Bit of a cop out.Read above.

There's experimenting and then there's sticking to a failed experiment. Knights, unfortunately, belongs in the latter.Sticking to a failed experiment?

What was he supposed to do? Try it once, or twice, and then move on? Before you know exactly what works, you need to stick to it. If you don't stick to something, how are you meant to know for sure that it doesn't work?

There were a few failed changes, but there were also a few good ones as well. Why are the good ones negated by the bad ones? (c what i did thar? I used your own saying, har har)

Houli, Dempsey, Lonergan, Myers you agreed were positional errors. That's 4 out of 5 (Hocking being the other one). Plus the ruckman selection error in the final. Pretty compelling.I didn't agree on Houli. I raised the notion that he was a different, undisciplined player in contrast to the player he is today. His handballing and disposal has improved greatly, which has ultimately earned him a spot back into the team, as well as cementing it on his own accord. In fact, some of the posters in this thread have mentioned the same thing.

Lonergan I agreed did not belong up forward, however I did not see this experiment as "unforgivable" or a big deal. I agreed that coaches have the right to try and broaden their players whenever they see fit. Prior to the experiment, I doubt many had objected to the idea until hindsight had occurred.

I agreed on Myers and Dempsey. The ruckman issue is done and dusted, Bellchambers did not earn his spot in the team, and Knights persisted with his discipline on the team. Regardless, Bellchambers wouldn't have made a difference anyway. Adelaide were red hot, you'd be a little crazy to pin a rout on nothing but a missing ruckman.

Yes, I'm implying he is a bad coach.Good, because I was implying that he isn't. :)

[Mumbo Jumbo]

I'm not basing anything on anything, it's the way it is known.

The recruiters advise, the coach makes the final decision. It's as simple as that. No matter how many times a recruiter may see worth in using a pick, it is ultimately up to Knights to give the all go in acknowledging that a player fits his game plan and future for the club, to which recruiters then sign the draftee.

I really don't think this is true. Knighta would get to see very limited football of potential draftees. Sure, Dodoro etc would chat with him, but all evidence suggests that the coach is guided by the experts and goes with what they want.

I just watched the Bomber TV video talking about the PSD, and not once did Dodoro mention Hardingham as a potential forward, in fact it was about midfielders.

There is a reason why many blew their load on Knights when Barlow broke out in his first game...

I've done my best to dig up as much references as I can, I expect you to know the simple stuff in the end.

People are quick to blame Knights because he's the face of playing group.

Your references have only supported my views. It wasn't Knights' call. In fact Dodoro went and talked to Hardingham the week before the draft and made the decision to draft him based on those conversations, in which they mention his honesty and attitude.

No, it wasn't "why" Knights decided he was right for the club, however if you had paid attention to what I had said before the article, you'd have known that IN TERMS of also keeping an eye on mildfielder (which was what the article was about, albeit early in November '09), he was mentioned BECAUSE of that versatility, APART from being a best and fairest winner down back.

If all articles were everything to go by, then the more recent second article (Bomber breaks Barlow hoodoo) I had posted would have mentioned him as playing in the midfield for East Fremantle... yet it didn't. It only mentioned his stints up forward and back.

I find it funny how you take the time to address the first article, yet you disregard the second.

Watch the bomber tv video. Enough said.

It's a yahoo article. It says he modelled his game on Luke Hodge and mentioned he had played forward prior to this. Not why he was drafted.

Either way, it was well known that he was a versatile player, like Hurley, prior to being picked by Knights. Whatever his role was going to be, it was up to him to cement it. His versatility was something that pre-dates Grant (putting to bed your idea that it had originated with him), and was used as an advantage in earning his spot in the team after a string of woe performances. Why you keep beating a dead horse, I do not understand. Especially in a field (and about a player) that you claimed you knew nothing about.

Do what you want. Glad we cleared that up.

Not why they drafted him according to the video/article.

Haha, wow. What a cop-out. How the hell is someone meant to get their point across if you keep editing your posts AFTER they had posted a reply to them?

I didn't know you'd started a reply already.

Sicking to a failed experiment?

What was he supposed to do? Try it once, or twice, and then move on? Before you know exactly what works, you need to stick to it. If you don't stick to something, how are you meant to know for sure that it doesn't work? There were a few failed changes, but there were also a few good ones as well. Why are the good ones negated by the bad ones? (c what i did thar? I used your own saying, har har)

Yeah, cause he tried Dempsey, Lonergan, Myers, Houli etc once or twice in the wrong position :rolleyes:

The good ones are negated by the bad ones because they are mistakes a coach shouldn't make over and over again and on top of the selection errors, they outweighed the good ones.

[yaco55]

Back on topic.

I have previously mentioned that our best structure is playing

5 talls
2 ruckmen.

Now that Gumbleton is out the Match Commitee need to determine whether Carlisle can play a game in the structure or whether it changes.