wednesdaywarrior
Club Legend
Before the Draft & Trade period we were deficient in 5 areas: 1. Ruck depth 2. Forward potency 3. Speed 4. Kick ins 5. Inside ball.
For mine, we have gone a long way toward addressing 1,2 and 3 with our trading and selections.
1. Gaining Grundy is a perfect result for us and if we can eke one or two more years out of Jolly you would think that our situation is looking ideal, having rolled the dice in clearing Wood and Ceglar.
2 & 3. Young, Kennedy and Broomhead all look to be able to kick with penetration and accuracy. The latter two have pace and a genuine burst off the mark. The two SA boys seem to have a strong goal sense and will add much needed attack and pace in the forward 50.
4. Not clear how this is being solved and rightly being discussed.
5. Mids can now almost be divided into 3 categories – outside, inside/outside and pure inside. The pure inside may be able to also play outside (eg Kerr, Judd, Black) depending on role/opportunity but generally plays closest to ruck and farms the ball out from the source OR, if he misses the tap, looks to tackle at the source. Most top sides can rotate 3 or 4 of these through the stoppages. We have 1 – Luke Ball. As was pointed out here, Beams, despite being elite in all categories was 16th in contested possession. Statistically our biggest weakness this year was tackling at the stoppages. Reason obvious – Luke Ball missing.
Next year would be an ideal time for Josh Thomas to show us what he’s got. Blair could also conceivably step up here. As has been noted, not all inside mids are beasts. But really, this is why Hrovat or Lonergan would have been a great get for us with their Mitchell/Sewell-like qualities. I understand the reasoning behind not taking Hrovat but was nearly crying when GC took Lonergan, he would have been the perfect fit for us.
Because we have a lot of really good inside/outside mids (Swan, Beams, Pendles etc) I don’t think we need a full on beast brigade like Sydney. One good pure inside player would perfectly balance our engine, a youngster ideally, with Ball approaching retirement. The rookie draft may give us a rough chance of addressing the above problems. We have a great record with rookies and can still be optimistic.
Final thought: Our list is in great shape for next year. We have improved our depth and can be very confident of challenging again. Knightmare often alludes to Geelong’s clever low-list turnover. But I would argue that our changes in the last 3 years have been necessary. Our list was never as good as Geelong’s to begin with, we have elite players but the age profiles were slightly out compared to the Cats, so we’ve had to do a mini-rebuild. However, Hawthorn and Sydney have shown that if you draft well, you don’t need to bottom out before challenging again.
For mine, we have gone a long way toward addressing 1,2 and 3 with our trading and selections.
1. Gaining Grundy is a perfect result for us and if we can eke one or two more years out of Jolly you would think that our situation is looking ideal, having rolled the dice in clearing Wood and Ceglar.
2 & 3. Young, Kennedy and Broomhead all look to be able to kick with penetration and accuracy. The latter two have pace and a genuine burst off the mark. The two SA boys seem to have a strong goal sense and will add much needed attack and pace in the forward 50.
4. Not clear how this is being solved and rightly being discussed.
5. Mids can now almost be divided into 3 categories – outside, inside/outside and pure inside. The pure inside may be able to also play outside (eg Kerr, Judd, Black) depending on role/opportunity but generally plays closest to ruck and farms the ball out from the source OR, if he misses the tap, looks to tackle at the source. Most top sides can rotate 3 or 4 of these through the stoppages. We have 1 – Luke Ball. As was pointed out here, Beams, despite being elite in all categories was 16th in contested possession. Statistically our biggest weakness this year was tackling at the stoppages. Reason obvious – Luke Ball missing.
Next year would be an ideal time for Josh Thomas to show us what he’s got. Blair could also conceivably step up here. As has been noted, not all inside mids are beasts. But really, this is why Hrovat or Lonergan would have been a great get for us with their Mitchell/Sewell-like qualities. I understand the reasoning behind not taking Hrovat but was nearly crying when GC took Lonergan, he would have been the perfect fit for us.
Because we have a lot of really good inside/outside mids (Swan, Beams, Pendles etc) I don’t think we need a full on beast brigade like Sydney. One good pure inside player would perfectly balance our engine, a youngster ideally, with Ball approaching retirement. The rookie draft may give us a rough chance of addressing the above problems. We have a great record with rookies and can still be optimistic.
Final thought: Our list is in great shape for next year. We have improved our depth and can be very confident of challenging again. Knightmare often alludes to Geelong’s clever low-list turnover. But I would argue that our changes in the last 3 years have been necessary. Our list was never as good as Geelong’s to begin with, we have elite players but the age profiles were slightly out compared to the Cats, so we’ve had to do a mini-rebuild. However, Hawthorn and Sydney have shown that if you draft well, you don’t need to bottom out before challenging again.
