Opinion Matt De Boer - What to do?

[strobe00]

Crowley has gotten to where he is on his own merits, not because he fills a specific hole.

He certainly has gotten to play just about every game on his own merits for the last 3 years. Based on the fact that he is a very effective tagger. And a versatile tagger.

He does take his chances to kick a goal when the opportunity is there. But he isn't in the team for his goal kicking ability. He's in the team because he can usually be relied on to shut his target out of the game. Not for his general versatility.

Part of the reason he's been less effective as a negator this year... and he has been... Is because he's trying to do more damage offensively while tagging. Striking that balance isn't easy. Other guys have been more effective negators overall through the season, and guys like carazzo and curnow do a better job of balancing their negating job with winning the ball, though crowls is a very effective negator.

Even scraggers like Langford have shown that they can effectively win the ball inside while blunting the influence of their target. Crowley is pretty competent outside. But his inside ball winning is only average... at best.

de Boer would be a poor mans Crowley in my humble opinion, and 1 specific role alone won't be enough to guarantee his spot in the side every week.

Crowley plays one role every week. Generally does it well. Is a useful offensive player also, but is in the team for his ability to hamstring the opposition game plan by blunting the influence of a key player... Not for his offensive capability.

Obviously the match committee want more than just a pure negator, which is why crowls and mdb have stated publicly that they're both trying to improve their offensive output.

 

[Fred Ziffel]

Well it would be hard to show supporting statistics as he rarely plays full games in the middle but surely you can see that he's a contested ball machine when fully fit. It'd be between Fyfe and De Boer but I'd go with De Boer.

Sorry, I don't see it.
Matt is not our best contested ball winner by a long way. (that's my opinion of course).

 

[The Black Sheep]

Don't know about this. With a couple of exceptions every team has a player that at the very least demand attention, with a few super elite mids who you bank a performance but it's just a case of how well they play. Then you've got damaging outside players who can be limited to zero impact.

Despite the fact we've had a couple of good wins recently our midfield actually isn't that great if Mundy isn't playing well and if we go head to head with a quality ball winning side with good outside users like Gold Coast of Hawthorn we'll get cut to bits. This applies tenfold if Sandilands isn't playing as a team of tall, slowish mids is pretty useless if you can't setup for where the balls going early.

When Crowley's gone Sandi will be gone too, and we'll need someone to win more clearances from contested ball, not taps, and De Boer is our best contested ball winner. If he can make himself in to a run with tagger on the outside and someone who can win his own ball inside I think he could actually be an upgrade on Crowley in some respects.

I think that's precisely why Harvey preferred deBoer to Crowley as a tagger.

 

[smokingjacket]

Sorry, I don't see it.
Matt is not our best contested ball winner by a long way. (that's my opinion of course).

Fair enough. We seem pretty far apart on this so I'm not expecting to change your mind, but out of interest who would you have higher?

I find the whole statement quite odd to tell you the truth because he's only ever been picked based on his contested ball ability.

 

[strobe00]

I find the whole statement quite odd to tell you the truth because he's only ever been picked based on his contested ball ability.

that's news to me. I thought he was picked based on his defensive capability, and great effort/team play with his contested ball being a useful bonus.

where do you get that mdb has only been picked for his contested ball?

 

[smokingjacket]

that's news to me. I thought he was picked based on his defensive capability, and great effort/team play with his contested ball being a useful bonus.

where do you get that mdb has only been picked for his contested ball?

I'd have that sentence the other way round. His best trait is a hardness at the contest, you know he's always going to bring great effort with a strong willpower and his ability to focus for long enough to play a shut down role in the middle or against a rebounding HBF is a bonus but one that probably guaranteed him a spot last year.

My point, to put it in a chicken or the egg scenario was that he would never have been chosen to play as a defensive half forward in the first place if he didn't have such a great contested ball game.

Sorry, to be clear I'm going all the way back to the Harvey years when I talk about this too.

 

[Nickos66]

I would've thought if de Boer was regarded at the club as the "best contested ball winner", he might be in the best 22 each week and not on the cusp, waiting for late outs. What's more he might demonstrate the lofty heights perceived by some by actually showing these wares in the WAFL and dominating clearances all game. But that doesn't seem to have happened either.

Crowley may not have the versatility of say a Fyfe or Mundy, but he's hardly a liability when you take away his tagging abilities. He's played enough games and knows the gameplan intimately enough to be able to contribute with a degree of consistency throughout his career, and more to the point - throughout RTB's reign. If de Boer was capable of providing something more than a tagging role, I would've thought he'd have shown it by now.

 

[clogged]

 

[Fred Ziffel]

Fair enough. We seem pretty far apart on this so I'm not expecting to change your mind, but out of interest who would you have higher?

I find the whole statement quite odd to tell you the truth because he's only ever been picked based on his contested ball ability.

Matt applies pressure on opponents as distinct from contested ball winner.
I would have Barlow, D Pearce, Fyfe and Mundy ahead of him.
In fact, MDB doesn't even come into my calculations as a strong contested ball winner. I am surprised you see him as such, really surprised.

 

[manpurple]

Fair enough. We seem pretty far apart on this so I'm not expecting to change your mind, but out of interest who would you have higher?

I find the whole statement quite odd to tell you the truth because he's only ever been picked based on his contested ball ability.

I find that hard to believe. If you're a contested ball genius you get the ruck rover gig. It's a role i've never seen MDB in. He's had stints in the middle but never as the RR.

IMHO he plays the HFF role because RTB and the coaching staff rate Barlow, Fyfe, Neale and Mundy ahead of him in this regard. In fact Hill is ahead of MDB in clearances per game and contested possessions per game.
I take your point that MDB might perform better as a straight up mid but our modus operandi is that the HFF's need to rotate into the midfield to give the mids a breather and to also roll back into defence. You would think that there is ample opportunity to showcase his contested ball ability. In this aspect i rate him above many but best in the team and picked because of it? Doubtful. I think that you might find that tackling is more his gig.

 

[Purple Suit]

Matt applies pressure on opponents as distinct from contested ball winner.
I would have Barlow, D Pearce, Fyfe and Mundy ahead of him.
In fact, MDB doesn't even come into my calculations as a strong contested ball winner. I am surprised you see him as such, really surprised.

I'd have Neale ahead as well.

 

[strobe00]

I'd have that sentence the other way round. His best trait is a hardness at the contest, you know he's always going to bring great effort with a strong willpower and his ability to focus for long enough to play a shut down role in the middle or against a rebounding HBF is a bonus but one that probably guaranteed him a spot last year.

My point, to put it in a chicken or the egg scenario was that he would never have been chosen to play as a defensive half forward in the first place if he didn't have such a great contested ball game.

Sorry, to be clear I'm going all the way back to the Harvey years when I talk about this too.

Contested ball is about winning the ball when it is in dispute, not about tackling or pressuring a bloke. That is called tackling or defensive pressure.

Shutting someone down is about stopping them getting the ball (defense), winning the ball if it is a contest between the two of you (contested ball) and tackling/pressuring (defense) them to stop them getting rid of the ball, or at least prevent them doing so effectively.

Matty was selected to play as a defensive forward for the defensive side of his game... his ability to tackle, pressure, stick to a task and read the play well enough to cut off defensive rebound, and to get the ball back off the opposition. As a forward he's expected to win contested possessions, present as a target, help out his teammates, get them the ball and kick goals.

Saying he was picked to be a defensive forward because of his contested ball game just doesn't make sense. If it's about contested ball he should be picked as an inside mid.

 

[Bender571]

I would've thought if de Boer was regarded at the club as the "best contested ball winner", he might be in the best 22 each week and not on the cusp, waiting for late outs. What's more he might demonstrate the lofty heights perceived by some by actually showing these wares in the WAFL and dominating clearances all game. But that doesn't seem to have happened either.

Crowley may not have the versatility of say a Fyfe or Mundy, but he's hardly a liability when you take away his tagging abilities. He's played enough games and knows the gameplan intimately enough to be able to contribute with a degree of consistency throughout his career, and more to the point - throughout RTB's reign. If de Boer was capable of providing something more than a tagging role, I would've thought he'd have shown it by now.

Think you're being a bit unfair here given the samples size, his output, and his role. He's played 4 games in the WAFL this year and 1 in 2011.

First game back from injury
Round 14
"In his return Matt played inside mid for a large proportion of his game with a period forward. He was strong around the contest with his contested ball, where he had a lot of in close handballs to the runners. He had a strong work rate and supported the defence with his running patterns."
6 kicks, 14 handballs, 4 marks, 3 tackles, 1 point.

Round 15
"Matt played inside mid where he was strong inside, having seven clearances. He had some good bodywork around the centre square bounces and won most of his possessions around the contest and used it effectively. He had a strong tackling impact with eight for the game."
11 kicks, 12 handballs, 3 marks, 6 tackles, 1 goal

Round 16
"31 disposals (12 kicks, 19 handballs) 5 marks, 12 tackles,
Matt played inside mid for the game. He was strong inside with 11 clearances and nine ground balls. He had 12 effective tackles with really strong intent to stop the opposition in the clearance. As we've come to expect with Matt he was strong with one on one contest at ground level.ormers were Matt de Boer, who had a brilliant match against his former WAFL club."

Round 21
"Matt played limited game time as a high forward and demonstrated some hard, intelligent run both defensively and offensively from contest to contest. He had a real impact with his pressure. It was a productive day for Matt."
8 kicks, 4 handballs, 3 marks, 2 tackles

 

[strobe00]

Crowley may not have the versatility of say a Fyfe or Mundy, but he's hardly a liability when you take away his tagging abilities.

Probably true. But is he as good as our other outside mids or wingmen? Or are you suggesting him as a forward target? Because he is not a great inside mid. If you're saying that De Boer doesn't deserve a job in the forward line because there's another bloke that's more promising (a fair point), then you need to apply the same logic to the positions you'd be selecting Crowley to occupy, if he wasn't tagging.

If de Boer was capable of providing something more than a tagging role, I would've thought he'd have shown it by now.

I'm pretty sure he has. What position has he been playing since Ross arrived? Has he been tagging? If he hasn't, then how has he been getting a game?

You keep going back to Crowley's versatility, and seem to be saying that De Boer just doesn't have any. This despite the fact that Crowley has played essentially one role for the past 3 years and De Boer has played a few; defensive forward, defensive midfielder, inside mid and tagger. I'd say that's pretty conclusive proof that there is some versatility in MDB's game. It's much harder to find that evidence for Crowls in the last 3 years, as he's been doing the same job week in, week out. On different blokes maybe, but it's the same job.

 

[clogged]

Last year De Boer was fourth in contested possessions at the club despite playing as a forward defender.

Had he been in the midfield he quite possibly would have led that stat. He is kept out of the midfield for other reasons.

 

[E Shed]

Best game he's ever played and he's never been that good before or since. If he played at that level on a consistent basis he'd be in the team.
Even in this highlights he turned it over a few times with loopy kicks over people's heads.
He was, I think, playing a different role in that game, went to Cotchin from memory as a run with so perhaps if he was playing that role more consistently he'd have more chance to show his wares.

 

[apuchar]

Probably true. But is he as good as our other outside mids or wingmen? Or are you suggesting him as a forward target? Because he is not a great inside mid. If you're saying that De Boer doesn't deserve a job in the forward line because there's another bloke that's more promising (a fair point), then you need to apply the same logic to the positions you'd be selecting Crowley to occupy, if he wasn't tagging.



I'm pretty sure he has. What position has he been playing since Ross arrived? Has he been tagging? If he hasn't, then how has he been getting a game?

You keep going back to Crowley's versatility, and seem to be saying that De Boer just doesn't have any. This despite the fact that Crowley has played essentially one role for the past 3 years and De Boer has played a few; defensive forward, defensive midfielder, inside mid and tagger. I'd say that's pretty conclusive proof that there is some versatility in MDB's game. It's much harder to find that evidence for Crowls in the last 3 years, as he's been doing the same job week in, week out. On different blokes maybe, but it's the same job.

Trouble for Matt is we have someone in the team that is now better than him in every position he plays. Kinda makes him a great depth player.

 

[Steinfreo]

That 2012 game was pretty excellent.

I guess some of his decision making and his disposal by foot is keeping him out?

Even those wafl reports sound good.

 

[strobe00]

Trouble for Matt is we have someone in the team that is now better than him in every position he plays. Kinda makes him a great depth player.

It's looking that way. Hopefully Crozier continues to demand that spot and maintains his defensive work, because it makes our forward line that much more dangerous.

As for MDB being depth, I don't see that being a bad thing necessarily. It's important to have good, solid players available as depth. I'm sure RTB is happy that Silvagni and Griff are on our list. MDB may start being considered in that vein now that he is starting to be left out of the 22 with a bit more consistency.

 

[apuchar]

It's looking that way. Hopefully Crozier continues to demand that spot and maintains his defensive work, because it makes our forward line that much more dangerous.

As for MDB being depth, I don't see that being a bad thing necessarily. It's important to have good, solid players available as depth. I'm sure RTB is happy that Silvagni and Griff are on our list. MDB may start being considered in that vein now that he is starting to be left out of the 22 with a bit more consistency.

I guess it depends on whether he wants to be depth for us on our terms.

 

[strobe00]

Best game he's ever played and he's never been that good before or since. If he played at that level on a consistent basis he'd be in the team.
Even in this highlights he turned it over a few times with loopy kicks over people's heads.

He'll always be a Boyd-type midfielder. Great hands and attack on the ball and man, but a dodgy kick.

He was, I think, playing a different role in that game, went to Cotchin from memory as a run with so perhaps if he was playing that role more consistently he'd have more chance to show his wares.

I never actually saw this game as I was overseas at the time. But it's another example that he can play this kind of role. Need to go back to 2011 to find further evidence though. The absence of something doesn't prove its non-existence... some on this forum seem to not grasp the concept though.

I did see De Boer matched up against Hanley and Rockliff at stages in the Brissie game, so maybe RTB and co were doing some forward planning for the Port game. Who knows.

 

[strobe00]

I guess it depends on whether he wants to be depth for us on our terms.

WA boy. Member of the leadership group. Freo gave him his start. Selfless on the field, and seemingly a good egg off it from the charity and other public stuff he's done.

Depends how many games he gets next year and what role he's expected to play. If it's WAFL back-up all year, then I can see him making a move.

Don't see him leaving at the end of this season though.

 

[pokerspiv]

WA boy. Member of the leadership group. Freo gave him his start. Selfless on the field, and seemingly a good egg off it from the charity and other public stuff he's done.

Is your point that only flogs change clubs or something? All that stuff is completely irrelevant. If he's not getting a regular game for us and someone else offers him one, he'll move.

I don't see him leaving either, but that's mostly because I don't see too many teams being interested in him. He's a second string inside midfielder who can't kick, his trade value is not that high. He's more valuable to us than he is to anyone else.

 

[strobe00]

Is your point that only flogs change clubs or something? All that stuff is completely irrelevant. If he's not getting a regular game for us and someone else offers him one, he'll move.

No. That's not my point.

My point is that with all that stuff he doesn't seem likely to leave at the end of this season.

Re-read the three sentences that you cut out of my post, and then read the bolded in yours. Get it now?

 

[pokerspiv]

No. That's not my point.

My point is that the fact that we were the first to draft him is unlikely to matter much to him if we aren't giving him games. Loyalty is a 2-way street. I am guessing you are making the point that MDB is loyal, and you are probably right, but let's not forget that the club is asking him to take a pay cut and play in the magoos. Not exactly a great offer for a professional sportsman.