2018 Rolling All Australian Team

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Posts
12,352
Likes
9,305
Location
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
The AA selectors have put Joe Daniher and Tom Lynch in a forward pocket. If the selectors can put players out of position into the team, how come they can't select two ruckmen, especially given the ruckmen they'd be picking from could easily play tandem and push forward?
Naming two AA ruckmen would not only break with the precedent of recent years, it would also be unrepresentative of AFL in 2018.

Which part of that is disputable?

Surely I've spelled this out clearly enough that you don't need to keep asking a rhetorical question that supposes the argument hasn't been made.

Your basic argument is that the team should function how teams and players play/represent how teams pick players. When was the last time you saw Daniher in a forward pocket? And don't give me this "oh but he's a third tall in the team nonsense" firstly, Daniher never plays as a third tall or linkman or forward pocket or any other type of forward, always takes central position in FF or CHF. Secondly, how many teams play with three KPFs, like Daniher, Kennedy and Franklin? Richmond sure don't, neither do Melbourne, Hawthorn, GWS, Geelong, Collingwood, Sydney and a host of other sides. Some do, like Adelaide and West Coast. But many don't.

Now why don't they? Partly due to the faster nature of the game, but also, it's hard to find three genuinely good tall forwards these days. There's a reason why Richmond are chasing Lynch, it's because Richmond want to play a second tall but don't have anyone worthy of selection.

But if the AA panel see three talls worthy of selection, I don't see the problem. I think Daniher could play as a third tall, it's not as if he can't play the role, it's just that due to the limitations of Essendon's list, he takes on a different role. So if we can have three genuine KPFs who can admittedly can move around the ground and be flexible, why can't we have two ruckmen who can do the same? You don't even have to have them on the field, pick the best ruckmen in the ruckmen position then put the next best on the bench. Because at the moment, Grundy and Gawn are in AA form and Naitanui isn't far behind once he improves his fitness base.

And if you tell me that Franklin isn't a real CHF even though he was selected at CHF then it just proves that these rules about selection are silly.
See above.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

jatz14

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Posts
5,468
Likes
5,406
Location
WA
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Glory W-League
That's a weird question.

It should be anchored in reality, thereby reflecting the way teams actually line up in a given year.

Very few teams field two ruckmen in 2018. So why would there be two ruckmen in the AA side?

I'm not sure what you mean by "the limitations of team management". There's no inherent obstacle preventing teams playing two ruckmen. But most choose not to. So picking two AA ruckmen would be unrepresentative of AFL this year.

I'm not interested in analogies with other sports. That makes no relevant point.

What's your point?
The all Australian team is selected on a traditional layout, full forward, CHF, wing, etc. Modern teams are selected on role rather than position per se. KPF, KPD, inside mid, outside mid, high half forward, rebounding defender, pressure forward etc. If you pick the best forwards for the forward line, you are likely to be missing players to play roles that modern coaches consider essential. It highlights once again, this is not a team, its just a list of best forwards best defenders and best mids lumped into a 22 and assigned positions. As I posted before, the coaches association team was picked to show that the All Australian team is not founded on how teams lined up, and a modern coach selecting an actual side from all available players is going to come up with something different.

If it is not founded in reality, then the only constraint on the team they select is the certainty of a storm of criticism if they did something controversial.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Posts
12,352
Likes
9,305
Location
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Coaches association did their own all Australian team 5 or 6 years ago specifically because the All Australian team is not picked as a team at all, and the method of its selection does not represent how modern teams are selected, or the positions and roles players actually play. On that basis, there is no particular reason to pick an actual ruck at all, or to not pick 3. Reality is, it isnt a team, the `team` in All Australian team is just a word.
What's your point?

I've cited a principle of basic consistency, with regard to the selection of one AA ruckman, and the question of whether the AA side should be broadly representative of how teams actually line up.

Should I conclude that you find these arguments so unimpeachable, so indisputable, that your only response is "well, it's meaningless anyway"?

Because that's not really a counterpoint.

The all Australian team is selected on a traditional layout, full forward, CHF, wing, etc. Modern teams are selected on role rather than position per se. KPF, KPD, inside mid, outside mid, high half forward, rebounding defender, pressure forward etc. If you pick the best forwards for the forward line, you are likely to be missing players to play roles that modern coaches consider essential. It highlights once again, this is not a team, its just a list of best forwards best defenders and best mids lumped into a 22 and assigned positions. As I posted before, the coaches association team was picked to show that the All Australian team is not founded on how teams lined up, and a modern coach selecting an actual side from all available players is going to come up with something different.

If it is not founded in reality, then the only constraint on the team they select is the certainty of a storm of criticism if they did something controversial.
See above.

Apparently my arguments are so flawless that the only way to counter them is to undermine the entire concept of an AA team. The whole thing is nonsense. Therefore there is no need for consistency. There is no need for the 22 named to resemble a team at all.

Wow, you pull one string and the whole thing comes tumbling down pretty quick, doesn't it?
 

Jiggyman

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Posts
1,661
Likes
1,719
AFL Club
West Coast
Right now, 4 eagles in the 22. Hurn, Sheppard, Gaff, Darling.

Yeo in the extended squad and McGovern too inconsistent thus far. Kennedy may make a late charge for the extended squad, which could come at Darling's expense.
 

jatz14

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Posts
5,468
Likes
5,406
Location
WA
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Glory W-League
What's your point?

I've cited a principle of basic consistency, with regard to the selection of one AA ruckman, and the question of whether the AA side should be broadly representative of how teams actually line up.

Should I conclude that you find these arguments so unimpeachable, so indisputable, that your only response is "well, it's meaningless anyway"?

Because that's not really a counterpoint.

See above.

Apparently my arguments are so flawless that the only way to counter them is to undermine the entire concept of an AA team. The whole thing is nonsense. Therefore there is no need for consistency. There is no need for the 22 named to resemble a team at all.

Wow, you pull one string and the whole thing comes tumbling down pretty quick, doesn't it?
You finally got it. well done.
 

Scotland

Hall of Famer
Joined
May 5, 2006
Posts
47,237
Likes
48,706
AFL Club
West Coast
No, but why should the All-Australian team reflect the limitations of team management? The reason why teams don't play two Gawns is because no-one has two Gawns, not because no-one wants to play them.
I don't think it's that simple. If Melbourne had two Gawns would they play both of them? Part of the brilliance of Gawn is that he can practically ruck the entire game himself without his performance dropping off. If you played Max and his evil twin Hans in the same side you'd be rucking them 50/50 and has good as Max is I don't think his ruckwork would get better by spending half the game on the bench or in the forward pocket. Naitanui has had up to 65% game time recently and Lycett is 70-80 most weeks. Eventually they'll both end up 70-80, modern footy doesn't allow the luxury of ruckmen sitting on the pine for quarters at a time.

Assuming that you go with the 50/50 rucking approach then you need to find a place for Max when he isn't rucking. Presumably he'd play forward where he is handy because he's 9 metres tall but he's not a star forward. In picking both Gawns you'd sacrifice a midfield rotation or drop a forward so who goes out? Melbourne look good with Hogan and McDonald and a mixture of smalls.

As far as limitations of team management go, last year's AA side had 3 key defenders and 3 pretty unaccountable high possession medium/smalls. No team is going to line up like that because most 3 teams don't have 3 good key defenders and having 3 guys in your back 6 racking up 30 touches a game won't win you many games if you are leaking goals. If we had Rance/Talia/Hurley in addition to McGovern and Barrass we'd play 3, but we were playing those two and Mackenzie for a while and were a bit too tall. Also most teams don't field 3 key forwards either. Sydney would probably field Franklin at FF and CHF then Franklin on the left HFF and the right HFF if they could but that isn't realistic even with cloning.

The AA bench is usually reserved for mids but you get the odd defender/ruck/forward picked. I wouldn't be surprised to see a ruckman named on the bench this year if there are two clear standouts after 22 games. But I won't be betting on it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sprout

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Posts
12,111
Likes
17,082
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
MCFC, The Exers
Nankervis beat both Gawn and Grundy. Not in hit outs but in influence over the game.
Hitouts 54 -19
Disposals 16 - 14
Marks 8 - 0
Contested marks 3 - 0
Score involvements 5 - 1
Tackles 8 - 3
SC 151 - 71

Yeah, Nankervis really had Gawny’s number that day :drunk:
 

Gysberts2Bate

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Posts
14,467
Likes
16,716
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
Nankervis did not beat Gawn so please stop with the shit

Nankervis had14 touches (7 clangers), 0 marks, 4 free kicks against and 19 hitouts v Melbourne. So he effectively had 7 effective disposals for the game lol

Gawn had 16 possessions, 6 marks, 8 tackles & 56 hitouts
Clangers includes free kicks against, just fyi. So only three of his disposals were clangers
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Posts
12,352
Likes
9,305
Location
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Nankervis did not beat Gawn so please stop with the shit

Nankervis had14 touches (7 clangers), 0 marks, 4 free kicks against and 19 hitouts v Melbourne. So he effectively had 7 effective disposals for the game lol

Gawn had 16 possessions, 6 marks, 8 tackles & 56 hitouts
Sounds like the Richmond supporter was using the "eye test".

It's interesting that you are so quick to offer statistics to argue for Gawn over Nankervis but were unwilling to do that when it came to who should be CHF. I wonder why there is such a stark difference in your approach between those two conversations.
 
Joined
May 1, 2016
Posts
2,020
Likes
6,243
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Bayern Munich, Tottenham Hotspur
Am I now going to argue something I haven't argued to this point?

No. Why would I?

The arguments I've actually made seem to have left you grasping at thin air so let's stick with those for now.

Fact 1: We have rarely seen two AA ruckmen named in the recent past.

Fact 2: Very few teams field two ruckmen in 2018.

Therefore, naming two AA ruckmen would not only break with the precedent of recent years, it would also be unrepresentative of AFL in 2018.

You can blether about "reality being a broad space" and fantasise about arguments I haven't made. But do you have any coherent rejoinder to what I've posted above?

They name 22 players. That is not a hypothetical.

You're very keen to pretend facts are something other than facts.

Of course teams have named two ruckmen. WC do it every week. But that is not representative of what most teams are doing.
Never denied those two facts old chap. You seem very keen to make it a closed case that the AA team shouldn’t have two ruckman when it’s well within the realms of possibility that they could pick two.

Another “fact” is that the All Australian team is a hypothetical team - meaning it isn’t fielded and is simply a list on paper to showcase an “all star team” or similar idea for the current season. As I and others have stated previously - what makes it outside the realms of possibility to field two ruckman when it has and will continue to happen?

Why just earlier in this thread you were damning other posters for trying to turn “possibilities” into “locks” why the change of mind?
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Posts
12,352
Likes
9,305
Location
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Never denied those two facts old chap. You seem very keen to make it a closed case that the AA team shouldn’t have two ruckman when it’s well within the realms of possibility that they could pick two.
So your argument is now that it's "within the realms of possibility"? Wow, that's compelling.

My argument, derived from the facts, is that naming two AA ruckmen would not only break with the precedent of recent years, it would also be unrepresentative of AFL in 2018.

Which part of that is disputable? None of it.

Another “fact” is that the All Australian team is a hypothetical team - meaning it isn’t fielded and is simply a list on paper to showcase an “all star team” or similar idea for the current season. As I and others have stated previously - what makes it outside the realms of possibility to field two ruckman when it has and will continue to happen?
They'll name 22 players. That's not a hypothetical.

Why just earlier in this thread you were damning other posters for trying to turn “possibilities” into “locks” why the change of mind?
I haven't changed my mind.

You are pivoting to a different point and pretending it's somehow the same. It won't fly, champ.
 
Joined
May 1, 2016
Posts
2,020
Likes
6,243
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Bayern Munich, Tottenham Hotspur
So your argument is now that it's "within the realms of possibility"? Wow, that's compelling.

My argument, derived from the facts, is that naming two AA ruckmen would not only break with the precedent of recent years, it would also be unrepresentative of AFL in 2018.

Which part of that is disputable? None of it.

They'll name 22 players. That's not a hypothetical.

I haven't changed my mind.

You are pivoting to a different point and pretending it's somehow the same. It won't fly, champ.
Yeah I know it’s hard to comprehend reality occurring outside of a book, manuscript or piece of academic literature, or whatever it is that gets you off, but that’s part of life. It’s unpredictable in nature and there’s a realm of possibilities.

Again... never disputed those facts? But why does the number 22 and those players being selected mean that two rucks can’t be picked?

Yes we know that there are trends and history. Statistics, evidence, data... blah blah blah we know that bit. Nobody is disputing that. But you can’t call it a lock and say they shouldn’t pick two rucks based on stats and numbers.

There’s a reason why the squiggle isn’t right all the time and there’s a reason that we don’t trust every decision to AI. You’re putting up a stonewall on a scenario that’s very planted in reality, based on a few numbers and history.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Posts
12,352
Likes
9,305
Location
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Yeah I know it’s hard to comprehend reality occurring outside of a book, manuscript or piece of academic literature, or whatever it is that gets you off, but that’s part of life. It’s unpredictable in nature and there’s a realm of possibilities.
This is not related to anything.

Again... never disputed those facts? But why does the number 22 and those players being selected mean that two rucks can’t be picked?
Naming two AA ruckmen would not only break with the precedent of recent years, it would also be unrepresentative of AFL in 2018.

Do you dispute this? I don't think so.

It makes no sense for you ask your question as though this point hasn't already been made several times.

So what is left of your argument beyond "yeah but they might pick two ruckmen because ... it's possible"?

That is not a real counterpoint to anything I've said.

Yes we know that there are trends and history. Statistics, evidence, data... blah blah blah we know that bit. Nobody is disputing that. But you can’t call it a lock and say they shouldn’t pick two rucks based on stats and numbers.
I haven't called anything a lock.

I have merely cited the recent precedent and the way AFL is played in 2018. And you have no coherent response to either of those arguments.

The fact you equate "evidence" with "blah blah blah" says plenty about the kind of argument you're capable of making.

Can you be my lawyer? Your cross-examination of the other side's witnesses would be super effective, I'm sure. Yeah whatever, they've presented "evidence"... blah blah blah. Who wouldn't be swayed by that?

There’s a reason why the squiggle isn’t right all the time and there’s a reason that we don’t trust every decision to AI. You’re putting up a stonewall on a scenario that’s very planted in reality, based on a few numbers and history.
Your tangents are not at all persuasive.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 1, 2016
Posts
2,020
Likes
6,243
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Bayern Munich, Tottenham Hotspur
This is not related to anything.

Naming two AA ruckmen would not only break with the precedent of recent years, it would also be unrepresentative of AFL in 2018.

Do you dispute this? I don't think so.

So it makes no sense for you ask your question as though this point hasn't already been made several times.

So what is left of your argument beyond "yeah but they might pick two ruckmen because ... it's possible"?

That is not a real counterpoint to anything I've said.

I haven't called anything a lock.

I have merely cited the recent precedent and the way AFL is played in 2018. And you have no coherent response to either of those arguments.

The fact you equate "evidence" with "blah blah blah" says plenty about the kind of argument you're capable of making.

Your tangents are not at all persuasive.
I see why you’ve decided to go by the monicker of “Sweet Jesus”.

The original point I made when I first commented was a retort to you calling out posters who were saying they could or should pick two rucks. You responded with the irrefutable facts and evidence we have been dancing around meaninglessly for the few previous comments, and continue to act like it’s “wrong” to suggest two rucks be in the team based on historically it not being a given.

Welcome to 2018, where society has imploded into a horrifying progressive mess. Where the extraordinary happens every day. Girls play football, non-Heterosexual couples get married, the greens even win seats. And the worst crime of all, some pundits are calling for not one but TWO ruckman in the All Australian team. How dare they disrupt the “status quo” with these outrageous suggestions. I mean yeah a couple of teams play like that.. one might even be 2nd favourites for the flag... but... but it’s not natural. :moustache:


That’s me out, you were right I was wrong.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Posts
12,352
Likes
9,305
Location
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
I see why you’ve decided to go by the monicker of “Sweet Jesus”.
OK, good for you.

The original point I made when I first commented was a retort to you calling out posters who were saying they could or should pick two rucks.
And your retort was what?

"It possible."

That is not a counterpoint to the arguments I've made. It's a banality not even worth posting.

You responded with the irrefutable facts and evidence we have been dancing around meaninglessly for the few previous comments, and continue to act like it’s “wrong” to suggest two rucks be in the team based on historically it not being a given.
I haven't been dancing around anything.

I've made the very straightforward statement that naming two AA ruckmen would not only break with the precedent of recent years, it would also be unrepresentative of AFL in 2018.

And you've been experimenting with different ways of failing to address that while still pretending to have something intelligent to say by way of disagreement. That charade is now over.

Welcome to 2018, where society has imploded into a horrifying progressive mess. Where the extraordinary happens every day. Girls play football, non-Heterosexual couples get married, the greens even win seats. And the worst crime of all, some pundits are calling for not one but TWO ruckman in the All Australian team. How dare they disrupt the “status quo” with these outrageous suggestions. I mean yeah a couple of teams play like that.. one might even be 2nd favourites for the flag... but... but it’s not natural. :moustache:
See above.

You were right I was wrong.
Agreed.
 

Richo83

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Posts
19,105
Likes
6,542
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
I don't think it's that simple. If Melbourne had two Gawns would they play both of them? Part of the brilliance of Gawn is that he can practically ruck the entire game himself without his performance dropping off. If you played Max and his evil twin Hans in the same side you'd be rucking them 50/50 and has good as Max is I don't think his ruckwork would get better by spending half the game on the bench or in the forward pocket. Naitanui has had up to 65% game time recently and Lycett is 70-80 most weeks. Eventually they'll both end up 70-80, modern footy doesn't allow the luxury of ruckmen sitting on the pine for quarters at a time.

Assuming that you go with the 50/50 rucking approach then you need to find a place for Max when he isn't rucking. Presumably he'd play forward where he is handy because he's 9 metres tall but he's not a star forward. In picking both Gawns you'd sacrifice a midfield rotation or drop a forward so who goes out? Melbourne look good with Hogan and McDonald and a mixture of smalls.
It can be done. West Coast rucked with a combination of Seaby and Cox in one of their grand final years. I think Gawn's clone would be a fairly handy forward and would stretch defences. And whilst I know a lot of people disagree, this AA team doesn't have to be a team which can naturally win games or be the best designed team for a season. It's supposed to acknowledge all the different types of players in the league, especially the best ones. Given we've got a few gun ruckmen who have emerged, why not acknowledge them, especially as the banning of the third up rule has made gun ruckmen more relevant? The team called: "the team most realistic/most likely to win the most games" is, in my opinion, different to what the AA teams have generally been anyway.

The AA bench is usually reserved for mids but you get the odd defender/ruck/forward picked. I wouldn't be surprised to see a ruckman named on the bench this year if there are two clear standouts after 22 games. But I won't be betting on it.
Sure, but I wouldn't rule it out on principle which is what I feel sweet jesus is doing with their "that's not how teams play" talk. I don't have a problem with the second best ruck getting the fourth interchange spot if they are deemed to be one of the best who don't naturally fit into a position in the starting 18. To me, that's what the interchange bench on this team should be anyway.
 

rooboy29

All Australian
Joined
Jun 11, 2016
Posts
857
Likes
576
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Lets pick the best 44 players in what would traditionally be the swuad of 40 and put them in a game against each other, then pick the best 22 from the game problem solved! If only it was that easy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom