Delisted #33: Brayden "Donny" Ham - not offered another contract - 18/10

[Lore]

Contract Status: Out of contract 2022
Injury Status: n/a

My Boy Draft 2022: Claim here

 

[Beerfish]

Obviously Ham isn’t up to it but at least he goes out there and tries to play his role. Plenty of people in his predicament would try and play hero ball to stand out.

You mean like leaving your man to run to a contest you had no hope of impacting?

 

[andleanback]

I don't believe that's true under the current CBA.

Match payments have never included the vfl. They might get some sort of payment but it’s not at the level of the afl one.

 

[Ambrosia]

Match payments have never included the vfl. They might get some sort of payment but it’s not at the level of the afl one.

They don’t get any payment. Only blokes who get match payments in the VFL are those that injured themselves in the AFL and are returning from injury for limited minutes.

 

[eth-dog]

Match payments have never included the vfl. They might get some sort of payment but it’s not at the level of the afl one.

They don’t get any payment. Only blokes who get match payments in the VFL are those that injured themselves in the AFL and are returning from injury for limited minutes.

I believe it changed under the current CBA

 

[Ambrosia]

I believe it changed under the current CBA

Yeah could be my bad sorry. My knowledge is as of 2016/17.

 

[Inspecta Gadget]

2 pages on how much he's getting paid to do nothing

 

[bombreys]

On the first bolded, I think he does he's just not very good.

On the second bolded, as others have pointed out it's for the betterment of the club that we don't have kids with a potential AFL future sitting on the bench each week potentially not playing at all. Ham is clearly not going to be in our plans going forward therefore making him the sub isn't negatively impacting the club in the long term whilst also giving him multiple opportunities to show something and change the club's mind. Unfortunately he's not taking those opportunities.. which is probably not surprising to anyone that's watched his journey. Disappointing because I want to see all our players do well but not surprising.

Perhaps my first point was a bit harsh - I know it's easy to sit behind a keyboard and say this, but he does seem to avoid contact at all costs.

I'm not so sure he's not in our future plans - I genuinely think Truck rates him. But that's probably a separate discussion. I suppose I understand the theory/idea, but I'd much rather someone like Waterman. Or even Hird, who might not make it, but he's played 3 seasons of VFL now. It's easy in hindsight to suggest the decision to make him sub cost us the game - but if the sub were Waterman or Hird or Voss or Menzie, it could well have been the difference. Obviously just a personal opinion, but I don't think having a non-impact player as the sub is the right call.

 

[eighties_bomber]

Spam....delist the list clogger

 

[owen87]

Perhaps my first point was a bit harsh - I know it's easy to sit behind a keyboard and say this, but he does seem to avoid contact at all costs.

I'm not so sure he's not in our future plans - I genuinely think Truck rates him. But that's probably a separate discussion. I suppose I understand the theory/idea, but I'd much rather someone like Waterman. Or even Hird, who might not make it, but he's played 3 seasons of VFL now. It's easy in hindsight to suggest the decision to make him sub cost us the game - but if the sub were Waterman or Hird or Voss or Menzie, it could well have been the difference. Obviously just a personal opinion, but I don't think having a non-impact player as the sub is the right call.

Ham is decent in the VFL, works hard, seems like a coachable kid.

Problem he has is, that his game doesn't translate to AFL level.

Not a good enough outside game to be a genuine wingman or flanker, not big enough to be a genuine inside player. His numbers at VFL level are fine, he's a quality VFL level player who doesn't quite work at the next level up.

Him playing each week as the sub means a young kid who might have an AFL standard game gets to keep playing minutes progressing towards that instead of maybe, possibly, not playing. The downside of the late Sunday game slot means that our travelling emergencies don't get the chance of a VFL game, so you pick mature guys with nothing to gain from VFL level minutes (e.g. Zaharakis) or guys that are going to get delisted (e.g. Ham)

He'd know where he's at, he'd know sitting on the AFL bench each week as the sub means he's probably not getting another contract because they're seeing his minutes on the bench as being better for the club than him getting more experience in the VFL while someone else is on the bench.

 

[Beerfish]

Perhaps my first point was a bit harsh - I know it's easy to sit behind a keyboard and say this, but he does seem to avoid contact at all costs.

I'm not so sure he's not in our future plans - I genuinely think Truck rates him. But that's probably a separate discussion. I suppose I understand the theory/idea, but I'd much rather someone like Waterman. Or even Hird, who might not make it, but he's played 3 seasons of VFL now. It's easy in hindsight to suggest the decision to make him sub cost us the game - but if the sub were Waterman or Hird or Voss or Menzie, it could well have been the difference. Obviously just a personal opinion, but I don't think having a non-impact player as the sub is the right call.

The thing is, with his attributes he should be able to be an impact player. You're right though, he just isn't.

From my perspective I'm just sick of these meaningless wins like this one would have been. My focus is already on next year and at this stage it's the only way I can reconcile the decision to keep including Ham that makes any sense and that I'm okay with.

This week's team sheet will be interesting.

 

[owen87]

The thing is, with his attributes he should be able to be an impact player. You're right though, he just isn't.

From my perspective I'm just sick of these meaningless wins like this one would have been. My focus is already on next year and at this stage it's the only way I can reconcile the decision to keep including Ham that makes any sense and that I'm okay with.

This week's team sheet will be interesting.

Not sure how many viable options from the VFL there are; D'Ambrosio for Redman perhaps, otherwise don't think we'll see big changes. Ham is our sacrificial sub, so he might make way for the other one - Waterman.

Just about put Parish on ice for the year at this point.

 

[eth-dog]

Not sure how many viable options from the VFL there are; D'Ambrosio for Redman perhaps, otherwise don't think we'll see big changes. Ham is our sacrificial sub, so he might make way for the other one - Waterman.

Just about put Parish on ice for the year at this point.

We have a third sacrificial sub in Cutler tbf

 

[owen87]

We have a third sacrificial sub in Cutler tbf

I forgot he existed tbh.

 

[Inspecta Gadget]

I forgot he existed tbh.

I said the same thing about Ham at full time yesterday

 

[bombreys]

Ham is decent in the VFL, works hard, seems like a coachable kid.

Problem he has is, that his game doesn't translate to AFL level.

Not a good enough outside game to be a genuine wingman or flanker, not big enough to be a genuine inside player. His numbers at VFL level are fine, he's a quality VFL level player who doesn't quite work at the next level up.

Him playing each week as the sub means a young kid who might have an AFL standard game gets to keep playing minutes progressing towards that instead of maybe, possibly, not playing. The downside of the late Sunday game slot means that our travelling emergencies don't get the chance of a VFL game, so you pick mature guys with nothing to gain from VFL level minutes (e.g. Zaharakis) or guys that are going to get delisted (e.g. Ham)

He'd know where he's at, he'd know sitting on the AFL bench each week as the sub means he's probably not getting another contract because they're seeing his minutes on the bench as being better for the club than him getting more experience in the VFL while someone else is on the bench.

Yeah, I suppose it does make sense to some extent. Yesterday was probably a worst case scenario - Redman coming on early-ish and Ham not getting a kick.

 

[owen87]

Yeah, I suppose it does make sense to some extent. Yesterday was probably a worst case scenario - Redman coming on early-ish and Ham not getting a kick.

Ham hasn't been done many favours given his lack of game minutes the last month, don't think he's had a full game at any level in that time?

 

[Howard Moon]

Yeah, I suppose it does make sense to some extent. Yesterday was probably a worst case scenario - Redman coming on early-ish and Ham not getting a kick.

i mean, it seems we are always way behind the curve on any cutting edge tactic - the only thing we have gotten right relatively early has been stepping off the stand mark outside 5 - im surprised as anyone that we cottoned on so quick... but surely, surely we can start using our sub tactically like other clubs instead of just burning a plodder there cause its better for someone elses development

 

[eth-dog]

i mean, it seems we are always way behind the curve on any cutting edge tactic - the only thing we have gotten right relatively early has been stepping off the stand mark outside 5 - im surprised as anyone that we cottoned on so quick... but surely, surely we can start using our sub tactically like other clubs instead of just burning a plodder there cause its better for someone elses development

Maybe if we were an actual contender we'd do that. We're a bottom 6 club this year, better to save the guy.

 

[Beerfish]

but surely, surely we can start using our sub tactically like other clubs instead of just burning a plodder there cause its better for someone elses development

Next year.

 

[bombreys]

Ham hasn't been done many favours given his lack of game minutes the last month, don't think he's had a full game at any level in that time?

Nah I think you're right, he would have played bugger all footy in the past 4-5 weeks.

 

[bombreys]

i mean, it seems we are always way behind the curve on any cutting edge tactic - the only thing we have gotten right relatively early has been stepping off the stand mark outside 5 - im surprised as anyone that we cottoned on so quick... but surely, surely we can start using our sub tactically like other clubs instead of just burning a plodder there cause its better for someone elses development

It just seems a bit of an odd tactic - it's obviously intentional given he's been sub something like 4 of the last 6 weeks (that's a guess) - and to be fair, yesterday was a bit of an outlier in that it really backfired and in any close game like that, the little things get scrutinised more than they typically would. I still think I'd rather a Hird or a Voss as the sub, but I am now more understanding of why they choose to do it.

 

[mike14]

It just seems a bit of an odd tactic - it's obviously intentional given he's been sub something like 4 of the last 6 weeks (that's a guess) - and to be fair, yesterday was a bit of an outlier in that it really backfired and in any close game like that, the little things get scrutinised more than they typically would. I still think I'd rather a Hird or a Voss as the sub, but I am now more understanding of why they choose to do it.

A quick stats check shows he's been the sub for the past 3 weeks and 4 of the last 5 (Phillips was the sub in round 16), so that's once in the last month he would have had an opportunity to play a full game at any level. You'd think there'd be some kind of team-wide rule that you couldn't be sub more than 2 weeks in a row to make sure you keep fit mentally and physically...

We've used our sub in 10 of the 19 games so far. In only 2 of those games have they played less than 30 mins on the field, and one of those times was Waterman playing 25 mins

 

[JT_the_Man]

I really did believe in him for a while there. The simple fact is that he hasn't really developed as an AFL footballer and at this stage isn't really showing much to suggest that he will be anything more than he currently is.

 

[Howard Moon]

I really did believe in him for a while there. The simple fact is that he hasn't really developed as an AFL footballer and at this stage isn't really showing much to suggest that he will be anything more than he currently is.

Maybe a bit of Jackson Merrett in him

 

[TheGrizz]

i mean, it seems we are always way behind the curve on any cutting edge tactic - the only thing we have gotten right relatively early has been stepping off the stand mark outside 5 - im surprised as anyone that we cottoned on so quick... but surely, surely we can start using our sub tactically like other clubs instead of just burning a plodder there cause its better for someone elses development

Or just get rid of the sub altogether.