- Joined
- Sep 26, 2003
- Posts
- 4,930
- Reaction score
- 724
- Location
- TJBC
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- TDot, LFC
First off, this is not another 'bag Kent Kingsley' thread - or at least it is not intended to be one.
It amuses me to read the various posters, most of them advocates of the man in question, who are of the general view that Kent does not warrant a large majority of the criticism he garners from both the public and supporters alike, due to one, rather simplistic, reason - that being of the now tiredly used "Kingsley is/should be played as a 3rd tall".
Such an argument, to what I understand, runs along the lines of "Kingsley is being played out of position at FF. He is clearly a third tall, and will thrive as such when in a position where given the opposition's third best defender etc". This 'theory' seemingly aims to justify the usual down motions in the seasonally rollercoaster ride Geelong fans have, no doubt, now become accustomed to. People seem to be of the mind that, given the circumstances Kent plays through, that of against the opposition’s numero uno defender (which in itself is questionable), he plays to the restrictions well, and thus any criticism aimed at him is not at all warranted in the irrational amounts of which it is delivered.
Furthermore, and perhaps more particularly, many then are led to the assumption that, given the proper position and the ensuing proper opposing man, Kingsley will truly show his colours. I myself have found this ‘theory’ to be quite logical at times, and thought it to be the simple solution or excuse of hope for the moments in which we cringe when things don’t go right with Kent. Yet the more I think about it, and search through the true logic of such a theory, the more I find a flaw presenting itself.
Is not the main criticism of Kent his woeful kicking, and to a lesser extent, his lack of intensity and urgency to do those highly underrated one percenters? If this is true, then I fail to see how it will all be solved when Kingsley is given the opportunity to play in his ‘true position’. Do correct me if I’m wrong, but how would playing on a ‘easier’ opponent, so to speak, result in a sudden higher strike rate? If the problem lies in his kicking therein, then the quality of the person standing the mark will bear no effect to how he puts boot to ball.
At a glance, simple logic would indeed suggest that Kingsley playing in his arguably ‘true’ position would result in a higher return to that of Kingsley playing in a position unsuiting to him. Yet I’m not quite so sure what many followers of this logic expect to happen. Do they expect a higher goal return from the current 50 he contributes? I certainly would not.
Kingsley is getting as many signed and sealed deliveries as he ever will in his current position. One would have thought the reason we would be able to peg Kingsley as a third tall would be due to the availability of 2 other bigger, and better, talls. Following this rich vein of logic, would it not make sense to deliver more entries to the aforementioned two other talls ahead of Kingsley? I certainly wouldn’t imagine we’d be using them simply as decoys. If anything, Kingsley is looking at lesser opportunities for shots on goal (this, of course, disregarding the cheapees he gets from backs of packs when the game is won).
Kingsley is, what I believe to be, a prime example of ‘what you see is what you get’. Those searching for hope of improvement via such theories (which itself are more excuses than anything) are bound to be disappointed. He is an above average player milking the surrounding situations for all its worth (a thing I don’t consider bad considering all things). Every player has his flaws, yet it’s a rather unfortunate situation for both himself and the club that his are more strikingly noticeable than many of those around him. Of course, if he finds the solution to fixing them, he has the capacity to better - but much like that of every other player in the AFL.
Those seaching for such hope through this logic are searching in vain.
It amuses me to read the various posters, most of them advocates of the man in question, who are of the general view that Kent does not warrant a large majority of the criticism he garners from both the public and supporters alike, due to one, rather simplistic, reason - that being of the now tiredly used "Kingsley is/should be played as a 3rd tall".
Such an argument, to what I understand, runs along the lines of "Kingsley is being played out of position at FF. He is clearly a third tall, and will thrive as such when in a position where given the opposition's third best defender etc". This 'theory' seemingly aims to justify the usual down motions in the seasonally rollercoaster ride Geelong fans have, no doubt, now become accustomed to. People seem to be of the mind that, given the circumstances Kent plays through, that of against the opposition’s numero uno defender (which in itself is questionable), he plays to the restrictions well, and thus any criticism aimed at him is not at all warranted in the irrational amounts of which it is delivered.
Furthermore, and perhaps more particularly, many then are led to the assumption that, given the proper position and the ensuing proper opposing man, Kingsley will truly show his colours. I myself have found this ‘theory’ to be quite logical at times, and thought it to be the simple solution or excuse of hope for the moments in which we cringe when things don’t go right with Kent. Yet the more I think about it, and search through the true logic of such a theory, the more I find a flaw presenting itself.
Is not the main criticism of Kent his woeful kicking, and to a lesser extent, his lack of intensity and urgency to do those highly underrated one percenters? If this is true, then I fail to see how it will all be solved when Kingsley is given the opportunity to play in his ‘true position’. Do correct me if I’m wrong, but how would playing on a ‘easier’ opponent, so to speak, result in a sudden higher strike rate? If the problem lies in his kicking therein, then the quality of the person standing the mark will bear no effect to how he puts boot to ball.
At a glance, simple logic would indeed suggest that Kingsley playing in his arguably ‘true’ position would result in a higher return to that of Kingsley playing in a position unsuiting to him. Yet I’m not quite so sure what many followers of this logic expect to happen. Do they expect a higher goal return from the current 50 he contributes? I certainly would not.
Kingsley is getting as many signed and sealed deliveries as he ever will in his current position. One would have thought the reason we would be able to peg Kingsley as a third tall would be due to the availability of 2 other bigger, and better, talls. Following this rich vein of logic, would it not make sense to deliver more entries to the aforementioned two other talls ahead of Kingsley? I certainly wouldn’t imagine we’d be using them simply as decoys. If anything, Kingsley is looking at lesser opportunities for shots on goal (this, of course, disregarding the cheapees he gets from backs of packs when the game is won).
Kingsley is, what I believe to be, a prime example of ‘what you see is what you get’. Those searching for hope of improvement via such theories (which itself are more excuses than anything) are bound to be disappointed. He is an above average player milking the surrounding situations for all its worth (a thing I don’t consider bad considering all things). Every player has his flaws, yet it’s a rather unfortunate situation for both himself and the club that his are more strikingly noticeable than many of those around him. Of course, if he finds the solution to fixing them, he has the capacity to better - but much like that of every other player in the AFL.
Those seaching for such hope through this logic are searching in vain.
) then he will be a valuable asset. This year he has taken less shots from the flanks and pockets due to to our more direct footy, hence his conversion is up on last year.
