The Final Four - Who Drops Out Next Year?

[clogged]

Sewell and Hale are debatable.

The major talking point at the moment is whether or not Rioli (25) and McEvoy (26) will replace Sewell (30) and Hale (30) for this weekends game. McEvoy starred in the VFL Preliminary Final where our reserve grade side will again play in the Grand Final. Evidently we blooded 9 debutants this season which was the most of any in the competition

You're not dropping Hale for McEvoy IMO.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Will be interesting to see how North go when they don't get a draw from heaven like this season. Still think they will make the 8 though, but I can see a side like Richmond, Gold Coast, Port really coming in the top 2-3.

 

[ObieWan]

So Lake, Burgoyne, Hale, Mitchell, Hodge, Gibson and Sewell aren't in your best 22?

Sewell isn't.

Hale at his best is, we've only seen that the last few weeks though. The rest 100% are.

 

[Jimmy Yamazaki]

North.... But Hawks if they have retirements (reckon they'll have some if they go b2b)

 

[Hawkk]

Evidently of the top 8 contenders, they are carrying/carried the following players that are 30 or older...

Geelong - 9
Hawthorn - 7
Sydney - 6
Fremantle - 5
North Melbourne - 4
Essendon - 4
Port Adelaide - 2
Richmond - 1

Make of those numbers what you will but the big four of recent years (Geelong, Hawthorn, Sydney and Fremantle) all have some work to do in order to list rebuild.

The North Melbourne / Essendon numbers both surprise me...

 

[Hawkk]

Sewell is debatable, I don't think Hale is.

The problem Hawthorn have ATM is that we've got too many ruck stocks. Its for this reason that Port are chasing Lowden so heavily. I have no doubt that McEvoy will replace Hale next year

 

[Hawkk]

You're not dropping Hale for McEvoy IMO.

His last 2 games have been outstanding before then he was dicey at best

 

[MarkP]

Evidently of the top 8 contenders, they are carrying/carried the following players that are 30 or older...

Geelong - 9
Hawthorn - 7
Sydney - 6
Fremantle - 5
North Melbourne - 4
Essendon - 4
Port Adelaide - 2
Richmond - 1

Make of those numbers what you will but the big four of recent years (Geelong, Hawthorn, Sydney and Fremantle) all have some work to do in order to list rebuild.

The North Melbourne / Essendon numbers both surprise me...

That's total on the list correct?

 

[clogged]

Evidently of the top 8 contenders, they are carrying/carried the following players that are 30 or older...

Geelong - 9
Hawthorn - 7
Sydney - 6
Fremantle - 5
North Melbourne - 4
Essendon - 4
Port Adelaide - 2
Richmond - 1

Make of those numbers what you will but the big four of recent years (Geelong, Hawthorn, Sydney and Fremantle) all have some work to do in order to list rebuild.

The North Melbourne / Essendon numbers both surprise me...

Sydney will be fine - their over 30s are not essential for their structures.

Fremantle's over 30s are almost all structurally important (Pav, Sandilands, McPharlin).

Hawthorn's is a massive core of midfield talent with some structurally important players (Hale & Lake)

Geelong are in a similar boat to Hawthorn. (although I only count 7)

 

[Hawkk]

That's total on the list correct?

Yeah. If you want to put totals against them be my guest.

 

[Hawkk]

Sydney will be fine - their over 30s are not essential for their structures.

Fremantle's over 30s are almost all structurally important (Pav, Sandilands, McPharlin).

Hawthorn's is a massive core of midfield talent with some structurally important players (Hale & Lake)

Geelong are in a similar boat to Hawthorn.

Agree with this. Our list profile is interesting.

Our forward set up is incredible and should be a strength for many years to come (Roughead, Gunston, Bruest, Rioli), we have okay depth in the KP posts in defence, ditto the ruck stocks plus our HBF'ers and outside runners (Hill, Smith and co.) should be fine. We do have a glaring hole in the inside midfield though. Its as if we have forgotten to profile our midfield!

I guess that's why we have Free Agency though isn't it? In 2009/2010 we used the trade table to trade ourselves out of problems in the Key Defence posts (Croad / Gibson) and with polish (Burgers for Crawford) so I guess we'll have to go to the well again

 

[clogged]

Agree with this. Our list profile is interesting.

Our forward set up is incredible and should be a strength for many years to come (Roughead, Gunston, Bruest, Rioli), we have okay depth in the KP posts in defence, ditto the ruck stocks plus our HBF'ers and outside runners (Hill, Smith and co.) should be fine. We do have a glaring hole in the inside midfield though.

I guess that's why we have Free Agency though isn't it? In 2009/2010 we used the trade table to trade ourselves out of problems in the Key Defence posts (Croad / Gibson) and with polish (Burgers for Crawford) so I guess we'll have to go to the well again

There aren't that many free agents though, are there?

 

[Hawkk]

There aren't that many free agents though, are there?

Agreed. But like I said, the midfield is the glaring hole

 

[ObieWan]

You're not dropping Hale for McEvoy IMO.

McEvoy replaces Ceglar.

 

[MC_9]

Sydney will be fine - their over 30s are not essential for their structures.

Fremantle's over 30s are almost all structurally important (Pav, Sandilands, McPharlin).

Hawthorn's is a massive core of midfield talent with some structurally important players (Hale & Lake)

Geelong are in a similar boat to Hawthorn. (although I only count 7)

I would have thought Richards and Malceksi are pretty important to Sydneys set up.

 

[Handsuper47]

None of them.

 

[mottrain]

That's incredibly subjective but thanks for your concern.

Evidently we have 7 players on our list over 30.

Lake (32), Burgoyne (31), Mitchell (31), Gibson (30), Sewell (30), Hodge (30), Hale (30)

Of those players its debatable if Sewell (30) and Hale (30) are best 22 players.

Like I said, we'll need to hit FA if we want to stay a top 4 club. As part of the clubs 2013/17 business plan it has targeted 5 years of successive top 4 finishes as an objective

Agree at Sewell even talk already of whether would be picked in the side for the Preliminary Final.

 

[carnthedons]

Evidently of the top 8 contenders, they are carrying/carried the following players that are 30 or older...

Geelong - 9
Hawthorn - 7
Sydney - 6
Fremantle - 5
North Melbourne - 4
Essendon - 4
Port Adelaide - 2
Richmond - 1

Make of those numbers what you will but the big four of recent years (Geelong, Hawthorn, Sydney and Fremantle) all have some work to do in order to list rebuild.

The North Melbourne / Essendon numbers both surprise me...

Mainly because the bombers only have 2 30+ players currently (Fletcher & Chapman)

Winderlich, Watson & Goddard are all 29 however and Jobe will be 30 next month.

 

[MarkP]

Yeah. If you want to put totals against them be my guest.

Thanks. All good, just wanted to be sure I understand what I was looking at.

So from the Swans two have definitely left in ROK and LRT. Guessing Goodes will go as well and Mal possibly.

I would have thought Richards and Malceksi are pretty important to Sydneys set up.

Richard is the obvious one that is "critical". Great CHB/KPD whatever don't grow on trees. He has only 1 year left as the main man and a replacement is required.

Mal is an absolute luxury. Obviously you want him in the side but he not critical and others can play the role on the list already like Rampe or McVeigh if required. Biggs is a possibility to take it on.

Long winded but the point is Ted is hard to cover organically Mal not so much. Both are on the downward curve with Mal having more time though.

 

[SterlingArcher]

Will be interesting to see how North go when they don't get a draw from heaven like this season. Still think they will make the 8 though, but I can see a side like Richmond, Gold Coast, Port really coming in the top 2-3.

The North draw from heaven is a bit of a myth when you look at their results.

They beat all top 8 teams in the end anyway. Lost 0-2 to Geelong and went 1-1 with Adelaide/Brisbane, which would have been similar if they had played Port/Fremantle/Hawthorn twice. So 2x Melbourne + 2x Dogs + 1x GWS easy match-ups, but Port got 4 matches v them, Sydney got

You could give North Hawthorn, Port, Fremantle, Geelong and Brisbane in 2015 as double-ups and I'd expect them to go 6-4 from those 10 games again anyway, possibly even 7-3.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

You could give North Hawthorn, Port, Fremantle, Geelong and Brisbane in 2015 as double-ups and I'd expect them to go 6-4 from those 10 games again anyway, possibly even 7-3.

Say what! They are not going 7-3 against that group. They might break even and that is even if they don't get Sydney in their group which they should or Fremantle!

 

[SterlingArcher]

Say what! They are not going 7-3 against that group. They might break even and that is even if they don't get Sydney in their group which they should or Fremantle!

This year they went 5-3 v that group, with only a shock narrow loss to Brisbane stopping them from 6-2. I'd say winning 6 in a row, including a tough one v Adelaide and 2 finals shows they've rectified the bulk of their inconsistency.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

This year they went 5-3 v that group, with only a shock narrow loss to Brisbane stopping them from 6-2.

Yes and they didn't have to play Sydney twice, and they got a fairly ecent draw. They won't be beating Port or Hawthorn, regardless of records in the past.

 

[clogged]

I would have thought Richards and Malceksi are pretty important to Sydneys set up.

Richards yes, Malceski no. I count one truly essential player for Sydney over 30.

That's still better than the other three teams that finished top four in home and away.

 

[SterlingArcher]

Yes and they didn't have to play Sydney twice, and they got a fairly ecent draw.

Well they beat Sydney as well this year, who's to say Sydney doesn't start slowly again and North get them early.

They won't be beating Port or Hawthorn, regardless of records in the past.

Of course I can almost guarantee you said that this year. I'm not saying they won't fall out of the 4, but considering their record this year v top teams, I hardly think 'their soft draw' was the reason for them making the prelims (7-2 v the top 7 teams)