Player Watch #4: Harvey Langford – Unreal

[melbun]

Yep. Not sure what another poster on here sees that we all don't. Currently most likely leading the Rising Star too.

Who doesn't like him?

 

[Proper Gander]

I just noticed the poll in this thread and banged on a vote.

If realised now, if not long before, that we are the strangest board on Bigfooty

 

[danster168]

Who doesn't like him?

me. Overall lack of skill level. hands and feet. Reads the play well though.

 

[Deelighted]

Skills seem fine to me, some nicely weighted kicks and can hit them off 1 step. Don't think the wing is his go going forward but he's doing alright. I wouldn't mind seeing him up forward at some point, aerial ability seemed to be a strength in his highlights.

 

[Daemon]

Why is Goody playing him on the wing instead of Windsor. What a buffoon. Play him in the guts or half forward.

 

[melbun]

Skills seem fine to me, some nicely weighted kicks and can hit them off 1 step. Don't think the wing is his go going forward but he's doing alright. I wouldn't mind seeing him up forward at some point, aerial ability seemed to be a strength in his highlights.

Where do I find his highlights?

 

[Capt_Concussion]

Where do I find his highlights?

YouTube.

 

[Deelighted]

Why is Goody playing him on the wing instead of Windsor. What a buffoon. Play him in the guts or half forward.

Agree. Langford has been ok on the wing but his best game easily so far was on the ball against GC. With McVee back I'd be looking to get Windsor out of defense & back on the wing where he looked well suited last year. Seems pretty obvious.

 

[Lord Nev]

For reference, his max speed on Thursday was quicker than Shai Bolton

15

Shai Bolton

Age

27

Ht

176cm

Wt

77kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.3

3star

K

6.9

3star

HB

5.4

4star

M

2.8

3star

T

2.9

4star

CL

1.4

4star

D

12.7

3star

K

9.2

4star

HB

3.5

2star

M

3.0

3star

T

2.7

4star

CL

1.8

4star

D

9.2

3star

K

4.6

2star

HB

4.6

4star

M

2.0

3star

T

2.6

4star

CL

0.0

1star

's max when they played us.

He was also 3rd for us, behind Langdon and Chandler, for distance at high speed.

Doesn't seem to have an explosive burst, but might need to re-think the 'speed issue'?

 

[Bluelegs]

View attachment 2295963

For reference, his max speed on Thursday was quicker than Shai Bolton's max when they played us.

He was also 3rd for us, behind Langdon and Chandler, for distance at high speed.

Doesn't seem to have an explosive burst, but might need to re-think the 'speed issue'?

Even his 20m sprint time was basically on par with Bont and Cripps when they were drafted. Its a non-issue.

 

[markm106]

Was really happy to draft this guy. Didn’t expect he’d do this on a wing. Will end up an inside beast and hopefully develop his inside 50 marking also.

 

[PerfectFooty]

If my banter has gone to far, by all means mods get rid of it

 

[danster168]

57% disposal efficiency, including a hospital kick to Jack Viney

7

Jack Viney

Age

31

Ht

179cm

Wt

93kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

22.1

5star

K

9.4

4star

HB

12.6

5star

M

2.8

3star

T

5.7

5star

CL

5.0

5star

D

21.8

5star

K

10.3

4star

HB

11.5

5star

M

2.5

3star

T

4.5

5star

CL

5.0

5star

D

13.4

4star

K

8.6

4star

HB

4.8

4star

M

2.6

3star

T

3.4

5star

CL

3.6

5star

. Needs to tidy it up. And learning to handball on his right would help his game massively.

 

[schmuttt]

57% disposal efficiency, including a hospital kick to Jack Viney. Needs to tidy it up. And learning to handball on his right would help his game massively.

Disposal efficiency

 

[Lord Nev]

57% disposal efficiency, including a hospital kick to Jack Viney. Needs to tidy it up. And learning to handball on his right would help his game massively.

Disposal efficiency is a rubbish stat.

In terms of kick retention, he can get better, but remember he's a first year player, even so there are 12 players who have played for us this year who are worse. Among them - May, Petty, Chandler, Sparrow, and the usual suspects.

And in terms of disposals per turnover, he's better than Kozzy, Spargo, Petty, JVR and more.

For a reference here - His kick retention rating is -1.2, so he's just a tiny bit below what he should be.

Petracca is at -14.4.

 

[stEdy]

And learning to handball on his right would help his game massively.

Oh boy not this again

 

[Scythe]

As hard as it is sometimes (and lord knows I've done it before), just don't bite. It was the same thing with Dan and Windsor last year – if there's a young player people are hyping up that Dan didn't like at draft time, he'll find flaws in them no matter what.

Meanwhile, if there's a board whipping boy (Oliver, Sparrow), he'll defend them to the ends of the earth no matter how bad they are.

 

[TheBoss]

Look, I don’t agree with everything Danster says (his take on Langford’s disposal efficiency made my eye twitch), but the way people pile on the second someone says Harvey Langford isn’t already a Brownlow contender is wild.

The guy’s 19. He’s had, what, five full games? And suddenly you're either in the “Future Hall of Famer” fan club or you’re branded a hater.

God forbid someone actually brings a different perspective to the board. It’s called discussion, folks. Not everything is a personal attack on your favorite player. Sometimes it’s just… football chat.

Langford’s clearly talented—but pretending he’s beyond criticism helps no one. If the board's just here to pat each other on the back and repeat “he’s gonna be a star” in unison, cool, but maybe slap a “no thinking allowed” warning on the front page.

Anyway, Danster’s wrong—but he’s allowed to be, and that’s kinda the point.

 

[danster168]

Look, I don’t agree with everything Danster says (his take on Langford’s disposal efficiency made my eye twitch), but the way people pile on the second someone says Harvey Langford isn’t already a Brownlow contender is wild.

The guy’s 19. He’s had, what, five full games? And suddenly you're either in the “Future Hall of Famer” fan club or you’re branded a hater.

God forbid someone actually brings a different perspective to the board. It’s called discussion, folks. Not everything is a personal attack on your favorite player. Sometimes it’s just… football chat.

Langford’s clearly talented—but pretending he’s beyond criticism helps no one. If the board's just here to pat each other on the back and repeat “he’s gonna be a star” in unison, cool, but maybe slap a “no thinking allowed” warning on the front page.

Anyway, Danster’s wrong—but he’s allowed to be, and that’s kinda the point.

Thank you. People seem to forget that I heaped so much praise on Lindsay. So that debunks the 'I go against the grain' theory. But yeah, I'm on a good behaviour bond so I'll keep my opinions a bit more positive going forward.

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

Thank you. People seem to forget that I heaped so much praise on Lindsay. So that debunks the 'I go against the grain' theory. But yeah, I'm on a good behaviour bond so I'll keep my opinions a bit more positive going forward.

I dont think its any of this at all. I think coz you go to a few training sessions you think youre privy to things no one else knows. You form an initial opinion on players and want them to be proven correct and refuse to adjust when evidence comes up that shows your initial opinion could be wrong.

But anyway, no denying youre good for discussion on the board. And Digging In Dan gives me a good chuckle.

 

[Scythe]

Look, I don’t agree with everything Danster says (his take on Langford’s disposal efficiency made my eye twitch), but the way people pile on the second someone says Harvey Langford isn’t already a Brownlow contender is wild.

The guy’s 19. He’s had, what, five full games? And suddenly you're either in the “Future Hall of Famer” fan club or you’re branded a hater.

God forbid someone actually brings a different perspective to the board. It’s called discussion, folks. Not everything is a personal attack on your favorite player. Sometimes it’s just… football chat.

Langford’s clearly talented—but pretending he’s beyond criticism helps no one. If the board's just here to pat each other on the back and repeat “he’s gonna be a star” in unison, cool, but maybe slap a “no thinking allowed” warning on the front page.

Anyway, Danster’s wrong—but he’s allowed to be, and that’s kinda the point.

Sorry, missed this.

I have zero issue with conflicting opinions – this place would be a 'Land-like echo chamber if that sort of thing wasn't permitted.

I don't think many are treating Langford as the second coming of Leigh Matthews/Gary Ablett, rather, people are choosing to find the positives in a 19-year-old kid's game. Especially when the positives he's shown so far include making good decisions with ball in hand, which is what we've been crying out for in our midfield for years. You'll also find that people have pointed out mistakes that Langford has made without resorting to yet another meltdown about Tim Lamb, Jason Taylor and our drafting/recruiting. But that's the thing – Langford's a kid, he'll make mistakes.

Where the issue lies with Dan sometimes is that, as pointed out above (and witnessed over multiple years by people who have spent more than five minutes viewing our board), he'll form an initial opinion (often a direct contrast to the prevailing view) and not relent on it at any point, regardless of how much evidence proves the contrary.

In itself, that's fine, but where I take issue is when it becomes borderline obsessive and derails reasonable, on-topic discussion (i.e. when people discuss something good Langford has done, and Dan immediately chimes in with something random to criticise [which often bleeds across multiple threads], or when people criticise a Sparrow/Oliver type and he does the exact opposite).

But anyway, it's been good having danster168 back on the board overall, and I appreciate the effort he's made to avoid getting in too many back-and-forths (and his training reports over the offseason were great). I just wish that sometimes, he could acknowledge when he's wrong about something – it's not a big deal if he is. Hell, I'm wrong about things all the time – we all are.

 

[danster168]

Sorry, missed this.

I have zero issue with conflicting opinions – this place would be a 'Land-like echo chamber if that sort of thing wasn't permitted.

I don't think many are treating Langford as the second coming of Leigh Matthews/Gary Ablett, rather, people are choosing to find the positives in a 19-year-old kid's game. Especially when the positives he's shown so far include making good decisions with ball in hand, which is what we've been crying out for in our midfield for years. You'll also find that people have pointed out mistakes that Langford has made without resorting to yet another meltdown about Tim Lamb, Jason Taylor and our drafting/recruiting. But that's the thing – Langford's a kid, he'll make mistakes.

Where the issue lies with Dan sometimes is that, as pointed out above (and witnessed over multiple years by people who have spent more than five minutes viewing our board), he'll form an initial opinion (often a direct contrast to the prevailing view) and not relent on it at any point, regardless of how much evidence proves the contrary.

In itself, that's fine, but where I take issue is when it becomes borderline obsessive and derails reasonable, on-topic discussion (i.e. when people discuss something good Langford has done, and Dan immediately chimes in with something random to criticise [which often bleeds across multiple threads], or when people criticise a Sparrow/Oliver type and he does the exact opposite).

But anyway, it's been good having danster168 back on the board overall, and I appreciate the effort he's made to avoid getting in too many back-and-forths (and his training reports over the offseason were great). I just wish that sometimes, he could acknowledge when he's wrong about something – it's not a big deal if he is. Hell, I'm wrong about things all the time – we all are.

That's fair. I definitely didn't think Langford would be best 22 but he's been better than I expected. And I've been pleased with his ability to find the footy and hit the scoreboard. And to balance that out, I still do harbour the same concerns over his game. But yeah, obviously as a pick 6 I hold him to higher standards than a speculative 2nd/3rd rounder. But I love this board and don't want any undue attention so I'll take a backseat for a bit.

 

[Scythe]

That's fair. I definitely didn't think Langford would be best 22 but he's been better than I expected. And I've been pleased with his ability to find the footy and hit the scoreboard. And to balance that out, I still do harbour the same concerns over his game. But yeah, obviously as a pick 6 I hold him to higher standards than a speculative 2nd/3rd rounder. But I love this board and don't want any undue attention so I'll take a backseat for a bit.

No need to take a back seat, mate. I appreciate your input, just asking for a bit of flexibility with opinions sometimes.

For instance, I've been pretty hard on Bowey at times and thought playing him as a spare was dumb as I didn't think he would be damaging enough and had concerns over his intercept ability – he's turned around and been nearly our best player this year, haha.

Regardless, you're not breaking any rules – just trying to help things run smoothly

 

[SugarHealey]

Classy being the key word. Honestly we need to completely change the midfield mix. Hopefully with Kozzy coming in, he'll spend more time on there. Trac can play forward. Viney needs to go out, not sure where.

Oli' is the one to go out... but to where?

 

[SugarHealey]

Yeah he's powerful but also does smart things and did that nice step around the Richmond bloke on the boundary. Loved the 1on1 win in D50 as well against Rioli was it?

Just seems a good footballer.

Has some tricks, but needs more intensity when just outside the contest. to receive.
Needs to work on moving/reacting a bit quicker, yet...

But he looks the goods.