List Mgmt. 2017 - Trading and Free Agency

[Righteo]

To be fair to A.pearce he don't even spend time in a pre season playing forward. His time with peel also mainly playing as a defender with occasionally swinging forward .

Indeed. Because the coaches don't rate him as a fwd.

He got the ball in some good spots, but his set shots and kicking distance let him down.

He could have kicked 3 or 4 if could kick 40m. If he worked on his set shot kicking then he could be a very handy forward.

Maybe. Easier said than done. Freo would need to totally commit to him as a forward and abandon his development as a defender.

 

[meima]

Indeed. Because the coaches don't rate him as a fwd.

Not that I rate our fwd line coaching . At first the blame point at sumich but with him gone the forward line problem still exists.

 

[youmewe]

I wouldn't presume A. Pearce will come back in round one 2018 and immediately tear up the competition. Coming back from two broken leg injuries?

Days between AFL games:

Fyfe 336
A. Pearce 674 (minimum).

If it's taken a beast like Fyfe all season to find something like his best form, how long will it take AP?

 

[Righteo]

That said. He played played his last year of underage football predominately as a forward. He looked super quick on some of his leads in the highlights from when he was drafted. One of his juniour coaches described him as a natural forward in the write-up in Inside Foootball Magazine (if I remember correctly) looking at potential draftees. Also his kicking technique improved gigantically in the season he injured his leg compared to the year before. I still think he is going to play back when he returns, but wouldnt completely rule out the idea of him playing forward. Also he is now visibly stronger than when he was injured. If we dont trade for a forward and instead draft 18 year old key position prospects I think he would provide a better contest than what we are getting now in the forward fifty.

Fair enough, good response. I'm just going by what I've seen at AFL level and, admittedly, the sample size isn't great enough to make a judgement either way. Also remains to be seen whether our current KPD stock is strong enough to allow the positional change, which just might be the most significant factor in all of this theorising.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

You're either blind or stupid, leaning towards the latter.

I listed the players capable of filling the forward spots including Cox.



Collins is depth, he ain't getting games unless someone breaks.
Logue is a 3rd tall.

Pearce and Hamling will be our main two talls in the backline - Logue will be a 3rd tall.
Collins is depth.

2 of Tabs/Apeness/Cox/Clarke/Strnadica to take the tall spots up forward.

Kersten is a spud and McCarthy is a 3rd tall.

If we're so deficient up forward then surely you use that brain you think you have and shuffle the magnets around.

Cox is either good enough to be inked in for a KPF spot, or he isn't and gets moved to defense where he earned an AA jumper as a kid.

Pearce was drafted as a forward. We are fortunate that he's shown a heap as a CHB, but now, that it's obvious how much we're screaming out for a 2m contested marking beast forward, you don't want to play him there? You're a space cadet.

Either way you look at it, we've got 4 of our 5 spine players without including Collins, Apeness, Strnadica or even Logue, who can jump over packs like Croad.

Go back to space camp kid.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

The Freo Way.

View attachment 393986

This is the absolute opposite to the truth though. Pearce was drafted as a forward first and foremost.

 

[Unique Name]

If we're so deficient up forward then surely you use that brain you think you have and shuffle the magnets around.

Cox is either good enough to be inked in for a KPF spot, or he isn't and gets moved to defense where he earned an AA jumper as a kid.

Pearce was drafted as a forward. We are fortunate that he's shown a heap as a CHB, but now, that it's obvious how much we're screaming out for a 2m contested marking beast forward, you don't want to play him there? You're a space cadet.

Either way you look at it, we've got 4 of our 5 spine players without including Collins, Apeness, Strnadica or even Logue, who can jump over packs like Croad.

Go back to space camp kid.

LOL contested marking beast! What purple fantasy land are you living in.

He's taken 11 contested marks in 21 AFL games. None when he played forward.

Aren't you the bloke saying Tabs can't take a contested mark. Tabs' average for contested marks is 2.5 times that of Pearce and he's playing in the forward line.

Mate you need to lay off the purple koolaid.

 

[Taylor]

Those people hadn't watched the previous 8 weeks then I guess, where he ran the match out just fine and was 10x times better a player than either De Boer or Suban.

What would it take you to get you to admit that Ross Lyon might have made a mistake?

I just don't want to make decisions on issues when I am missing a key piece of information. You're welcome to cross examine the medical professionals who signed off or not on his inclusion but without their testimony (or Neale's) then we are missing a significant part of the story.

 

[Righteo]

Unique Name IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN please argue your points without resorting to personal attacks. cheers.

 

[ydraw]

I just don't want to make decisions on issues when I am missing a key piece of information. You're welcome to cross examine the medical professionals who signed off or not on his inclusion but without their testimony (or Neale's) then we are missing a significant part of the story.

The fact that he played suggests he was fit enough to play. That and the fact that there was never any doubt over his fitness. Lyon just couldn't find a spot for him ahead of Suban or De Boer.

Why is this so hard for you to accept? He played every game for the last 10 weeks. He wasn't injured. We just couldn't fit him in because we needed to play De Boer and Suban ahead of him. So he played as the sub in both of the last 2 finals. In the grand final he didn't come on until about 7 minutes into the last quarter.

 

[Taylor]

The fact that he played suggests he was fit enough to play. Lyon just couldn't find a spot for him ahead of Suban or De Boer.

Fit enough for ten minutes at the end.

 

[ydraw]

Fit enough for ten minutes at the end.

If he wasn't fit we wouldn't have picked him as the sub. Subs sometimes needed to come on in the first quarter. The player you picked as the sub needed to be fit enough to play out a whole game if required.

This is pretty basic stuff.

He was fit, Lyon just rated Suban and De Boer ahead of him.

 

[youmewe]

This is the absolute opposite to the truth though. Pearce was drafted as a forward first and foremost.

So then you're saying we have been predominantly playing him out position? Point stands. Checkmate.

 

[Taylor]

If he can read the play and mark then he can do it at either end. His sideways shuffle is valuable everywhere

 

[stax on the mull]

Apologies for the following off topic response.

Neale had 21 disposals in that first final while Suban and De Boer had 10 each. But Neale was made the sub for the next 2 games as Lyon preferred older players.

Lyon chose Neale to be the new sub over both De Boer and Suban. Despite Neale having had a breakout season and averaging 25+ disposals

You mean a break out Half season. The thing is neither Suban or DeBoer were that old then... they were both 23 years old, and Neale had only made it back into the team for the last 7 rounds of the season - the first time he had some game continuity in his 2nd season of football after missing half of that year with injury including playing for Swans Reserves mid season.

That 2013 QF game vs Geelong currently gets replayed about half a dozen times each summer on free to air tv, and i've watched it each time - and Suban's quality kicking in that game opened up the Geelong defence a handful of times - notably the long kick from wing across to the half forward flank that reached Barlow running into the forward 50 on his own. (Anyone who thinks Barlow never spent time playing half forward before 2015 should also tune into this game next time its on).

Suban was in good form up until he went off in the 3rd quarter of that Geelong game with a serious ankle injury. He was also subbed off with injury in the first quarter of the 2nd last home and away game of that season against Port Adelaide. As mentioned above - the last game of the season was the game vs St Kilda where we sent over young players. In the previous games leading up to the Port game Suban's disposals were 19,20,18,26,19. Critics like you too easily find it convenient to knock a player when his career is at its lowest ebb and say - he's always been shit.

With perfect hindsight Neale should have been picked because Hawthorn probably beat us by turning up the defensive side of their game - and another ball winner like Neale might have been a better option than a defensive type of midfielder. Would have been a close call - as DeBoer was subbed off in the prelim the previous week for Neale - not a clear cut call.

But again... when i've look at the grand final - a close game - in the end a 15pt margin - there's a play in Hawthorn's forward pocket in the last quarter where Luke Bruest was able to run through the contest at a boundary throw in and kick a goal which made the margin 24 points at about the 10m mark - the goal which pretty much killed the game off. You should probably look at the players around the stoppage who let him go by without laying a finger on him.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

So then you're saying we have been predominantly playing him out position? Point stands. Checkmate.

Out of necessity as we had literally no other option?

What should we do, not play him there when he was literally the only option we had that could perform the role?

I suppose we could have played Pav there instead, multiple AA defender and all that.

If only we didn't play him out of position by throwing him into the midfield and up forward....

Derp.

 

[ydraw]

With perfect hindsight Neale should have been picked

Yeah nah mate. Neale should have been picked then and everyone knew it at the time. He dominated from the first game he came back into the team in round 17 and did nothing to deserve being dropped. The fact that we played De Boer over him in the prelim and granny was a disgrace.

De Boer, Suban, Crowley and Sutcliffe who all played ahead of Neale didn't do jack shit in the game or ever. Not playing Neale was a huge mistake on Lyon's part and it's actually hilarious that the koolaid drinkers can't even admit that.

 

[Righteo]

Yeah nah mate. Neale should have been picked then and everyone knew it at the time. He dominated from the first game he came back into the team in round 17 and did nothing to deserve being dropped. The fact that we played De Boer over him in the prelim and granny was a disgrace.

I agree with you that is was a poor decision but was it really as big a factor as you make out? We had the edge in the middle but lost thanks to a grossly ineffective forward line and terrible forward entries - I'm not so sure Neale starting would have been the difference maker.

 

[ydraw]

I agree with you that is was a poor decision but was it really as big a factor as you make out? We had the edge in the middle but lost thanks to a grossly ineffective forward line and terrible forward entries - I'm not so sure Neale starting would have been the difference maker.

Given that earlier that season, Neale had chipped in with a number of good crumbing goals in the forward line, I don't see how it could have not made a difference.

At least you can admit it was a poor decision. There are some here who swear back and blue that Lyon's never made an incorrect decision in his life.

The post that started this discussion literally said "there is nothing Lyon could have done in that grand final". Well, yes, there is. He could have chosen to play one of our best players in the 2nd half of the season instead of leaving him on the bench for the entire game.

 

[youmewe]

I agree with you that is was a poor decision but was it really as big a factor as you make out? We had the edge in the middle but lost thanks to a grossly ineffective forward line and terrible forward entries - I'm not so sure Neale starting would have been the difference maker.

Something which we have fortunately sorted out...four years later.

 

[Taylor]

He could have expected more from Zac Clarke too, or Chris Mayne to man up Lake

 

[couldhavebeen]

Objection: Speculation

Ultimately there are very few people who knew Neale's ability to run out the match and I choose to think that had some bearing on his selection as sub. He played last year with three injuries but he had more than a third of a season behind him by then.

De Boer's 150th prelim final against Sydney was one of his worst games for Freo . Neale came on at the start of the last quarter and had from memory 10 possessions and shone like a beacon on the hill . There was no question that he thrived in the cauldron of finals footy . If RTB thought that he didn't have the tank to run out the game he could have started and when he had nothing left to give been subbed by De-Boer .

 

[couldhavebeen]

He could have expected more from Zac Clarke too, or Chris Mayne to man up Lake

RTB and Sumich combined made 4 mistakes in 2013 .
1. Ballas should have been sent to the bench to cool his heals and get back his composure .He kicked 2 behinds and thought that if he worked harder things would change .
2. De-Boer at best should have been the SUB .Neale was the player to start on the bench as a rotation not Sub .
3. RTB and Sumich should have known how to play on the MCG on a windy day .RTB is a Victorian and Sumich had played a lot of games there .
4 .Clarke , Sandi or Dawson should have been used to protect Pav in the last Quarter .

 

[jedi mind tricks]

RTB and Sumich combined made 4 mistakes in 2013 .
1. Ballas should have been sent to the bench to cool his heals and get back his composure .He kicked 2 behinds and thought that if he worked harder things would change .
2. De-Boer at best should have been the SUB .Neale was the player to start on the bench as a rotation not Sub .
3. RTB and Sumich should have known how to play on the MCG on a windy day .RTB is a Victorian and Sumich had played a lot of games there .
4 .Clarke , Sandi or Dawson should have been used to protect Pav in the last Quarter .

Whaaaaaat!!!!

Ballas was benched like all players.

Point three is just a statement without any substance

Point four doesn't make sense. How would they protect him and why does he need protection?

 

[purplerunsdeep]

Who would take Adelaide's first rounder and McGovern for our first?

What else would be needed to make that happen?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk