Delisted #41 Lachlan Rankin

Remove this Banner Ad

Dubai Quacker said:
Really hoping to see L.Rankin racking up some good performances in the VFL in the coming weeks - sense he’s going to be fighting for a new contract.
Click to expand...
Kept a bit of an eye on him vs Box Hill. He played on their small forward. Defended aggressively, including a wrestle. Doesn't take a backward step. Played tight. Nice kick and good hands but doesn't seem particularly quick. He was on my side (right of defence) so I saw him OK but Vickery was on the other side so I don't have much of a clue about his game. I think you're probably right about playing for his contract.
 
Kiama Chris said:
Kept a bit of an eye on him vs Box Hill. He played on their small forward. Defended aggressively, including a wrestle. Doesn't take a backward step. Played tight. Nice kick and good hands but doesn't seem particularly quick. He was on my side (right of defence) so I saw him OK but Vickery was on the other side so I don't have much of a clue about his game. I think you're probably right about playing for his contract.
Click to expand...
I thought Rankin's prospects were highlighted with the drafting of Vickery. Though we draft in and rookie defenders and yet we move mids into defence and they take over. Look at Rampe, Lloyd, Florent, Campbell, even Blakey if you want to stretch it. We do not have much success with small to medium defenders. We usually just move mids there.
[Edit] Cunningham too.
 
rustycrate said:
I thought Rankin's prospects were highlighted with the drafting of Vickery. Though we draft in and rookie defenders and yet we move mids into defence and they take over. Look at Rampe, Lloyd, Florent, Campbell, even Blakey if you want to stretch it. We do not have much success with small to medium defenders. We usually just move mids there.
[Edit] Cunningham too.
Click to expand...
True. Gave Sheather a run there too. Must drive Gould crazy seeing Blakey, Campbell, Florent and McCartin moved into the backline in front of him. TBH I'm not sure why we drafted either Rankin or Vickery. Not that they're not good players or good people but will they ever have a career?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Around this time a year ago, I posted the following:

caesar88 said:
A lil update on our future 5x Norm Smith Medallist. Or in layman's terms, Lachie Rankin...

James Gandolfini voice I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who told me the following:

  • Rankin's being primed as a half back. He doesn't see his future in the forward half, where he spent some time as a junior.
  • Been earmarked as a successor to Lloyd's role, which was described as "steady." (Make of that what you will)
  • Audible gasps from coaches at some of his ball use over the summer.
  • Incredibly humble kid and a total professional.
  • Impressed the coaches with his maturity when he self-reported a head knock a few weeks back despite no symptoms. Was forced to sit out due to the concussion protocols.
  • He's been taken under the wing of Rampe, Lloyd, Rowbottom and Papley early on.
  • He is not expecting to debut this year.
Click to expand...

Now I'm not sure why we would draft someone the club in no uncertain terms knew was at least a year away from being ready for senior footy, only to then delist him two years later. Giving such a player only one year of genuine opportunity to prove himself seems both unfair and counter-productive. And it's rare that we delist a national draft pick as soon as their initial contract is up. Jack Hiscox was the last. (Zac Foot as well, but that was due to COVID list cuts, and Tyrone Leonardis, whose professionalism and commitment was often questioned, but if the quoted is anything to go by, no such worries with Rankin.) And if we remember back to draft night 2021, we all assumed we were finished by the fourth round, and would save the remaining list spot for the rookie draft. Instead we were quite surprised when we took another player in the national draft at pick 58. We must've really wanted Rankin.

So I don't at all subscribe to the notion that Rankin's place on the list is in danger at the end of this year.

I will say that I have him in the same category as everyone else we've taken in the last two drafts: They have missed the rebuild bus. They're now waiting for injuries or retirements to the incumbent players to get their chance, and how soon they get that chance, if at all, is completely unknown and entirely random. Despite my excitement and optimism for Rankin, I'm fully prepared to accept that he and the rest may not be willing to wait as long as they may be required, and they might end up playing out their careers for a different club. It is tough, but it's also the reality of drafting kids during an era of flag contention, and it's a price I'm happy to pay if it means we field the best, most experienced team we possibly can in pursuit of a premiership.

As for Rankin specifically, the small defender/defensive 50 distributor is one of the toughest roles to play in the VFL, mainly because it's so hard to impress or stand out there. There are long stretches of reserves games where Rankin's not even in the frame. It could mean he's doing a good job at nullifying his opponent, and when he is in the play, he looks sharp, attacking and competitive. But if you're just not that involved, how do you ever put together the kind of stand-out game that will scream "pick me!" to the selectors? It may be a case that the club won't know if Rankin is ready until they have no choice and he just gets thrown in the deep end and it's sink or swim. But again, with names like Lloyd, Fox, Florent, Blakey, Campbell ahead of him, that scenario may never actually eventuate for him.
 
Feel like there's some impatience here. Rankin's at the start of his 2nd year, playing in defence, often with little AFL-listed support last year due to injuries or seniors for other small/med defenders. We seem to have brought in others who could play (non KPD) defensive half roles because we see a medium term hole once Fox, Cunningham finish up (both 29). Maybe there's another year or two at reserves level before a look in, but that's common for us. Why we wouldn't want some depth IDK.
 
caesar88 said:
Around this time a year ago, I posted the following:



Now I'm not sure why we would draft someone the club in no uncertain terms knew was at least a year away from being ready for senior footy, only to then delist him two years later. Giving such a player only one year of genuine opportunity to prove himself seems both unfair and counter-productive. And it's rare that we delist a national draft pick as soon as their initial contract is up. Jack Hiscox was the last. (Zac Foot as well, but that was due to COVID list cuts, and Tyrone Leonardis, whose professionalism and commitment was often questioned, but if the quoted is anything to go by, no such worries with Rankin.) And if we remember back to draft night 2021, we all assumed we were finished by the fourth round, and would save the remaining list spot for the rookie draft. Instead we were quite surprised when we took another player in the national draft at pick 58. We must've really wanted Rankin.

So I don't at all subscribe to the notion that Rankin's place on the list is in danger at the end of this year.

I will say that I have him in the same category as everyone else we've taken in the last two drafts: They have missed the rebuild bus. They're now waiting for injuries or retirements to the incumbent players to get their chance, and how soon they get that chance, if at all, is completely unknown and entirely random. Despite my excitement and optimism for Rankin, I'm fully prepared to accept that he and the rest may not be willing to wait as long as they may be required, and they might end up playing out their careers for a different club. It is tough, but it's also the reality of drafting kids during an era of flag contention, and it's a price I'm happy to pay if it means we field the best, most experienced team we possibly can in pursuit of a premiership.

As for Rankin specifically, the small defender/defensive 50 distributor is one of the toughest roles to play in the VFL, mainly because it's so hard to impress or stand out there. There are long stretches of reserves games where Rankin's not even in the frame. It could mean he's doing a good job at nullifying his opponent, and when he is in the play, he looks sharp, attacking and competitive. But if you're just not that involved, how do you ever put together the kind of stand-out game that will scream "pick me!" to the selectors? It may be a case that the club won't know if Rankin is ready until they have no choice and he just gets thrown in the deep end and it's sink or swim. But again, with names like Lloyd, Fox, Florent, Blakey, Campbell ahead of him, that scenario may never actually eventuate for him.
Click to expand...
Hence why I think we just move surplus mids into the role. Even the best small defender in my lifetime was a mid. Nick Smith.
 
rustycrate said:
Hence why I think we just move surplus mids into the role. Even the best small defender in my lifetime was a mid. Nick Smith.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but what if that meant, for example, your boy Sheldrick ending up as a small defender? I'm sure you'd rather have some pure defenders on the list so that Sheldrick could remain depth for the inside mids.
 
caesar88 said:
Around this time a year ago, I posted the following:



Now I'm not sure why we would draft someone the club in no uncertain terms knew was at least a year away from being ready for senior footy, only to then delist him two years later. Giving such a player only one year of genuine opportunity to prove himself seems both unfair and counter-productive. And it's rare that we delist a national draft pick as soon as their initial contract is up. Jack Hiscox was the last. (Zac Foot as well, but that was due to COVID list cuts, and Tyrone Leonardis, whose professionalism and commitment was often questioned, but if the quoted is anything to go by, no such worries with Rankin.) And if we remember back to draft night 2021, we all assumed we were finished by the fourth round, and would save the remaining list spot for the rookie draft. Instead we were quite surprised when we took another player in the national draft at pick 58. We must've really wanted Rankin.

So I don't at all subscribe to the notion that Rankin's place on the list is in danger at the end of this year.

I will say that I have him in the same category as everyone else we've taken in the last two drafts: They have missed the rebuild bus. They're now waiting for injuries or retirements to the incumbent players to get their chance, and how soon they get that chance, if at all, is completely unknown and entirely random. Despite my excitement and optimism for Rankin, I'm fully prepared to accept that he and the rest may not be willing to wait as long as they may be required, and they might end up playing out their careers for a different club. It is tough, but it's also the reality of drafting kids during an era of flag contention, and it's a price I'm happy to pay if it means we field the best, most experienced team we possibly can in pursuit of a premiership.

As for Rankin specifically, the small defender/defensive 50 distributor is one of the toughest roles to play in the VFL, mainly because it's so hard to impress or stand out there. There are long stretches of reserves games where Rankin's not even in the frame. It could mean he's doing a good job at nullifying his opponent, and when he is in the play, he looks sharp, attacking and competitive. But if you're just not that involved, how do you ever put together the kind of stand-out game that will scream "pick me!" to the selectors? It may be a case that the club won't know if Rankin is ready until they have no choice and he just gets thrown in the deep end and it's sink or swim. But again, with names like Lloyd, Fox, Florent, Blakey, Campbell ahead of him, that scenario may never actually eventuate for him.
Click to expand...
I kinda agree with your sentiment, but see some worrying signs.

Rankin’s apparent strengths are footy smarts, determination and decent skills. He’s not quick, nor what you’d term an “impact player”.

And on that basis - he does need to find the ball a fair bit. Which in the VFL he’s not currently doing.

Perhaps (?) it’s because he’s being played in a shut-down role, but he’s certainly not acting as the Lloyd type distributor.

I’m just not sure what kind of player he’s being developed as.
 
caesar88 said:
Perhaps, but what if that meant, for example, your boy Sheldrick ending up as a small defender? I'm sure you'd rather have some pure defenders on the list so that Sheldrick could remain depth for the inside mids.
Click to expand...
Look. You love Rankin. I love Sheldrick. Do you think I am happy that Cunninham is so successful in the role. Yes. And no. I would rather Sheldrick be playing. But he is not the best in that role. Cunningham is. While I can accept it from a logic point of view my heart wants Sheldrick there. He is amazing.
But atm I would not swap Cunningham for Sheldrick.

I have no problem with Rankin or Vickery. As you said they along with Sheldrick have missed the rebuild bus. They have to wait for injury or another opportunity.

My other point was that we always, almost always fill the small to medium defender roles with mids. That is just what we do.
 
Dubai Quacker said:
I kinda agree with your sentiment, but see some worrying signs.

Rankin’s apparent strengths are footy smarts, determination and decent skills. He’s not quick, nor what you’d term an “impact player”.

And on that basis - he does need to find the ball a fair bit. Which in the VFL he’s not currently doing.

Perhaps (?) it’s because he’s being played in a shut-down role, but he’s certainly not acting as the Lloyd type distributor.

I’m just not sure what kind of player he’s being developed as.
Click to expand...
Maybe because he is learning? It's the very beginning of just his second year.

It sounds to me though like you don't know what you want from Rankin. You want him to be an "impact player" and have speed, whilst simultaneously suggesting he should be playing like Lloyd. But is Lloyd an "impact player" with speed? Not really. He is a small defender who makes good decisions to set up our rebounds, and uses his smarts to get it to the "impact players" with speed. If that is the role the club wants Rankin to play, then I would say he's doing all that's required of him.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

rustycrate said:
Look. You love Rankin. I love Sheldrick. Do you think I am happy that Cunninham is so successful in the role. Yes. And no. I would rather Sheldrick be playing. But he is not the best in that role. Cunningham is. While I can accept it from a logic point of view my heart wants Sheldrick there. He is amazing.
But atm I would not swap Cunningham for Sheldrick.

I have no problem with Rankin or Vickery. As you said they along with Sheldrick have missed the rebuild bus. They have to wait for injury or another opportunity.

My other point was that we always, almost always fill the small to medium defender roles with mids. That is just what we do.
Click to expand...
We also draft small defenders. I think it is telling that we've unexpectedly used two national draft picks in the last two years on two small defender types. Maybe we want to hedge our bets so that we don't have to use our mids as small defenders. Maybe we drafted Sheldrick & Roberts & Mitchell with the intent of actually having inside mid depth, and not needing to reinvent them as defenders because we have no one else capable of doing that role.
 
caesar88 said:
Maybe because he is learning? It's the very beginning of just his second year.

It sounds to me though like you don't know what you want from Rankin. You want him to be an "impact player" and have speed, whilst simultaneously suggesting he should be playing like Lloyd. But is Lloyd an "impact player" with speed? Not really. He is a small defender who makes good decisions to set up our rebounds, and uses his smarts to get it to the "impact players" with speed. If that is the role the club wants Rankin to play, then I would say he's doing all that's required of him.
Click to expand...
Nah, I don’t want him to be an impact player nor have speed - as that’s not the player he is.

I’d just like to see him get more of the Sherrin. I don’t believe that he’s setting up our rebounds - but I’d love it if he did.
 
Dubai Quacker said:
Nah, I don’t want him to be an impact player nor have speed - as that’s not the player he is.

I’d just like to see him get more of the Sherrin. I don’t agree that he’s setting up our rebounds - but I’d love it if he did.
Click to expand...
He has played one VFL game this year and got 16 disposals playing out of the back pocket. I seem to recall a number of those possessions finding our outside players. They weren't intended to be eye-catching or game-breaking. I'd say that's doing his role.
 
caesar88 said:
We also draft small defenders. I think it is telling that we've unexpectedly used two national draft picks in the last two years on two small defender types. Maybe we want to hedge our bets so that we don't have to use our mids as small defenders. Maybe we drafted Sheldrick & Roberts & Mitchell with the intent of actually having inside mid depth, and not needing to reinvent them as defenders because we have no one else capable of doing that role.
Click to expand...
I think we maybe needed insurance. Rampe, lloyd are older. We need cover?
I also think we need quality VFL for our players to develop. ?
These are two reasons to draft small to medium defenders. But they just never seem to get to best 22.
I am just not sure 88. Why have we drafted two defenders when it is likely they do not get a gig.

We are full now. Our list is full except for FF.
Maybe at the last draft we had to draft someone so we did. Are we full on salary cap? Does this constrain us in the types of plays we bring in and their futures?
We have a very young midfield with very very young midfield backup.
We have a very experienced backline with depth. Plus youngsters.
We have now more ruck depth than we have had in the last few years. If players come on next year it will be stronger. Our rucks are never the best in the AFL. We don't go overboard in this area. I think we are well serviced here.
Forwards are pretty much covered. The depth is skinny this year. The retirements of Buddy and possibly Reid will provide opportunities or expose weakness.

I am not sure even this year about what we should draft outside of KPF.
We have our picks plus Hawthorn 2nd and 3rd. 4 very good picks. Two years ago draft picks are finding it hard to crack the team. Now we will draft more.

There are going to be a lot of young players with no future to crack best 22 next year barring injuries.
 
rustycrate said:
I think we maybe needed insurance. Rampe, lloyd are older. We need cover?
I also think we need quality VFL for our players to develop. ?
These are two reasons to draft small to medium defenders. But they just never seem to get to best 22.
I am just not sure 88. Why have we drafted two defenders when it is likely they do not get a gig.

We are full now. Our list is full except for FF.
Maybe at the last draft we had to draft someone so we did. Are we full on salary cap? Does this constrain us in the types of plays we bring in and their futures?
We have a very young midfield with very very young midfield backup.
We have a very experienced backline with depth. Plus youngsters.
We have now more ruck depth than we have had in the last few years. If players come on next year it will be stronger. Our rucks are never the best in the AFL. We don't go overboard in this area. I think we are well serviced here.
Forwards are pretty much covered. The depth is skinny this year. The retirements of Buddy and possibly Reid will provide opportunities or expose weakness.

I am not sure even this year about what we should draft outside of KPF.
We have our picks plus Hawthorn 2nd and 3rd. 4 very good picks. Two years ago draft picks are finding it hard to crack the team. Now we will draft more.

There are going to be a lot of young players with no future to crack best 22 next year barring injuries.
Click to expand...
I was saying this all pre-season and was told I was being negative and critical of these young players. It's the reality of being a premiership contender. I just don't get why Rankin is being singled out in this regard when they're all in the same boat.
 
caesar88 said:
I was saying this all pre-season and was told I was being negative and critical of these young players. It's the reality of being a premiership contender. I just don't get why Rankin is being singled out in this regard when they're all in the same boat.
Click to expand...
Roberts has signed an extension and Sheldrick reportedly has done so too.

Hence they’re not really all in the same boat.
 
A few years ago in the NEAFL Grand Final Nic Newman was BOG for us. Not particularly fast but a decent anticipator accumulated a lot of possession. Still does for another club. Didn't really fit our system. Still wouldn't.
Whilever Horse prefers an experienced and settled backline it will be hard for non-favourites to break into the side.
Rankin, Gould, Vickery, Melican and Edwards and maybe Fox all look as if they have a long stint in VFL, trade or delist in front of them.
Cunningham got lucky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ticky009
Player Watch #41 Patrick Snell
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
SSwans2011
SSwans2011

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top