Team Mgmt. 2018 Best 22

BrunoV

Brownlow Medallist
May 5, 2009
21,620
28,988
AFL Club
Essendon
My own concerns are due to the forward line, not the backline.

Does anybody not think that Daniher, Hooker, Stringer and Stewart is too big from a defensive forward / pressure point of view? It’s a huge part of the game now.

That’s what’s behind the Hooker back thing, for me anyway.


In a word, no.

For a start Stewart would be second only to Tippa for defensive work rate and effectiveness among the forwards. While he doesn't do a lot of chase down tackling he does heaps of relatively unrewarded running in the zone take up position. That's simply an advantage we get with Stewart.

Whether or not Stringer is a problem will depend on which version of him we get. Changing the structure of the forward-line to accommodate Stringer was never an option from my perspective so he's going to have to play the way we need him to play.

The other thing is that defensive pressure is really only required at the Richmond/Dogs level if you can't score efficiently.
 

hurlygurdy

Premiership Player
Apr 15, 2013
3,277
1,960
AFL Club
Essendon
My own concerns are due to the forward line, not the backline.

Does anybody not think that Daniher, Hooker, Stringer and Stewart is too big from a defensive forward / pressure point of view? It’s a huge part of the game now.

That’s what’s behind the Hooker back thing, for me anyway.
It depends on the style Stringer plays. You would be correct if he falls back to playing tall and deep, but if he is gut running off half forward then he is essentially an upgrade on Laverde.

One concern is that JD and Stewart are doing an outstanding job of getting up and down the ground and creating space in the forward line. I sincerely hope that Stringer doesn't eye off all that space and start trying to take advantage...
 
Sep 22, 2011
40,569
87,812
Your girlfriend's dreams
AFL Club
Essendon
In a word, no.

For a start Stewart would be second only to Tippa for defensive work rate and effectiveness among the forwards. While he doesn't do a lot of chase down tackling he does heaps of relatively unrewarded running in the zone take up position. That's simply an advantage we get with Stewart.

Whether or not Stringer is a problem will depend on which version of him we get. Changing the structure of the forward-line to accommodate Stringer was never an option from my perspective so he's going to have to play the way we need him to play.

The other thing is that defensive pressure is really only required at the Richmond/Dogs level if you can't score efficiently.

Fair enough. FWIW I think Hooker probably will line up forward, but I have my doubts on how well it’ll work.

I would think bringing in a ready made senior forward would necessitate changing the structure of the forward line - which is fine, it would have been planned and we’d have got him for a reason.

We’ll see I guess.
 

hurlygurdy

Premiership Player
Apr 15, 2013
3,277
1,960
AFL Club
Essendon
Fair enough. FWIW I think Hooker probably will line up forward, but I have my doubts on how well it’ll work.

I would think bringing in a ready made senior forward would necessitate changing the structure of the forward line - which is fine, it would have been planned and we’d have got him for a reason.

We’ll see I guess.
Another factor is that if Stringer is playing close to 50% midfield time then he wont have the gas to do a lot in the forward line. He may end up being the sort of forward we don't want regardless of how well he plays in the midfield.
The more i think about it the more i wonder if you are right? How much more straight forward would it be for him to play the tall deep forward role for 50% of the game and then play a smaller forward line whenever he is in the midfield (sending Hooker back)? Trouble is he is just too much of an unknown quantity at this point in time. We need to see how he travels for the first few rounds and start making calls then. If he fails as a midfielder then we can ask him to be another Stewart. But if he succeeds as a midfielder then we might get top heavy up forward.
 

Liberator

Club Legend
Oct 24, 2014
1,679
2,334
AFL Club
Essendon
I know that the idea of a best 22 is just that - a best 22 regardless of injuries at any given point in time, or imperatives to get games into rookies etc. But as an exercise in extreme and enduring procrastination (I’m meant to be working from home, but plumbers are using some kind of robotic probe into the drains/sewer that makes a noise like Chinese operas fed through a vocoder, so…let’s go)


I thought that it might be good to do a best 22 based on a squad which has had a number of random outs/injuries: what does our 22 look like when stretched a little bit? My methodology is this - I figure that a reasonably representative number of ‘outs’ during a season might be around 6 (both injured players, as well as players returning from injury and not yet ready, as well as suspended players). So now I need 6 more or less random numbers to see who has been taken away by the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. For this I turn to cricket; South Africa’s batting scorecard from the recent test - let’s go with their 2nd innings:



143 - X

9 - BG

8 - MG

0- X

4 - KL

36 - MH

83 - X

6 - JD

0 - X

0 - X

3 - DP


Outs: Goddard, Gleeson, Langford, Hartley, Daniher, Parish.


That’s a pretty shitty haul right there - 6 out of our nominal best 22 (maybe Hartley and Langford are borderline).


Brown |. Ambrose |. Baguley

Saad |. Hurley. |. McKenna


McGrath |. Heppel |. Laverde


Begley. |. Stewart. |. Fantasia

Walla. |. Hooker. |. Stringer


Ruck: TBC, ZMerret, Myers


Interchange: Dea, Zaharakis, Mutch, Smith


E: Smack, Colyer, Ridley, Clarke



Thoughts>

Defence: Here our outs include Hartley, Gleeson and (probably) Goddard. With Hartley gone, we lose a bit of height, and some amount of disposal quality; with Gleeson we lose some intercept power and mobility, and with Goddard we lose experience as well as more disposal quality (I imagine Goddard will play mostly defence but still play a little bit in the midfield in 2018 - just given our dearth of inside mids and how well he acquitted himself there in parts of 2017).


With Brown coming in I think that he will play more of a 3rd tall intercept role, with Ambrose playing his lock-down role on either the main man or most mobile tall. Hurley to (hopefully) play something of a balanced role, combining defensive clout with his usually good distribution by foot. I have Baguley in the side. McNeice must be there or thereabouts; Baguley’s first third of 2017 was poor, I thought, but he played well from Mayish onwards (I worry about his ability to consistently play on the slippery small forwards - but I think he plays tall for his size, and his disposal is not as consistently dismal as the press it gets). I have Dea on the bench - he can come on for Brown, who himself can go forward as a swingman which is handy either swapping with Hooker or when Hooker rests. I like Dea’s toughness at the ball, something we don’t always demonstrate, and he can provide a bit of interceptitude (well behind Gleeson, Hurls, Brown and Hooker though). Ridley not quite there yet, and I had Redman in there to begin with in place of Dea- he could potentially push up on a wing swapping with MCG if need be. He’ll get a few goes this year I think, the red Man.


Midfield: Outs include Parish, Langford, and a bit of Goddard.

Insideishness. I reckon having Langford and Goddard out necessitates Davey Myers - we need to have at least one of Myers or Langford in the team (hopefully Ridley plays some midfield time eventually and Stringer doesn’t disappoint; Myers for me is borderline 22 - I hope for, but don’t expect, a great return to form from him). I have Clarke as an emergency; it will be interesting if we bite the bullet with this guy and trade off a fair chunk of quality of ball use for some more contested grunt and, with time, size. We lack in this area as most will recognise, but I also worry about our height around the ground, in particular marking power (not just a midfield thing). This is partly why it’s important for Laverde, Langford and maybe Mutch and Redman to come along - they add to our mobile aerial capacity, especially if they play mid or through the wings.


Outsideishness: Does Colyer come in to add to the midfield? Not for me at this stage. I’ve named Laverde on a wing, but would expect him to be injured also spend time in the forward line and in the centre at times too. Zaharakis and Smith to also swing through midfield, HFF and wing. Mutch has earnt his call up, and hopefully he has a successful return from injury. With Parish out, I’d expect Fantasia and Walla to spend more time in the middle.


Rucks: I am not very optimistic about our ruck stocks: I think this area might hurt us more than a few are saying this year. TBC is number 1, and has been in good if patchy form. But both he and Luey are a bit suspect in terms of durability, which comes into a bit more focus when we don’t have a clear cut guy who can come in a give a decent chop-out. Daniher plays well in that role, but I hate him playing there. Stewart is pretty ineffectual and Smack looks like this:


ft3RrBesbHnOHPy73GdiQdypPBTnsbela8sSUWrM_WKZpCaSMkHzw0x1iU_61dHkgJOhNLwhhRdAj_5RlkzFTTI8Q5gDAPssAXEFzfvjeQfq-bhwhk2BEq27RnlWxkWl0g7aMzHI



Draper has played well in the VFL and looks to be coming on nicely, but will need a year or so probably; could be an option as a forward/ruck, swapping with Bellchambers. So could Smack. I like the idea of Stewart pushing up on a wing - maybe something leftfield like that might be the context for a Smack or Draper to come in. Probably not.

My named 22 is weak in the area of ruck support, with Stewart earmarked for that - so who replaces him when he is in the ruck? I think we would swing Brown forward or just go small (Hooker to CHF and String to FF).


Forwardline: Outs include Daniher, a perhaps a little bit of Langford and a little bit of Parish.

Clearly we won’t miss Daniher - I mean, he can’t even stay within 2 metres of the ground to take his marks… I think Stewart could plug into his spot in terms of mobility, and certainly defensive actions, he is nowhere near the great JD in terms of marking ability. Decent field kick, but without the range of Daniher. Possibly less certain shot at goal - can there be a less certain shot at goal - Daniher last year really improved in front of goals. I like our forwardline. I think there’s a lot of flexibility for forwards to swing through the midfield and wing - and we have quality coming the other way: Smith, Zaka, Zerret, Laverde. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Pidgeon spend some time in the forwardline too.



Emergencies/emerging players.

There are some imponderables around those who haven’t debuted yet, or have only played a couple of games (Long, Houlahan, Clarke, Redman, Guelfi etc.) - which makes it hard obviously to properly consider them in any 22 discussion. It’s always important to have a certain percentage of your recruits come good, but I think that this is especially important for us for reasons of team balance. Most of the 1st-3rd year players under 22 years old seem to have some attributes which (IMO) we lack a little of: namely

  • decent ‘auxiliary’ height (185-195cm: Redman, Mutch, Clark, Langford, Laverde, Begley, Ridley, Long, Zerk);
  • and toughness/aggression/size quotient (Clarke, Mutch, Redman, Begley, Guelfi and Laverde as perhapses).

Ahh. The pipes are cleared.
 
Last edited:

hurlygurdy

Premiership Player
Apr 15, 2013
3,277
1,960
AFL Club
Essendon
I know that the idea of a best 22 is just that - a best 22 regardless of injuries at any given point in time, or imperatives to get games into rookies etc. But as an exercise in extreme and enduring procrastination (I’m meant to be working from home, but plumbers are using some kind of robotic probe into the drains/sewer that makes a noise like Chinese operas fed through a vocoder, so…let’s go)


I thought that it might be good to do a best 22 based on a squad which has had a number of random outs/injuries: what does our 22 look like when stretched a little bit? My methodology is this - I figure that a reasonably representative number of ‘outs’ during a season might be around 6 (both injured players, as well as players returning from injury and not yet ready, as well as suspended players). So now I need 6 more or less random numbers to see who has been taken away by the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. For this I turn to cricket; South Africa’s batting scorecard from the recent test - let’s go with their 2nd innings:



143 - X

9 - BG

8 - MG

0- X

4 - KL

36 - MH

83 - X

6 - JD

0 - X

0 - X

3 - DP


Outs: Goddard, Gleeson, Langford, Hartley, Daniher, Parish.


That’s a pretty shitty haul right there - 6 out of our nominal best 22 (maybe Hartley and Langford are borderline).


Brown |. Ambrose |. Baguley

Saad |. Hurley. |. McKenna


McGrath |. Heppel |. Laverde


Begley. |. Stewart. |. Fantasia

Walla. |. Hooker. |. Stringer


Ruck: TBC, ZMerret, Myers


Interchange: Dea, Zaharakis, Mutch, Smith


E: Smack, Colyer, Ridley, Clarke



Thoughts>

Defence: Here our outs include Hartley, Gleeson and (probably) Goddard. With Hartley gone, we lose a bit of height, and some amount of disposal quality; with Gleeson we lose some intercept power and mobility, and with Goddard we lose experience as well as more disposal quality (I imagine Goddard will play mostly defence but still play a little bit in the midfield in 2018 - just given our dearth of inside mids and how well he acquitted himself there in parts of 2017).


With Brown coming in I think that he will play more of a 3rd tall intercept role, with Ambrose playing his lock-down role on either the main man or most mobile tall. Hurley to (hopefully) play something of a balanced role, combining defensive clout with his usually good distribution by foot. I have Baguley in the side. McNeice must be there or thereabouts; Baguley’s first third of 2017 was poor, I thought, but he played well from Mayish onwards (I worry about his ability to consistently play on the slippery small forwards - but I think he plays tall for his size, and his disposal is not as consistently dismal as the press it gets). I have Dea on the bench - he can come on for Brown, who himself can go forward as a swingman which is handy either swapping with Hooker or when Hooker rests. I like Dea’s toughness at the ball, something we don’t always demonstrate, and he can provide a bit of interceptitude (well behind Gleeson, Hurls, Brown and Hooker though). Ridley not quite there yet, and I had Redman in there to begin with in place of Dea- he could potentially push up on a wing swapping with MCG if need be. He’ll get a few goes this year I think, the red Man.


Midfield: Outs include Parish, Langford, and a bit of Goddard.

Insideishness. I reckon having Langford and Goddard out necessitates Davey Myers - we need to have at least one of Myers or Langford in the team (hopefully Ridley plays some midfield time eventually and Stringer doesn’t disappoint; Myers for me is borderline 22 - I hope for, but don’t expect, a great return to form from him). I have Clarke as an emergency; it will be interesting if we bite the bullet with this guy and trade off a fair chunk of quality of ball use for some more contested grunt and, with time, size. We lack in this area as most will recognise, but I also worry about our height around the ground, in particular marking power (not just a midfield thing). This is partly why it’s important for Laverde, Langford and maybe Mutch and Redman to come along - they add to our mobile aerial capacity, especially if they play mid or through the wings.


Outsideishness: Does Colyer come in to add to the midfield? Not for me at this stage. I’ve named Laverde on a wing, but would expect him to be injured also spend time in the forward line and in the centre at times too. Zaharakis and Smith to also swing through midfield, HFF and wing. Mutch has earnt his call up, and hopefully he has a successful return from injury. With Parish out, I’d expect Fantasia and Walla to spend more time in the middle.


Rucks: I am not very optimistic about our ruck stocks: I think this area might hurt us more than a few are saying this year. TBC is number 1, and has been in good if patchy form. But both he and Luey are a bit suspect in terms of durability, which comes into a bit more focus when we don’t have a clear cut guy who can come in a give a decent chop-out. Daniher plays well in that role, but I hate him playing there. Stewart is pretty ineffectual and Smack looks like this:


ft3RrBesbHnOHPy73GdiQdypPBTnsbela8sSUWrM_WKZpCaSMkHzw0x1iU_61dHkgJOhNLwhhRdAj_5RlkzFTTI8Q5gDAPssAXEFzfvjeQfq-bhwhk2BEq27RnlWxkWl0g7aMzHI



Draper has played well in the VFL and looks to be coming on nicely, but will need a year or so probably; could be an option as a forward/ruck, swapping with Bellchambers. So could Smack. I like the idea of Stewart pushing up on a wing - maybe something leftfield like that might be the context for a Smack or Draper to come in. Probably not.

My named 22 is weak in the area of ruck support, with Stewart earmarked for that - so who replaces him when he is in the ruck? I think we would swing Brown forward or just go small (Hooker to CHF and String to FF).


Forwardline: Outs include Daniher, a perhaps a little bit of Langford and a little bit of Parish.

Clearly we won’t miss Daniher - I mean, he can’t even stay within 2 metres of the ground to take his marks… I think Stewart could plug into his spot in terms of mobility, and certainly defensive actions, he is nowhere near the great JD in terms of marking ability. Decent field kick, but without the range of Daniher. Possibly less certain shot at goal - can there be a less certain shot at goal - Daniher last year really improved in front of goals. I like our forwardline. I think there’s a lot of flexibility for forwards to swing through the midfield and wing - and we have quality coming the other way: Smith, Zaka, Zerret, Laverde. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Pidgeon spend some time in the forwardline too.



Emergencies/emerging players.

There are some imponderables around those who haven’t debuted yet, or have only played a couple of games (Long, Houlahan, Clarke, Redman, Guelfi etc.) - which makes it hard obviously to properly consider them in any 22 discussion. It’s always important to have a certain percentage of your recruits come good, but I think that this is especially important for us for reasons of team balance. Most of the 1st-3rd year players under 22 years old seem to have some attributes which (IMO) we lack a little of: namely

  • decent ‘auxiliary’ height (185-195cm: Redman, Mutch, Clark, Langford, Laverde, Begley, Ridley, Long, Zerk);
  • and toughness/aggression/size quotient (Clarke, Mutch, Redman, Begley, Guelfi and Laverde as perhapses).

Ahh. The pipes are cleared.
I did one of these last year. Happy to say i spent less time on mine :D
 

Bomberbuzz1

All Australian
Apr 29, 2016
720
339
AFL Club
Essendon
Backs:
Hurley Goddard Gleeson McKenna Saad Ambrose
Baguely Hartley
Brown Dea Mcneice Francis
Midfield:
Bellchambers Heppell Merrett Smith Zaharakis Myers
Parish McGrath
Colyer Langford Luey Mutch Guelfi
Forwards:
Daniher Hooker Fantasia Walla Stringer Stewart
Laverde Green Begley SMac

That would be my best 35, as long as we can keep 16-18 of our best 22 players on the park and 8 of our best 10 we’ll hopefully remain competitive. Currently we’re down 1 of our best 10, 3 of our best 25 and 5 of our best 35.
 

blitzer

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 27, 2006
7,483
8,749
House
AFL Club
Essendon
I know that the idea of a best 22 is just that - a best 22 regardless of injuries at any given point in time, or imperatives to get games into rookies etc. But as an exercise in extreme and enduring procrastination (I’m meant to be working from home, but plumbers are using some kind of robotic probe into the drains/sewer that makes a noise like Chinese operas fed through a vocoder, so…let’s go)

Interesting read but I felt compelled to throw in my 2 cents on the way you chose the players out of the best 22:

Should have been based on how many games the players normally miss due to injury. For example Laverde and Myers are always extremely likely to miss a given game at any point in time. Same with other guys like Bellchambers. Daniher, Heppell, Zac Merrett on the other hand are much more durable.

I think no teams depth will look that good if you take out legitimate best 22 players and then replace them with unknowns or unproven types.
Plus 6 injuries in total to the list of 40 sounds reasonable but often those would include one or two players that aren't even really depth eg Jake Long or Jackson Merrett for us. Your random sample mostly picked guys in our top 25 which was a little harsh.
 

Vander18

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 22, 2011
5,397
8,368
AFL Club
Essendon
Worried about Hooker based on what I saw today. If you can't get seperation (like, not even a step) from Harry Taylor on the lead, you are in trouble.

For those that want him back, it'd be a disaster right now - would have zero closing speed.

Best case scenario....he's just slowly building into the season and will get some explosiveness back as it progresses. Hope this is the case - he's a huge part of our forward structure and nobody else can really supply what he does.
 
Worried about Hooker based on what I saw today. If you can't get seperation (like, not even a step) from Harry Taylor on the lead, you are in trouble.

For those that want him back, it'd be a disaster right now - would have zero closing speed.

Best case scenario....he's just slowly building into the season and will get some explosiveness back as it progresses. Hope this is the case - he's a huge part of our forward structure and nobody else can really supply what he does.

Disagree, if he's not working at 120% efficiency running around in an exhibition game in Colac he needs to have the dogs with bees in their mouths unleashed upon him.
 

Bombers36

Premiership Player
Jul 15, 2008
3,442
1,465
Keilor East
AFL Club
Essendon
Hooker was OK - it’s early days JLT stuff so I wouldn’t be to concerned. Still looks to have his strength and is an old fashioned full forward in my book. Will clunk his share of tough contested marks and kick his 40 odd goals. Not many AFL players can do that.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Could you labor any harder to get in an obscure Simpsons reference?

They say I carved it myself from a more obscure Simpsons reference

krTQjAZ.jpg
 

Vander18

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 22, 2011
5,397
8,368
AFL Club
Essendon
Hooker was OK - it’s early days JLT stuff so I wouldn’t be to concerned. Still looks to have his strength and is an old fashioned full forward in my book. Will clunk his share of tough contested marks and kick his 40 odd goals. Not many AFL players can do that.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Love Hooksy and love what he brings - as I said, hopefully he's just building into the season. We'll see.
 

FWIW I agree to an extent regarding Hooker. I'd love to see him down back and have Stewart, Stringer and Joe Daniher playing as the talls up forward. He normally clunks those marks that he dropped today and having him up forward does straighten us up a bit.
 
Could you labor any harder to get in an obscure Simpsons reference?

To answer your question seriously, Hooker historically takes a while to work into things even when he's missed weeks mid season. Not a concern at this stage.
 

Vander18

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 22, 2011
5,397
8,368
AFL Club
Essendon
To answer your question seriously, Hooker historically takes a while to work into things even when he's missed weeks mid season. Not a concern at this stage.
I'll be concerned till he shows me it's not the case. I'm concerned because I regard him a vitally important to the team.

Two or three times today he simply didn't get to balls he should have, moved like he was running in mud.
 
I'll be concerned till he shows me it's not the case. I'm concerned because I regard him a vitally important to the team.

Two or three times today he simply didn't get to balls he should have, moved like he was running in mud.

I'm the opposite, it's not a concern to me until he shows me that it is.

He missed 3 weeks last year and I'm pretty sure it took him about 3 weeks to really heat up again. And it's far from the first time it's happened with him either.
 
Back