Toast Stephen Wells

[TheHonestyPolicy]

So based on what you're saying about "Lever for instance," you'd now be expecting around 10 senior games out of Lang 2015 if he's playing to par?
Is that right? Considering Dunstan plays in a lesser team would Lang's 10 games equal Dunstan's 22, I doubt it, he still has to hold out mature senior players, not just play fill in games.

Geelong is a far superior list to the Saints so about 6-10 games for Lang next year sounds about right. Hope his form warrants more too.
If he has injury setbacks, then those projections need to be revised.
Dunstan had a solid year and well done to him, no question he is a good pick still.
But you have to understand Lang's age next year will be close to Dunstan's age this year, isn't he 10 months younger and he came off a broken leg too. All those components together have to be considered. One year isn't the be-all-and-end-all for guys at this age.

 

[you pick one]

And how many senior games would he have played in that pathetic St Kilda side (that, coincidentally, Lang got his one game against and was part of the team that smashed the Saints by 16 goals - with Dunstan being invisible)? How many games would Dunstan have played for us? You are comparing apples with oranges, even before considering all the other stuff that suggested Dunstan would be better equipped to make an instant impact, while Lang might take a bit of time.

If we'd taken Dunstan (and he'd played maybe 4-6 games...I would have been pretty surprised if he'd managed more), others that adopt your line of reasoning would be complaining because he wasn't as good in 2014 as Lewis Taylor. It's a reactionary call. If all these young players that play every week and rack up the stats (and Dunstan didn't really do that either) for the teams that are on the bottom of the ladder were so good, those teams wouldn't be on the bottom of the ladder.

He was and he only had one less disposal than guess who in that game?Joel Selwood just shows cherry picking is only cheap point scoring, you'd love him if he was in the blue and white hoops,come on lighten up and admit it.

 

[meto]

He was and he only had one less disposal than guess who in that game?Joel Selwood just shows cherry picking is only cheap point scoring, you'd love him if he was in the blue and white hoops,come on lighten up and admit it.

Cheers YPO,... just proves some investigative journalism often digs up truth when bold statements are made, say no more, I think we can rest our case as if one was needed regards Dunstan.
However our guy Lang definitely started well behind, but that's what beats me, what was Wells thinking last year?..

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

He was and he only had one less disposal than guess who in that game?Joel Selwood just shows cherry picking is only cheap point scoring, you'd love him if he was in the blue and white hoops,come on lighten up and admit it.

But...hang on. What exactly besides getting picked every week in one of the worst non-expansion teams in recent memory and putting up reasonable disposal numbers (no better than that) has Dunstan actually done?

Of course I'd be encouraged by him if he was doing that for Geelong. He wouldn't have had anywhere near the same opportunities at Geelong. And anyone who suggests that Darcy Lang can already be considered a poor/wasted draft pick, because Dunstan did more at AFL level in 2014, is, quite frankly, kidding themself.

 

[Partridge]

Cheers YPO,... just proves some investigative journalism often digs up truth when bold statements are made, say no more, I think we can rest our case as if one was needed regards Dunstan.
However our guy definitely started well behind, but that's what beats me, what was Wells thinking last year?..

I would hope he was thinking long term, as he should with any draft pick. If we're ever in the (ridiculous) situation where a first year player is expected to be a key figure for the following season, we'll be in deep trouble.

 

[meto]

But...hang on. What exactly besides getting picked every week in one of the worst non-expansion teams in recent memory and putting up reasonable disposal numbers (no better than that) has Dunstan actually done?

Of course I'd be encouraged by him if he was doing that for Geelong. He wouldn't have had anywhere near the same opportunities at Geelong. And anyone who suggests that Darcy Lang can already be considered a poor/wasted draft pick, because Dunstan did more at AFL level in 2014, is, quite frankly, kidding themself.

No I don't consider Lang a poor/or wasted pick as yet, but not to credit Dunstan with a far superior start as some have is delusional. I'm hopeful Darcy continues to develop and we see him occasionally in the AFL team this coming season with success.
Dunstan's fist game was as a senior, that's a rare achievement for a first year player despite your opinion of StKilda.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

No I don't consider Lang a poor/or wasted pick as yet, but not to credit Dunstan with a far superior start as some have is delusional. I'm hopeful Darcy continues to develop and we see him occasionally in the AFL team this coming season with success.

And who has done that? The sensible ones amongst us are simply saying that it really shouldn't matter what they did in year 1 and that we should check back on this in year 3-5 of their careers. It's Jackson Thurlow/Brodie Grundy all over again.

Caddy, Guthrie and Horlin-Smith (class of 2010) have just started to seriously establish themselves as consistent senior mids (to varying degrees) after four years in the AFL. We're waiting to see if Mitch Duncan has another level in him that will put him in AA contention in year 6 (Christensen would be in this boat as well, if he was still here). Jed Bews and Lincoln McCarthy will be looking to become mainstays in the senior side in year 4, Thurlow and Brad Hartman in year 3. We still don't know how much improvement any of those players have in them. And I'm sure most of those players had a couple of others that outshone them in year 1 of their careers, and have subsequently been overtaken.

 

[GHS33]

And who has done that? The sensible ones amongst us are simply saying that it really shouldn't matter what they did in year 1 and that we should check back on this in year 3-5 of their careers. It's Jackson Thurlow/Brodie Grundy all over again.

Correct. The reason Dunstan slid down the draft order was because many recruiters believed he had already reached (or was very close to) his ceiling as a player. The fact that Wells was so keen on Lang is good enough for me.

 

[Partridge]

And who has done that? The sensible ones amongst us are simply saying that it really shouldn't matter what they did in year 1 and that we should check back on this in year 3-5 of their careers. It's Jackson Thurlow/Brodie Grundy all over again.

Hell, I'd argue it's Gary Ablett / Daniel Wells all over again.

 

[meto]

Correct. The reason Dunstan slid down the draft order was because many recruiters believed he had already reached (or was very close to) his ceiling as a player. The fact that Wells was so keen on Lang is good enough for me.

LOL!...Dunstan reached his zenith at 17 years of age, ... a job for the myth busters!

 

[you pick one]

But...hang on. What exactly besides getting picked every week in one of the worst non-expansion teams in recent memory and putting up reasonable disposal numbers (no better than that) has Dunstan actually done?

Of course I'd be encouraged by him if he was doing that for Geelong. He wouldn't have had anywhere near the same opportunities at Geelong. And anyone who suggests that Darcy Lang can already be considered a poor/wasted draft pick, because Dunstan did more at AFL level in 2014, is, quite frankly, kidding themself.

It's fair to say it's easier to be picked in a rubbish side but the other side of the coin is it's also more difficult to keep putting up good numbers week in week out with out quality support especially for a young first year player coming up against the best in the country playing in a poor side.I don't see the Saint Kilda angle diminishes his numbers at all I think it enhances them.

 

[meto]

It's fair to say it's easier to be picked in a rubbish side but the other side of the coin is it's also more difficult to keep putting up good numbers week in week out with out quality support especially for a young first year player coming up against the best in the country playing in a poor side.I don't see the Saint Kilda angle diminishes his numbers at all I think it enhances them.

Exactly!.. getting smashed in the midfield by seasoned big bodies just proves what talent and physical giftedness he possesses.
To ave 20 possessions was an amazing effort for a first year novice in the big time, and not forgetting the terrific courage he clearly displayed doing so.
The kid's a gun.

 

[MotleyLemon]

LOL!...Dunstan reached his zenith at 17 years of age, ... a job for the myth busters!

See: Palmer, Rhys...

 

[meto]

See: Palmer, Rhys...

So you reckon he's a dud do you?.... LOL!...and I suppose you'd say Lang's the bees knees too.

 

[you pick one]

So you reckon he's a dud do you?.... LOL!...and I suppose you'd say Lang's the bees knees too.

The argument seems to have been side tracked,my post that kicked this off was more how Wells could have overlook Dunstan in 2013 he was the better player then still is,will he be in 5 years time who knows hope not.

 

[Partridge]

So you reckon he's a dud do you?.... LOL!...and I suppose you'd say Lang's the bees knees too.

Excluded middle fallacy Meto, he didn't actually say that.

 

[MotleyLemon]

So you reckon he's a dud do you?.... LOL!...and I suppose you'd say Lang's the bees knees too.

I said neither.

Rhys Palmer's best year was his first.

I also note that players like Dangerfield, Rioli, Jack Steven who were all taken after him as midfield types have definitely gone past him.

What was Freo's midfield like in 2008 when he debuted? Pretty s**t. He and an ageing Peter Bell were the only blokes to average more than 20 touches a game.

 

[dazbroncos]

I'm not sure the bolded is quite right. If the player is good enough, they have been given opportunities at senior level, for the most part. Lang got a go. Thurlow got a go. Guthrie got a go. Even lateish picks like Murdoch and McCarthy got a go. Can't really think of many that appear to have been consciously held back. It's just that trying to force your way in ahead of the 22nd senior player isn't always a walk in the park, when it's someone like Milburn, or Wojcinski, or Caddy. Mitch Duncan probably wouldn't have played in the 2011 premiership, if Menzel hadn't gone down in the QF. And that wouldn't have been due to him being held back, but just due to him not being in the best 22 at the time.

Though if you're suggesting that the match committee has been a bit too gun shy in resting an established veteran and giving a young kid (first year or otherwise) a go in a game that we're probably going to win by 10+ goals, I would certainly agree with that. Plenty of first and second year players that are/were around 23-30 in the pecking order could and probably should have got more opportunities at the expense of a couple of veterans in games where Geelong would be playing a Melbourne, St Kilda or GWS in Geelong in recent years. It would have had the possible twofold effect of keeping our aging bodies fresh and ready to play their best football in September (where we've failed to meet expectations for three consecutive years), as well as giving future keepers earlier exposure to what it's all about and potentially separating the wheat from the chaff and seeing enough of certain players to make an earlier call on whether they are up to the standard or not. But it's hard to see too many examples of young players that were in the best 22 not getting a chance.

I took the original point as meaning that we have not has the necessity to play our 1st year players - if they warn it they get it but there is not the same pressure / requirement for them to play year one that say a dunstan may have faced.
If they earn the games they will get them - mostly -but the demand for them to get 15-20 games it rarer

Go Catters

 

[meto]

I said neither.

Rhys Palmer's best year was his first.

I also note that players like Dangerfield, Rioli, Jack Steven who were all taken after him as midfield types have definitely gone past him.

What was Freo's midfield like in 2008 when he debuted? Pretty s**t. He and an ageing Peter Bell were the only blokes to average more than 20 touches a game.

Whether Dunstan goes backwards next year we'll wait and see, one thing I do know is Lang's just trying to get into the main game whereas the other guy's already arrived.
I reckon Saints are very pleased with their P18 and fair enough.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

It's fair to say it's easier to be picked in a rubbish side but the other side of the coin is it's also more difficult to keep putting up good numbers week in week out with out quality support especially for a young first year player coming up against the best in the country playing in a poor side.I don't see the Saint Kilda angle diminishes his numbers at all I think it enhances them.

Bullshit. Again...he was eighth in average disposal at St Kilda. And he tallied 15 or less disposals in nearly a third of the games he played, which doesn't exactly seem like '...good numbers week in week out...' from where I sit. If he put up outstanding first year numbers like Toby Greene in 2012 or Jaeger O'Meara in 2013, or put up decent midfield numbers in a quality side, like Ollie Wines did in 2013, it might be a different story. His first year was closer to Jack Viney (including playing for awful teams) than the aforementioned players.

 

[Daniel McL]

Lang > Dunstan

 

[you pick one]

Bullshit. Again...he was eighth in average disposal at St Kilda. And he tallied 15 or less disposals in nearly a third of the games he played, which doesn't exactly seem like '...good numbers week in week out...' from where I sit. If he put up outstanding first year numbers like Toby Greene in 2012 or Jaeger O'Meara in 2013, or put up decent midfield numbers in a quality side, like Ollie Wines did in 2013, it might be a different story. His first year was closer to Jack Viney (including playing for awful teams) than the aforementioned players.

We had a bloke who played every game for us last year bar one for compassionate reasons who managed 15 or less 13 time despite being in a team that won 17 games being 26 years of age and having played 138 games.I didn't hear your voice being as critical of him at any stage as you are against this young bloke.
What's your beef with him other than Wells didn't pick him.

 

[David the Cat]

When you rely on stats alone to rate a player you really are exposing your own limitations in assessing the value of a footballer.

Unfortunately that trend is rife on this board.

 

[you pick one]

When you rely on stats alone to rate a player you really are exposing your own limitations in assessing the value of a footballer.

Unfortunately that trend is rife on this board.

That's the point I was trying to make.

 

[Willo_]

And how many senior games would he have played in that pathetic St Kilda side (that, coincidentally, Lang got his one game against and was part of the team that smashed the Saints by 16 goals - with Dunstan being invisible)? How many games would Dunstan have played for us? You are comparing apples with oranges, even before considering all the other stuff that suggested Dunstan would be better equipped to make an instant impact, while Lang might take a bit of time.

If we'd taken Dunstan (and he'd played maybe 4-6 games...I would have been pretty surprised if he'd managed more), others that adopt your line of reasoning would be complaining because he wasn't as good in 2014 as Lewis Taylor. It's a reactionary call. If all these young players that play every week and rack up the stats (and Dunstan didn't really do that either) for the teams that are on the bottom of the ladder were so good, those teams wouldn't be on the bottom of the ladder.

I struggle to understand the argument people make about how many games X played in their first year compared to Y

Not many players are stars in year 1, not everyone gets picked up by a team that is awful and needs to throw them straight in..... I much prefer being the club where the players earn their games and hope it makes them better in the long run, unless the player we didn't pick turns into a judd or GAJ I don't see the point in complaining at all (and even if they do turn into that, well its the luck of the draw really so no point throwing the toys out of the cot like some do)