Discussion 2019 General AFL Discussion

[Browny2Carlisle]

At the risk of sounding like another poster, the question is who does he replace as a full time mid?

Means you have to play another mid out of position and then we have the problem that most of our mids can only play one position.

So in this case, say if we traded Acres for Langdon, where would you play Langdon?

 

[VDS66]

Well right here is a big part of the issue I see, as I doubt anyone here thinks he's a "superstar" (if you do, how about we have some names please, rather than just random "posters", or please quote them directly, so they can respond accordingly), so I'd suggest if you genuinely think that's the case, then you're generally misreading what they're saying.

I look forward to these names, so that they have a right of response. Preferably with quotes of where they implied he's a "superstar".

Never said it was you.

I do apologise as I should have included the word "potential" before superstar. That was stupid on my part and I'll own it.

Not going to go through thousands of posts either.

He had been over hyped on here. He has to show what he is capable of.

I do get tired of everything being sheeted back to the coaching group.

Maybe it's just the player. Maybe not.

My opinion is consistent with all players and their performance. I am beyond getting seduced by one or two good games.

I truly wish he fulfils his potential.

I do find it odd that if they know he is capable as to why he isn't a permanent mid.

Anyway I wasn't having a go at you. Sorry if you were offended.

Ps: any other poster who feels aggrieved have every right to reply. Not sure the forum benefits from naming names as you say.

 

[VDS66]

It's not in our imaginations that Blacres best games have been when he's played significant midfield minutes... supporters just want to see more of that.

If it is that obvious then something is very wrong at club land. Could be Blake, could be Richo, could be both.

 

[gringo2011]

Well right here is a big part of the issue I see, as I doubt anyone here thinks he's a "superstar" (if you do, how about we have some names please, rather than just random "posters", or please quote them directly, so they can respond accordingly), so I'd suggest if you genuinely think that's the case, then you're generally misreading what they're saying.

I look forward to these names, so that they have a right of response. Preferably with quotes of where they implied he's a "superstar".

It might be people like me who take the piss a bit with his royal Goatliness. He's definitely a loved player despite struggling to become a consistent player. A lot is his inability to stay on the park and the rest is probably not really being given a consistent role to play. If someone asked me where he played I couldn't tell you with any certainty. A more creative coaching team probably would have made him more of a high impact player. I know some say he confuses team mates, but even in the GWS game he got around players he had no right to and does the improbable. I think he probably isn't system motivated, he really is a creator not a guy who plays robotic footy. Richo has always been about the team not the individual and loves the basics like contesting the footy and strong at the contest stuff. In a team of builders labourers the artist gets shunned.

 

[VDS66]

It might be people like me who take the piss a bit with his royal Goatliness. He's definitely a loved player despite struggling to become a consistent player. A lot is his inability to stay on the park and the rest is probably not really being given a consistent role to play. If someone asked me where he played I couldn't tell you with any certainty. A more creative coaching team probably would have made him more of a high impact player. I know some say he confuses team mates, but even in the GWS game he got around players he had no right to and does the improbable. I think he probably isn't system motivated, he really is a creator not a guy who plays robotic footy. Richo has always been about the team not the individual and loves the basics like contesting the footy and strong at the contest stuff. In a team of builders labourers the artist gets shunned.

Agree to a large extent.

Something isn't quite right and not sure who is to blame.

Unfortunately it's a team game. I'm tipping that given a good run, he will gain his consistency.

IMO he needs a touch of Dermie swagger about him. Billings has stepped up - a player vilified last year - so Blake should be able to do the same.

The argument of playing his best position versus output is different.

Even in his other roles, there is no excuse IMO for playing it 100%, which I assume he does because he keeps getting picked.

One thing I don't have is a myopic view of the situation. If the club believes his best spot is in the middle he should be played there.

Not sure why this isn't the case. But let's not just look at one side of the equation because he's a fan fave.

 

[The_Steadier]

It drives me nuts, honestly.

We heard that Gears gave Richo pretty strong feedback in pre-season along the lines of "stop looking at what players can't do and focus on what they can."

To me, no one epitomises Geary's feedback more than Acres.

I'm with you now as well: unless he doesn't play across the midfield, don't play him at all. You're just setting him up for failure.

I'm not really seeing a lot of objective proof that acres really is sometimes played as a mid and often isn't.

It always seems in retrospect that (based on how well or poorly he played), people on here declare with certainty "he did/didn't play as a mid"

Without fail, everytime he plays a good game, he 'played as a mid', and every poor game he didn't 'play as a mid'.

I think people conveniently forget that even when he has a good game and 'plays as a mid'- he still has stints fwd and in the ruck in those games (for example the hawks game this year).

Equally people conveniently forget in his poor games the time he spent in the guts.

Sure, week to week the % of time he spends in the middle vs time up fwd and ruck varies a bit- but the amount of change in his time spent fwd/mid/ruck week by week is seriously overstated i feel.

Those looking to push an agenda that the cho is the (ONLY) thing stopping acres from being fyfe fail to accept that AT TIMES blake (like lots of our guys) is actually rubbish when playing as a mid and cant find the ball.

 

[triggering bro]

The truth behind Richo refusing to consistently play Acres in the guts

 

[sunny3193]

Play him to his strengths and he might!
Like his first 8 or so games before injury last year.

My point really was how does someone on a forum know that he "doesn't understand the game plan."

Because it’s in “Richo” and Blake only understands English?

 

[gringo2011]

Agree to a large extent.

Something isn't quite right and not sure who is to blame.

Unfortunately it's a team game. I'm tipping that given a good run, he will gain his consistency.

IMO he needs a touch of Dermie swagger about him. Billings has stepped up - a player vilified last year - so Blake should be able to do the same.

The argument of playing his best position versus output is different.

Even in his other roles, there is no excuse IMO for playing it 100%, which I assume he does because he keeps getting picked.

One thing I don't have is a myopic view of the situation. If the club believes his best spot is in the middle he should be played there.

Not sure why this isn't the case. But let's not just look at one side of the equation because he's a fan fave.

To me his output as an outside wing and that creativity is often the thing that breaks through a stalemate when he carries the ball in through traffic in a surprise attack. He does stuff that looks like even he struggles to understand where it came from. It's kind of like having a a machine gun in your arsenal and we keep going back to our sling shots because we know what the capabilities are. Goat is probably one player where development has stalled his career. Swagger will come from being trusted and given opportunity. Savage turned his career around because they trusted him and backed him in. Goat needs some love.

Not sure he doesn't go 100%, he's not the guy who will head clash for the show of hardness and doubt he will ever be that, he is how ever a creative player and in a beige side that sounds very appealing.

 

[Ekomaira]

The truth behind Richo refusing to consistently play Acres in the guts

 

[Winmar2Lockett]

If it is that obvious then something is very wrong at club land. Could be Blake, could be Richo, could be both.

Probably a mix of robbing Peter to pay Paul, Richo trying to teach Blake something and Blake being that sort of player who will always frustrate but then do something that no one else can do.

Prefer him to do that in RWB though.

 

[Premium]

To me his output as an outside wing and that creativity is often the thing that breaks through a stalemate when he carries the ball in through traffic in a surprise attack. He does stuff that looks like even he struggles to understand where it came from. It's kind of like having a a machine gun in your arsenal and we keep going back to our sling shots because we know what the capabilities are. Goat is probably one player where development has stalled his career. Swagger will come from being trusted and given opportunity. Savage turned his career around because they trusted him and backed him in. Goat needs some love.

Not sure he doesn't go 100%, he's not the guy who will head clash for the show of hardness and doubt he will ever be that, he is how ever a creative player and in a beige side that sounds very appealing.

One thing about Acres he opens play up as we have seen this year , however goes missing for large parts of the game.
The thing is our midfield has been our Achilles heal and I would love if the could shake it up from the start with having Marshall , Acres , Gresham and Steele in there from the first bounce.
Nothing to lose.

 

[Browny2Carlisle]

I'm not really seeing a lot of objective proof that acres really is sometimes played as a mid and often isn't.

It always seems in retrospect that (based on how well or poorly he played), people on here declare with certainty "he did/didn't play as a mid"

Without fail, everytime he plays a good game, he 'played as a mid', and every poor game he didn't 'play as a mid'.

I think people conveniently forget that even when he has a good game and 'plays as a mid'- he still has stints fwd and in the ruck in those games (for example the hawks game this year).

Equally people conveniently forget in his poor games the time he spent in the guts.

Sure, week to week the % of time he spends in the middle vs time up fwd and ruck varies a bit- but the amount of change in his time spent fwd/mid/ruck week by week is seriously overstated i feel.

Those looking to push an agenda that the cho is the (ONLY) thing stopping acres from being fyfe fail to accept that AT TIMES blake (like lots of our guys) is actually rubbish when playing as a mid and cant find the ball.

Yeah nah. He hasn't actually played as a mid this year.

There was pretty substantial proof last year to show centre bounce attendences, heat maps, vision etc. He was doing great mainly starting on a wing until he was moved predominantly forward and struggled with injury.

This year his centre bounce attendances numbers have been next to none with a few here and there as part of his rucking duties. He spent more time than usual in the ruck against the Hawks.
It's really not overstated he is actually a tall forward/ruck this year.

So far this year at centre bounces: Jack Steele (151 attendances), Seb Ross (144), Rowan Marshall (115), Jade Gresham (90), Luke Dunstan (53), Jack Steven (50), Hunter Clark (29), Billy Longer (23), Lewis Pierce (21), Jack Sinclair (19), Josh Bruce (17), Blake Acres (12), Matthew Parker (6), Ben Long (5), Jack Billings (4), Josh Battle (1)

 

[NarklesHelmet]

I'm not really seeing a lot of objective proof that acres really is sometimes played as a mid and often isn't.

It always seems in retrospect that (based on how well or poorly he played), people on here declare with certainty "he did/didn't play as a mid"

Without fail, everytime he plays a good game, he 'played as a mid', and every poor game he didn't 'play as a mid'.

I think people conveniently forget that even when he has a good game and 'plays as a mid'- he still has stints fwd and in the ruck in those games (for example the hawks game this year).

Equally people conveniently forget in his poor games the time he spent in the guts.

Sure, week to week the % of time he spends in the middle vs time up fwd and ruck varies a bit- but the amount of change in his time spent fwd/mid/ruck week by week is seriously overstated i feel.

Those looking to push an agenda that the cho is the (ONLY) thing stopping acres from being fyfe fail to accept that AT TIMES blake (like lots of our guys) is actually rubbish when playing as a mid and cant find the ball.

It's interesting what you say as I think that, even when he has more "mid-field" games he still seems to spend time floating forward as well. The tricky thing with Blake is getting the balance right.

What is frustrating to me isn't that people aren't being objective with Blake and attribute his good games to more mid-field time when it may not always be the case, it's more that he gets treated differently to other players with regard to expectations.

To explain a bit more what I mean above, yes, many of us say "play him more in the mid-field compared to up forward" but we don't think that means he automatically churns out 30+ possessions every week. That would be unfair as even the best midfielders don't produce that.... More we are saying "give him a block of 10-20 games where he plays as a mid-fielder at the very least 70% and then assess him on that."

Others want him dropped when he doesn't produce as a forward - a position that, besides his excellent set-shot kicking - wastes his excellent tank and in close ability. That to me is the epitome of not being objective.

The perfect Acres balance would be in wins like Melbourne this year or GWS a couple of years back when he played a big last quarter floating forward. The template is there, but it is always when he plays 80% midfield minimum.

I actually think the Blake fans are actually being objective here generally and have to keep on reminding those wanting him dropped that he actually plays well when put in a certain role in the midfield. Not best on ground every week, but well. Most of us are saying there is no use putting him up forward because, objectively, he doesn't have the attributes for it. That it is midfield or bust with him. I have absolutely no problem with him getting dropped if he continues in a role where he is 20% or less in the midfield, 80% forward or ruck.

Ultimately, I could't care less about if/where a player plays usually and think the coaches tend to know best. But if sometimes, like in the case of Acres I see he is:
1. Being played in positions that don't utilize his physical and play-making abilities properly
2. There is enough evidence over a long period of time that there is a position where he plays his best footy
3. (this is the important one) he is a player that is exactly what we are lacking in the midfield and makes our team better when he is playing well

then it is worth discussion.

I don't think coaches are infallible and always make the right decisions on players. I think they often have biases for and against types of players that back up (or not) the way they view footy and how it should be played. And, based on watching Richo teams for years now and hearing tidbits from our captain like "focus on what we can do rather than on what we can't" it would be pretty naive to think that some players (probably the creative ones) would be more at risk of being marked differently than ones that are more of a finished product.

 

[VDS66]

It's interesting what you say as I think that, even when he has more "mid-field" games he still seems to spend time floating forward as well. The tricky thing with Blake is getting the balance right.

What is frustrating to me isn't that people aren't being objective with Blake and attribute his good games to more mid-field time when it may not always be the case, it's more that he gets treated differently to other players with regard to expectations.

To explain a bit more what I mean above, yes, many of us say "play him more in the mid-field compared to up forward" but we don't think that means he automatically churns out 30+ possessions every week. That would be unfair as even the best midfielders don't produce that.... More we are saying "give him a block of 10-20 games where he plays as a mid-fielder at the very least 70% and then assess him on that."

Others want him dropped when he doesn't produce as a forward - a position that, besides his excellent set-shot kicking - wastes his ecellent tank and in close ability. That to me is the epitome of not being objective.

The perfect Acres balance would be in wins like Melbourne this year or GWS a couple of years back when he played a big last quarter floating forward. The template is there, but it is always when he plays 80% midfield minimum.

I actually think the Blake fans are actually being objective here generally and have to keep on reminding those wanting him dropped that he actually plays well when put in a certain role in the midfield. Not best on ground every week, but well. Most of us are saying there is no use putting him up forward because, objectively, he doesn't have the attributes for it. That it is midfield or bust with him. I have absolutely no problem with him getting dropped if he continues in a role where he is 20% or less in the midfield, 80% forward or ruck.

Ultimately, I could't care less about if/where a player plays usually and think the coaches tend to know best. But if sometimes, like in the case of Acres I see he is:
1. Being played in positions that don't utilize his physical and play-making abilities properly
2. There is enough evidence over a long period of time that there is a position where he plays his best footy
3. (this is the important one) he is a player that is exactly what we are lacking in the midfield and makes our team better when he is playing well

then it is worth discussion.

I don't think coaches are infallible and always make the right decisions on players. I think they often have biases for and against types of players that back up (or not) the way they view footy and how it should be played. And, based on watching Richo teams for years now and hearing tidbits from our captain like "focus on what we can do rather than on what we can't" it would be pretty naive to think that some players (probably the creative ones) would be more at risk of being marked differently than ones that are more of a finished product.

Not not picking but the feedback from Geary was to do with Richos messaging and his focus of pointing out what they were doing poorly. IE too much negativity.

Your use of that example is put of context IMO. If course I stand to be corrected, but that's how i read it at the time.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

Not not picking but the feedback from Geary was to do with Richos messaging and his focus of pointing out what they were doing poorly. IE too much negativity.

Your use of that example is put of context IMO. If course I stand to be corrected, but that's how i read it at the time.

It could well have nothing to do with Blake at all for sure, but it was a pretty good insight into something our captain saw as a negative in the coach.

The reality is coaches are human and they have their favourites and biases they carry into the job. I reckon after watching a coach for a few years in any sport and hear him speak weekly and watch the way a team plays, it is not too hard to see what players they value over others.

All coaches have biases and they are stubborn creatures by nature generally. That's why it's good to do what we did in the off-season and clean-out the assistants: it's great to get different voices questioning the main man and showing him different perspectives.

 

[Stewart66]

He's played 62 games... and only a handful over the past few years have been in succession. He's struggled over the past two weeks when our midfield (that hasn't included Blacres) has been smashed.

By comparison JB is nearing 100 games and has had continuity for the past 3 seasons. Funnily enough, his improvement in those 3 seasons has been obvious.

Some players are just slow burners...

Hello Jack Redden

 

[MrFoster]

To me his output as an outside wing and that creativity is often the thing that breaks through a stalemate when he carries the ball in through traffic in a surprise attack. He does stuff that looks like even he struggles to understand where it came from. It's kind of like having a a machine gun in your arsenal and we keep going back to our sling shots because we know what the capabilities are. Goat is probably one player where development has stalled his career. Swagger will come from being trusted and given opportunity. Savage turned his career around because they trusted him and backed him in. Goat needs some love.

Not sure he doesn't go 100%, he's not the guy who will head clash for the show of hardness and doubt he will ever be that, he is how ever a creative player and in a beige side that sounds very appealing.

Acres has definitely show flashes of brilliance. But it has been too far few and between. I think it was mentioned on here in the past that he tend to lose concentration; lacks intensity and has poor awareness (got caught holding the ball a lot in congestion). On top of that his disposal was very sloppy, especially short kicks. These are not traits of a good mid. When he plays in the forward line or has short stint in the midfield, those weaknesses are not obvious because he has more time and space with the ball. Maybe he has improved in these areas and as a result is not making as many mistakes, but let’s not pretend Acres is a Bont and he is just being misused. As much as I like that idea, there’s a reason he has been inconsistent after more than 5 years with the club.

 

[VDS66]

It could well have nothing to do with Blake at all for sure, but it was a pretty good insight into something our captain saw as a negative in the coach.

The reality is coaches are human and they have their favourites and biases they carry into the job. I reckon after watching a coach for a few years in any sport and hear him speak weekly and watch the way a team plays, it is not too hard to see what players they value over others.

All coaches have biases and they are stubborn creatures by nature generally. That's why it's good to do what we did in the off-season and clean-out the assistants: it's great to get different voices questioning the main man and showing him different perspectives.

Pretty sure it was Richo that came out and back him at the start of 2018 and pumped him up publicly.

So what's changed?

In terms of new perspectives, it seems the fresh voices are not arguing for him to play pure midfield...

I'm guessing he has dissapointed internally and will probably be traded unless he gets his skates on.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

Pretty sure it was Richo that came out and back him at the start of 2018 and pumped him publicly.

So what's changed?

In terms of new perspectives, it seems the fresh voices are arguing for him to play pure midfield...

That's a great question and one that doesn't make much sense from an outside perspective.

ARR went through it a bit in an earlier post but, after Richo talked him up as a midfielder pre-2018, he started like a house on fire there and was arguably our most consistent player when he was playing. I even remember against the Roos, he grimaced after a late run and goal in that game. A few weeks later he was out with OP for a long time so it makes his start of the season even more meritorious.

I thought the debate about where he played best would've stopped then.

Fast forward to this year and against the Hawks and the Dees when he primarily played as a mid, he was in our best few both times.

In his other games this year, he's been stuck up forward for most of the game and he's played pretty poorly.

It's a mystery to me why he's persisted with up forward... that's why some of us have reached a point where we think he's better off dropped than played up forward.

 

[gringo2011]

Acres has definitely show flashes of brilliance. But it has been too far few and between. I think it was mentioned on here in the past that he tend to lose concentration; lacks intensity and has poor awareness (got caught holding the ball a lot in congestion). On top of that his disposal was very sloppy, especially short kicks. These are not traits of a good mid. When he plays in the forward line or has short stint in the midfield, those weaknesses are not obvious because he has more time and space with the ball. Maybe he has improved in these areas and as a result is not making as many mistakes, but let’s not pretend Acres is a Bont and he is just being misused. As much as I like that idea, there’s a reason he has been inconsistent after more than 5 years with the club.

Can't remember him being sloppy and he's always been very evasive. He's high in contested possessions and is a good accumulator on a wing. No one said he's the Bont, but as an example of how two coaches think differently, the Dogs put Bont into the midfield from day one at the Dogs and straight in from the draft from memory. Cripps at Carlton similar. Our guys 5 years in get a game to see if they can play, get good numbers then get dropped back to reserves or banished to a position that doesn't suit. Lonie for example was starting to nail a few goals late last year but when ever he went back he'd dominate midfield at Sandy. This year he's been playing like an extra wingman and not as a small forward and his game went to another level.

Sometimes it takes trust, creativity and vision to get the best from the player. I'm not sure that's a trait of Richo's.

 

[VDS66]

That's a great question and one that doesn't make much sense from an outside perspective.

ARR went through it a bit in an earlier post but, after Richo talked him up as a midfielder pre-2018, he started like a house on fire there and was arguably our most consistent player when he was playing. I even remember against the Roos, he grimaced after a late run and goal in that game. A few weeks later he was out with OP for a long time so it makes his start of the season even more meritorious.

I thought the debate about where he played best would've stopped then.

Fast forward to this year and against the Hawks and the Dees when he primarily played as a mid, he was in our best few both times.

In his other games this year, he's been stuck up forward for most of the game and he's played pretty poorly.

It's a mystery to me why he's persisted with up forward... that's why some of us have reached a point where we think he's better off dropped than played up forward.

Fair comments.

Might have something to do with Paddy not playing. Maybe he's our best option?

Don't know to be honest.

I guess people will defend him regardless so no point continuing on circles.

 

[VDS66]

Can't remember him being sloppy and he's always been very evasive. He's high in contested possessions and is a good accumulator on a wing. No one said he's the Bont, but as an example of how two coaches think differently, the Dogs put Bont into the midfield from day one at the Dogs and straight in from the draft from memory. Cripps at Carlton similar. Our guys 5 years in get a game to see if they can play, get good numbers then get dropped back to reserves or banished to a position that doesn't suit. Lonie for example was starting to nail a few goals late last year but when ever he went back he'd dominate midfield at Sandy. This year he's been playing like an extra wingman and not as a small forward and his game went to another level.

Sometimes it takes trust, creativity and vision to get the best from the player. I'm not sure that's a trait of Richo's.

Really?

Lonie himself stated that he never gave up and forced his way back.

So you're saying that Paddy wasn't trusted with a run of games despite poor form? Or Billings? Or Membrey? Just to name a few.

Plenty of trust in Parker and Long who aren't exactly blue collar...

 

[VDS66]

That's a great question and one that doesn't make much sense from an outside perspective.

ARR went through it a bit in an earlier post but, after Richo talked him up as a midfielder pre-2018, he started like a house on fire there and was arguably our most consistent player when he was playing. I even remember against the Roos, he grimaced after a late run and goal in that game. A few weeks later he was out with OP for a long time so it makes his start of the season even more meritorious.

I thought the debate about where he played best would've stopped then.

Fast forward to this year and against the Hawks and the Dees when he primarily played as a mid, he was in our best few both times.

In his other games this year, he's been stuck up forward for most of the game and he's played pretty poorly.

It's a mystery to me why he's persisted with up forward... that's why some of us have reached a point where we think he's better off dropped than played up forward.

Quick question...

With all this alleged input from Lade and Ratts, do you not think if it is as blindingly obvious that at least one of them would be pushing to have him in the middle? Especially Lade?

Just like Ratts asks for Kent to play because he sees him as an integral part of the forward line.

Surely Lade would be making the case?

 

[Premium]

Can't remember him being sloppy and he's always been very evasive. He's high in contested possessions and is a good accumulator on a wing. No one said he's the Bont, but as an example of how two coaches think differently, the Dogs put Bont into the midfield from day one at the Dogs and straight in from the draft from memory. Cripps at Carlton similar. Our guys 5 years in get a game to see if they can play, get good numbers then get dropped back to reserves or banished to a position that doesn't suit. Lonie for example was starting to nail a few goals late last year but when ever he went back he'd dominate midfield at Sandy. This year he's been playing like an extra wingman and not as a small forward and his game went to another level.

Sometimes it takes trust, creativity and vision to get the best from the player. I'm not sure that's a trait of Richo's.

People don't realize how elusive this guy is and penetrates with his kicking.
If he can put his game together he could be anything - this is his year , well it should be / to me he is a midfielder