AFL Player #15: Jayden Laverde

[Beerfish]

Contract Status: Unrestricted Free Agent 2025
My Boy Draft 2024: Pick 7, Nuggs Bunny

 

[Killer_Mike]

The only argument for Laverde not playing AFL is match fitness. That was his first game without managed minutes. It'll help him ease into our seniors without the added pressure to perform on him. Still has a few things to work on. If selections this year is anything to go by, he'd have to string a few consistent games before he'll be considered.

Going forward however, we'd be crazy not to play a medium/tall forward that's agile, can compete in the air, provide the pressure and be a part of our midfield rotation for basically a small stay at home forward that cannot compete in the air. Green has definitely been good for us no doubt. His impact is underrated on here.

With Laverde however, our forwardline would go up another level. Our best forward line is Daniher, Hooker, Stewart, Laverde, Walla and Fantasia. That's 3 mobile talls! Stewart and Laverde would actually complement each other IMO.

I don't think fitness is the only argument.

It's quite possible that first he has to wait for a spot to be available. Everyone keeps mentioning Green week after week yet Woosha keeps selecting him.

The second is that they may feel he's best to stay at VFL level to continue to work on his game.

I'm not opposed to him coming into the seniors but I don't think it's the end of the world if he doesn't.

 

[Haychh]

To be fair, this depth thing is new to us. We don't know what to do with it

I think our depth seems a lot better than what it actually is because of our injury situation, it's been the best run we've had in years (touching all the wood). In years past we would've been forced to play blokes like Langford more and would've had more than 2 debutantes by now.

 

[carloss]

Bellchambers up forward as well, Fantasia through the midfield.
Not sure the mix requires another tall forward.
Maybe one way to balance it would be for Hooker to go back?

 

[Summer Nights]

Totally different role. Hurleys job is to spoil / intercept / provide run out of the back half and not hold the ball in one area of the ground.
Most tall defenders make limited tackles.
Small / medium forwards , different story.

No, it's not different. Laverde isn't a small forward and he's at least medium. Daniel Menzel averages 1.2 tackles a game. Is he not doing his bit in terms of pressure?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Stewart stays in. Ridiculous to think somebody would be demoted for playing well.

Laverde has to wait for a spot to open up. We complain about depth and then when we have it we want to destroy it by sacrificing somebody that has done exceptionally well in his first season at the club and does nothing but work his arse off.

this is a great post.

One of the byproducts of strong depth and good performance (I know, I know, but we're getting there) is that it's HARD to break in to the team. This is a GOOD THING. It's the same argument you would use for Langford, Begley, Francis and Laverde. These guys aren't going to be plotting how to get to a club that appreciates them as soon as humanely possible, they would be working their arses off to get into a position where it's them that's holding a spot in a good team and keeping other players out. That's how it works, and it's a good thing

 

[Lance Uppercut]

having said that, the idea of a fit Laverde, Begley, Francis and Langford in the team is salivate inducing, but who goes out for them? Green, sure. That's one. Stewart? Maybe but I don't think so, he offers something they don't. It's bloody hard to fit them all in, and again, that's a good thing. In the end it may be as banal as them having to wait until someone is injured and then making themselves indispensible during that period

 

[BrunoV]

having said that, the idea of a fit Laverde, Begley, Francis and Langford in the team is salivate inducing, but who goes out for them? Green, sure. That's one. Stewart? Maybe but I don't think so, he offers something they don't. It's bloody hard to fit them all in, and again, that's a good thing. In the end it may be as banal as them having to wait until someone is injured and then making themselves indispensible during that period

Watson is hardly best 22.

 

[BrunoV]

No, it's not different. Laverde isn't a small forward and he's at least medium. Daniel Menzel averages 1.2 tackles a game. Is he not doing his bit in terms of pressure?

I don't understand why we insist on drawing irrelevant distinctions between players and roles based on height. When a guy is tall, he is a liability at ground level, by default, and when a guy is small he's great at applying pressure, by default.

Not directing this to you specifically, Trevelyan, but if posters out there are going to say that Laverde doesn't have Green covered at ground level they're not watching very closely. Go back and have a look at JLT2 to get a feel for a fit Laverde's work rate. Even at 80% which would be his current level he is still ahead of Green.

On the weekend, two of the goals that Laverde kicked were snaps following his roving of a pack. I reckon that he dished off another few handballs from crumbs that resulted in scores. He laid 5 tackles, hit up to half back to take the ball on the wing. He did everything that you'd expect of a 'small forward' but did it in a mid-sized frame that enabled him to 'play tall'. Any decent mid-sized forward should also be a 'small forward'.

There isn't rule book out that there says that one must be less than 180cm to be a 'small forward' at least in the sense that the term is used as a meaningful way of describing a role in a structural sense. If the expectation is that these players must be short for the sake of being short, and I suspect that it is all tied up in the 'cult hero' worship of fans, we should not be having the debate because it would be utterly moronic.

A lot of these guys are short presumably because they develop the relevant parts of their games to maximise their strengths and to address the weaknesses in their games but that is as far as it goes.

 

[rumply]

Watson is hardly best 22.

Maybe not these days but doubt he will be shown the disrespect of being left out for the rest of the year, let him play out & retire at season's end, he deserves that at least.

 

[Summer Nights]

I don't understand why we insist on drawing irrelevant distinctions between players and roles based on height. When a guy is tall, he is a liability at ground level, by default, and when a guy is small he's great at applying pressure, by default.

Not directing this to you specifically, Trevelyan, but if posters out there are going to say that Laverde doesn't have Green covered at ground level they're not watching very closely. Go back and have a look at JLT2 to get a feel for a fit Laverde's work rate. Even at 80% which would be his current level he is still ahead of Green.

Two of the goals that Laverde kicked were snaps following his roving of a pack. I reckon that he dished off another few handballs from crumbs that resulted in scores. He laid 5 tackles, hit up to half back to take the ball on the wing. He did everything that you'd expect of a 'small forward' but did it in a mid-sized frame that enabled him to 'play tall'. Any decent mid-sized forward should also be a 'small forward'.

There isn't rule book out that there says that one must be less than 180cm to be a 'small forward' at least in the sense that the term is used as a meaningful way of describing a role in a structural sense. If the expectation is that these players must be short for the sake of being short, and I suspect that it is all tied up in the 'cult hero' worship of fans, than we should not be having the debate because it would be utterly moronic.

A lot of these guys are short presumably because they develop the relevant parts of their games to maximise their strengths and to address the weaknesses in their games but that is as far as it goes.

That's fine. I was just pointing out the error in Ant's post implying he's in the small/medium category then gave an example of a good forward of similar height with defensive pressure and a low tackle count.

My issue is people looking at the stat in isolation and thinking it is indicative of a player's effort.

The point has been missed, I.e. It's not all about tackles. Smothers, bumps, corralling and even just chasing is just as important. FWIW, Hurley does have a low tackle count compared with other KPDs, so that example was apt - he is great without excelling in every area.

 

[Lore]

I don't understand why we insist on drawing irrelevant distinctions between players and roles based on height. When a guy is tall, he is a liability at ground level, by default, and when a guy is small he's great at applying pressure, by default.

Not directing this to you specifically, Trevelyan, but if posters out there are going to say that Laverde doesn't have Green covered at ground level they're not watching very closely. Go back and have a look at JLT2 to get a feel for a fit Laverde's work rate. Even at 80% which would be his current level he is still ahead of Green.

Two of the goals that Laverde kicked were snaps following his roving of a pack. I reckon that he dished off another few handballs from crumbs that resulted in scores. He laid 5 tackles, hit up to half back to take the ball on the wing. He did everything that you'd expect of a 'small forward' but did it in a mid-sized frame that enabled him to 'play tall'. Any decent mid-sized forward should also be a 'small forward'.

There isn't rule book out that there says that one must be less than 180cm to be a 'small forward' at least in the sense that the term is used as a meaningful way of describing a role in a structural sense. If the expectation is that these players must be short for the sake of being short, and I suspect that it is all tied up in the 'cult hero' worship of fans, than we should not be having the debate because it would be utterly moronic.

A lot of these guys are short presumably because they develop the relevant parts of their games to maximise their strengths and to address the weaknesses in their games but that is as far as it goes.

A few years ago I don't think any club had more than two players under that mark anyway, although they definitely had more than two 'small' forwards. Caleb Daniel has made it fashionable to be small now I suppose. Personally I prefer 'small/medium forward' or 'general forward' terminology for the same role in the team, if only because it stops the sort of stupidity you're trying to fight against there^

 

[eDPS]

 

[citizen-erased]

View attachment 393514
View attachment 393515

Jobe-esque action on that handball. i like it.

 

[eDPS]

Nice video of Laverde showing his eagerness to become a midfielder, some
Nice pre draft footage aswell (can you tell I'm excited to see him back playing)

 

[Seb78]

Will take time but definately looks like a mid. Can just see him going into BEAST MODE!!

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Jobe-esque action on that handball. i like it.

I think he's our best shot at a long-term Jobe replacement in the middle.

 

[citizen-erased]

I think he's our best shot at a long-term Jobe replacement in the middle.

agree
Laverde in for Watson
Langford for Goddard
Mutch for Myers (longer term)
Begley for Green
Redman for Colyer

that's how i'm seeing the team changes over the next few seasons

 

[Killer_Mike]

agree
Laverde in for Watson
Langford for Goddard
Mutch for Myers (longer term)
Begley for Green
Redman for Colyer

that's how i'm seeing the team changes over the next few seasons

Begley will be a midfielder. And a very good one.

 

[Towno78]

Watson is hardly best 22.

Well, he is played in our 22 every single week when available. Given we have consistently had a healthy list to select from all year apart from Lav, Ambrose, Brown and Ridley, then he indisputably is best 22.
Unless you're going to argue Watson is merely a placeholder for Lav, despite the career total of 5 mins of inside mid he has played thus far.

 

[calyam]

Begley will be a midfielder. And a very good one.

Every time I see him I imagine him developing into a Luke Parker type. A couple of seasons as a medium-sized forward and then a hard-at-it midfielder.

 

[Killer_Mike]

Every time I see him I imagine him developing into a Luke Parker type. A couple of seasons as a medium-sized forward and then a hard-at-it midfielder.

The way he works through traffic is very smooth. I have high hopes.

 

[BrunoV]

Well, he is played in our 22 every single week when available. Given we have consistently had a healthy list to select from all year apart from Lav, Ambrose, Brown and Ridley, then he indisputably is best 22.
Unless you're going to argue Watson is merely a placeholder for Lav, despite the career total of 5 mins of inside mid he has played thus far.

The post was in response to someone working out who would give way to allow us to play the kids. Watson would be the one who is most under pressure. If he isn't, he should be because he's now just an okay ball hunter who is a liability on the spread.

It's sad and I would love him to be a part of any success we have because he more than anyone would deserve it but at the current rate he will struggle to hold onto a spot.

You also forgot Myers whose presence would alleviate the need for Watson.

I also don't agree that Laverde is the Watson replacement in the way that he'll play the game. Langford's inside game has more similarities with Watson. The way the club has sought to develop Watson indicates that Langford will be the replacement.

 

[Towno78]

I don't disagree going forward, but right now, he is best 22. And you listing Langford as his replacement, who is fit and in the VFL confirms this.

 

[eDPS]

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Watson is hardly best 22.

whilst I appreciate it may be messaging, and you may not agree in any case, but Whoosha firmly believes Watson is in the best team going by his comments today