List Mgmt. 2015 Best 22 - Rolling thread

[efcboy]

Huh, I was unaware they moved back down.

Easier for them to attend the James Hird Academy

 

[yaco55]

You can't seriously equate Stanton's poor second half the season with poor endurance.

Try his poor second half of the season for a few years - Stanton struggles to run out a season - Endurance is actually being able to run out 20 to 25 games per year - Stanton is an elite runner on a running track, but not necessarily on the footy field.

Reckon that Heppell runs harder and longer than Stanton.

 

[Ambrosia]

Try his poor second half of the season for a few years - Stanton struggles to run out a season - Endurance is actually being able to run out 20 to 25 games per year - Stanton is an elite runner on a running track, but not necessarily on the footy field.

Reckon that Heppell runs harder and longer than Stanton.

No. Stanton's fade outs are due to:

- Him being an outside receiver who relies on others to win his own footy for him. ie when the side does poorly so does he as a general rule.
- He doesn't handle playing with a niggle or minor injury well.

Stanton is an elite runner anywhere. You could however make an argument that he lacks the ability to endure a tough season but that has nothing to do with his running ability.

 

[yaco55]

No. Stanton's fade outs are due to:

- Him being an outside receiver who relies on others to win his own footy for him. ie when the side does poorly so does he as a general rule.
- He doesn't handle playing with a niggle or minor injury well.

Stanton is an elite runner anywhere. You could however make an argument that he lacks the ability to endure a tough season but that has nothing to do with his running ability.

Part of having elite endurance is being able to handle the rigors of footy - As you state, Stanton doesn't cope with this part of the game - There have always been players who perform well on the running track, who can't bring that consistently into their footy.

 

[efcboy]

Part of having elite endurance is being able to handle the rigors of footy - As you state, Stanton doesn't cope with this part of the game - There have always been players who perform well on the running track, who can't bring that consistently into their footy.

Doesn't cope with the rigors of footy? Only played out 2012 with a cracked shoulder blade coming second in the B&F...

http://www.essendonfc.com.au/player-profile/brent-stanton

 

[Ambrosia]

Part of having elite endurance is being able to handle the rigors of footy - As you state, Stanton doesn't cope with this part of the game - There have always been players who perform well on the running track, who can't bring that consistently into their footy.

No it isn't. You are making up your own definition of endurance/running ability.

 

[eth-dog]

No it isn't. You are making up your own definition of endurance/running ability.

According to him talent has to be proven.

 

[yaco55]

No it isn't. You are making up your own definition of endurance/running ability.

I am satisfied with my definition - Example of elite endurance - Heppell.

 

[Keystone agony]

Fletcher - Hooker - Baguley

Dempsey - Hurley - Hibberd (This back 6 if fit is locked away).

I dont expect Hibberd, Dempsey or Fletcher to play every game and thats why we have the likes of ready made replacements in Dalgleish, Gleeson and Gwilt to play those roles for some weeks when required due to injury. The latter (Gwilt) will be called on far more than the others. Out of the potential 25 games i think Fletch and Gwilt will go close to 50/50.

Goddard - Watson - Stanton

TBC - Heppell - ????????

I also think our midfield is pretty set (lock n load). TBC/Giles one will play every week in the ruck. Id like to see us look for more mobile midfield options to potentially replace Hocking, but he will be there. Id like to see Cooney, Melksham, Myers, Zacka spend more time in the guts.

Cooney - Carlisle - Zaharakis

Winderlich - Daniher - Chapman

I think a 4/2 or 2/4 forward line is the way to go with our list. Unfortunately id have Ambrose missing. I think all these 4 smalls are good over head for there size, they can all play out of the goal square, i think with added small stints from Watson and Goddard forward we have enough height there.

Leaves 4 names for the bench and one for the missing (???????) spot onball. 5 spots.

Id have Myers and Colyer as 2 certain best 22 players. That leaves 3 spots for Hocking, Melksham, Z.Merrett, J.Merrett, Gleeson to fill. Personally id be leaning towards Melksham, Gleeson and Zerrett with one of the latter 2 being the starting sub.

Edit: and with that id be looking to breath confidence into Melksham with a starting onball role in quite a few quarters. Also think he has similar ability to Goddard and Watson as lead up forwards who play above their height.

 

[hurlygurdy]

Fletcher - Hooker - Baguley

Dempsey - Hurley - Hibberd (This back 6 if fit is locked away).

I dont expect Hibberd, Dempsey or Fletcher to play every game and thats why we have the likes of ready made replacements in Dalgleish, Gleeson and Gwilt to play those roles for some weeks when required due to injury. The latter (Gwilt) will be called on far more than the others. Out of the potential 25 games i think Fletch and Gwilt will go close to 50/50.

Goddard - Watson - Stanton

TBC - Heppell - ????????

I also think our midfield is pretty set (lock n load). TBC/Giles one will play every week in the ruck. Id like to see us look for more mobile midfield options to potentially replace Hocking, but he will be there. Id like to see Cooney, Melksham, Myers, Zacka spend more time in the guts.

Cooney - Carlisle - Zaharakis

Winderlich - Daniher - Chapman

I think a 4/2 or 2/4 forward line is the way to go with our list. Unfortunately id have Ambrose missing. I think all these 4 smalls are good over head for there size, they can all play out of the goal square, i think with added small stints from Watson and Goddard forward we have enough height there.

Leaves 4 names for the bench and one for the missing (???????) spot onball. 5 spots.

Id have Myers and Colyer as 2 certain best 22 players. That leaves 3 spots for Hocking, Melksham, Z.Merrett, J.Merrett, Gleeson to fill. Personally id be leaning towards Melksham, Gleeson and Zerrett with one of the latter 2 being the starting sub.

Edit: and with that id be looking to breath confidence into Melksham with a starting onball role in quite a few quarters. Also think he has similar ability to Goddard and Watson as lead up forwards who play above their height.

Ambrose>Melksham every day of the week. Particularly when it frees up the likes of Cooney/Chapman/Zaka to play more midfield time. It's simply a better balance. Put Winderlich on the bench to fill gaps, Zach to sub. It's a lock

 

[Keystone agony]

Agree to Disagree

 

[Keystone agony]

Ambrose>Melksham every day of the week. Particularly when it frees up the likes of Cooney/Chapman/Zaka to play more midfield time. It's simply a better balance. Put Winderlich on the bench to fill gaps, Zach to sub. It's a lock

So out of the last 3 spots with guys like Hocking, Ambrose, Z.Merrett, J.Merrett, Melksham, Gleeson still available your giving those 3 spots to the first 3 listed? with Zach being the sub?

Im still a little unsure what Ambrose gives us over guys like Goddard, Watson, Melksham.

He avg 3 and a half tackles a game - so pressure isnt out of this world. He avg less then 4 marks a game so he doesnt get many marks, 11 disposals a game and avg just 0.8 goals per game so he doesnt really hit the scoreboard that much for a guy purely playing forward. Even when he does get his hands on the pill 11 times a game im unsure what hes doing with it is really that effective or impacting on the game. Would much rather 11 disposals, 4 marks from Melksham up forward with similar tackling numbers.

 

[hurlygurdy]

Y

So out of the last 3 spots with guys like Hocking, Ambrose, Z.Merrett, J.Merrett, Melksham, Gleeson still available your giving those 3 spots to the first 3 listed? with Zach being the sub?

Im still a little unsure what Ambrose gives us over guys like Goddard, Watson, Melksham.

He avg 3 and a half tackles a game - so pressure isnt out of this world. He avg less then 4 marks a game so he doesnt get many marks, 11 disposals a game and avg just 0.8 goals per game so he doesnt really hit the scoreboard that much for a guy purely playing forward. Even when he does get his hands on the pill 11 times a game im unsure what hes doing with it is really that effective or impacting on the game. Would much rather 11 disposals, 4 marks from Melksham up forward with similar tackling numbers.

yes I'd give it to those three.
I gather that what Ambrose brings to the forward line is space. He can fill a space then vacate it allowing jd and Carlisle a place to lead. Plus he can do it all day with his level of fitness. Personally I find it hard to see it in action, but it seemed to get him selected a whole lot of times and it's true that we looked more functional up forward with him in the team.

 

[hurlygurdy]

So out of the last 3 spots with guys like Hocking, Ambrose, Z.Merrett, J.Merrett, Melksham, Gleeson still available your giving those 3 spots to the first 3 listed? with Zach being the sub?

Im still a little unsure what Ambrose gives us over guys like Goddard, Watson, Melksham.

He avg 3 and a half tackles a game - so pressure isnt out of this world. He avg less then 4 marks a game so he doesnt get many marks, 11 disposals a game and avg just 0.8 goals per game so he doesnt really hit the scoreboard that much for a guy purely playing forward. Even when he does get his hands on the pill 11 times a game im unsure what hes doing with it is really that effective or impacting on the game. Would much rather 11 disposals, 4 marks from Melksham up forward with similar tackling numbers.

Anyway, melksham must earn a place in this team with dominant vfl appearences. I don't want to catch sight of him before that happens. I'd rather throw Gleeson into midfield and see what happens.

 

[Keystone agony]

Anyway, melksham must earn a place in this team with dominant vfl appearences. I don't want to catch sight of him before that happens. I'd rather throw Gleeson into midfield and see what happens.

A top 5 B&F finisher only 15 months ago. Plus id like to think he is proving himself with top running finishers and hopefully all these types of players Ambrose, Melksham need to prove themselves in Nab cup to be selected for round 1.

Melksham is a confidence player, he needs to be backed early and if he doesn't perform then dropped.

Based on why you have Ambrose in the side, id say anyone can do that 'space' thing.

 

[hurlygurdy]

A top 5 B&F finisher only 15 months ago. Plus id like to think he is proving himself with top running finishers and hopefully all these types of players Ambrose, Melksham need to prove themselves in Nab cup to be selected for round 1.

Melksham is a confidence player, he needs to be backed early and if he doesn't perform then dropped.

Based on why you have Ambrose in the side, id say anyone can do that 'space' thing.

I'm sure Melky will get his chance to impress in the preseason games. I'm not opposed to him earning his place that way.
I doubt that just anyone could do that 'space' thing actually. They would have be to a genuine tall threat with insane levels of fitness.
I hope they give Gleeson a good run in the middle in the preseason comp... I'd back him to impress over and above Melky. Gleeson brings a touch of class with his 18 odd touches, while unfortunately Melky generally brings a touch of 's**t' with his

 

[Keystone agony]

To create space you dont have to be tall or have massive endurance. Its more smarts. Id back others in before Ambrose with that.

I think by taking Ambrose out of the forward line we still arent seen as being small up front.

 

[yaco55]

Ambrose needs to find the ball more on the ground - You can't just rely on marking at his height - Improve his work below his knees and he can be a valuable cog in the team.

 

[Keystone agony]

Ambrose needs to find the ball more on the ground - You can't just rely on marking at his height - Improve his work below his knees and he can be a valuable cog in the team.

He isnt even a good mark

I agree, he needs to improve, which im not saying he cant but if he stagnates i wouldnt be picking him and leaving small guys like Melksham, J.Merrett, Hocking, Gleeson, Kavanagh, Howlett out of the side to play him.

 

[yaco55]

He isnt even a good mark

That's my whole argument - Needs to find the ball on the ground - He struggles with the ball below his knees.

 

[fishardansin]

Melksham anyone? I think the idea of him getting a look in as defensive mid while Hocking has injury is an interesting idea. If he can play end of 2013 form again that is a massive bonus for our midfield. Fit and in form Watson, Goddard, Heppell, Myers, Zaka, Melksham, Hocking and Stanton is pretty freaking good. Especially with the input of Colyer, Merrett, Cooney, Dempsey and Hibberd running up and down the ground.

 

[BrunoV]

Think that too many are falling into the trap of assessing Ambrose based on what his footy was like in 2014 more so than what it could look like in 2015.

He's a hard one to assess because he was selected in 2014 to reward him for making our players look second rate on the track and because of the potential he has (if his physical tools can be harnessed). He's more like an alternate talent rookie than anything else because he has no meaningful history as a footy player pre-2014.

If going in to 2015 he can match the improvement he made to become a senior player in 2014 he should be a seriously valuable player. If not then I see him really struggling to get a game (assuming fitness of Carlisle, Dainher and the rucks and the sanity of Hird).

More so than anyone on the list it all comes down to the NAB cup. If he ties the forward half to the midfield working up the ground and back to provide options (winning the ball in the process and getting shots on goal) and can continue to heap pressure on the opposition at ground level I can't see how he doesn't get selected.

Depending on how his ground level game develops he's not necessarily a tall player for the purpose of selection. He could conceivably be a half forward.

 

[beechy12345]

B: Gwilt, Hooker, Baguley
HB: Hibberd, Hurley, Dempsey
C: Goddard, Watson, Stanton
HF: Winderlich, Carlisle, Colyer
F: Z. Merrett, Daniher, Chapman
R: Bellchambers, Heppell, Myers
I/C: Ambrose, Hocking, Zaharakis, Cooney

 

[MAAAATTDAAAAMON]

Think that too many are falling into the trap of assessing because he has no meaningful history as a footy player pre-2014.
...........
Depending on how his ground level game develops he's not necessarily a tall player for the purpose of selection. He could conceivably be a half forward.

I know he's a beast of an athlete, but what's his speed and agility like compared to other flankers? Might like what you're saying but I'm doubting we can play Giles, Belly, Carlisle, JD and Ambrose in one team.

 

[baz_machine]

Might like what you're saying but I'm doubting we can play Giles, Belly, Carlisle, JD and Ambrose in one team.

solved