Okay I finally got around to having a look at the Lions Academy v Aspley Under 21s. Firstly again congratulations to whoever did the vision. The quality is excellent and better than some of the NAB games that we have seen so far. I encourage everyone to support the great work and get on and watch it. You can find the vision on the Aspley facebook site and on youtube.
Overall the Lions got a flogging in this match with the Aspley side being much bigger and generally just better. It would not surprise me if there were a few overagers amongst the Aspley team but they did play very well. For us we lacked ball winning mids and our spread was quite poor. At the back we were undermanned in the height department with Watson carrying the load with others who were generally outmuscled too easily. Our skills around the ground were pretty poor although the lack of open targets certainly did not help. The forwards struggled a lot from poor service but in fairness they were not exactly out in the clear either.
Anyway onto a few of the players. I have included what I believe were the numbers for the players so that if you go and have a look you at the vision you might have some idea about who is who (ie there is no commentary with the vision). I have used the numbering from another game and it does seem to line up but if you think anyone might have been wearing a different number for this game please pipe up. Also I am going to be critical here but it is worth bearing in mind that this is one game only and people should not get too excited or too disappointed.
15 Allison – only played the first half as far as I could tell. Played onball and was around it quite a bit. He was flat footed a lot though and easy pickings when he got the ball. He did not read the taps particularly well nor was he particularly clean when the ball game to him or quick with it. Overall as an inside mid I was not seeing a huge improvement over last year. Inside he made quite a few tackles but they tended to be wrapping tackles rather than hitting tackles. On the outside his defensive work was generally poor and on one occasion he was going with his player and then just let the guy run ahead of him, he received a pass and then ran in and goaled. Terrible effort. In fairness there was a play latter in the half when he really worked to put pressure on a mark and then hauled butt to the downfield contest. His spread was also pretty poor and I only really noticed one play when he got up and running in space. On that occasion he looked really good with quick long strides although it is worth noting his kick was a bit off target. Virtually all his kicks were long and the penetration he got regularly caught the markers unaware where they would move under the ball and it would go over their head. He does need to use his short and intermediate targets more. Overall I was pretty disappointed in him. His running needs to improve as does his effort. There is a lot of talent but unless he is prepared to work he is not going to be the player he could be.
3. Rolls – he was another who I think only played the first half. I was expecting to see him play mostly in the midfield this year but it looks like he will be playing at the back again this year. That is fine really as that is certainly a need for us. His superb short kicking was again on display and I think he did very nicely at the back. He had one shot on goal where he struggled to get the distance from 50 which probably indicates that he works within his restrictions. Under pressure he was very good and he backpedalled, keeps distance and dances really well. Also in the clinches he does not panic and was strong and got the ball away well. He is starting to put on some additional weight. Overall I thought he was very good but I would have liked to have seen him get more of the ball. The side is better with the ball in his hands. He did not get enough of it for me.
29. Ballenden – this was really a hard game to assess him as a forward given the ball seldom found its way that far forward and when it did it was not coming in to his advantage. Overall though I thought he was clearly outshone by Himmelberg (more on him later). Bellenden is a big powerful man already and he uses his strength to overpower opponents. That will be effective to a certain extent at AFL level but he does need to add other strings to his bow which I did not see in this game. I did see a lot of walking and defensively he had virtually no impact when he was up forward. He needs to up his effort in this regard. I was also not impressed with his hands. He was not clean either above his head or below his knees. Where he showed the most was in the ruck. If he grew a couple more centimetres I could easily see him being our long term ruck solution. He is already the height of Mumford but I do like rucks to be 200cm. Ballenden is also not much of a jumper so he is not going to get over top of his opponent with his jump. Where he very good is in the around the ground ruck contests. At 17 he was man-handling the quite a bit bigger Aspley ruck who was doing the same to Dennis. He was getting his hand to the ball and directing his taps nicely. He likes to get in there and mix it up. This was a very hard game to assess the key forwards and more so with Ballenden who looks to be a stay at home type up forward. The rucking though does give him a good back up option to impact games when things are not going well for him up forward.
13. Watson – he had a pretty good game notwithstanding he was under pressure all game. He worked into the game and looked better the further it went. Watson does look bigger than last year and is putting on some bulk although he could still get stronger through the core. He remains an athletic type and his closing speed is still very evident. He played both KPD positions in this game and I don’t recall him being shown up. He spoilt well and showed a good ability to get a fist into the marking contest without infringing. He is a fluid mover with good change of direction. I thought he did stick with his man a bit much when the Lions got the ball and I would have liked to see him present as an option going forward more. He had a couple of out of bounds kicks early but overall I like his kicking. He was taking a lot of the kick ins and finding targets well. He has good style and assessed the options well. I noticed on a couple of occasions he left his man to back his own judgement of the ball in the air and he was in the right place on each occasion. A nice game under trying conditions for Watson I thought.
30. Nate Dennis – he has improved since last year but is still pretty raw. One of the things which put me off last year was his tendency to shy away from physical contests. In that regard he has improved a lot. He is still more of a finesse player but when he has to commit to a contest he does and the results are often good. He was significantly outmuscled in this game but he kept getting in there and competing which I found very encouraging. His tap work was solid but nothing more than that. The two rucks tended to neutralise each other a lot. Dennis’ kicking technique is still very awkward but he does seem to have more confidence in it this year and he was hitting targets. By hand he was also fairly good. When the ball hit the ground in the ruck contests he competed and tackled although I described his tackling in my notes as being persistent rather than strong. He rested up forward and like most of the talls was not very effective. He had a couple of marking opportunities which he spilled when I would have expected him to have taken. It is worth noting that he did take one very nice pack mark of a kick in early in the game.
10. Clayton – he was playing at the back with Rolls and was under pressure a lot with the ball coming in. He did work pretty hard both ways but I did think he was a bit sloppy with the ball. He missed quite a few targets and had a few where he put too much loop on the ball. Being a bottom ager in the situation he found himself in I can forgive him but it did clearly identify for me what he needs to work on. Physically he has a nice build and I think he will be a powerful player by the time he is finished. He is elusive but is not one of those players who seems to have a lot of time. Generally he moves well though.
28. Himmelberg – one of the two very pleasant surprises for me. Himmelberg is a 196cm KPF who is eligible for the upcoming draft. He is blond and so stands out but in this game he stood out for all the right reasons. He played a lot like Josh Kennedy of West Coast in that he worked hard both offensively and defensively. Unlike Ballenden who spent a lot of time up forward wandering casually about when Aspley had it Himmelberg worked really hard and put some really good pressure on. He is long and athletic and seems to have good pace. He did not get a heap of it but did get up onto the wing on occasions to mark the ball. He got the only goal for the Academy with some nice body work to protect the drop at the top of the square. His set shot is generally pretty well balanced although he does wave the ball around a bit late. He has a very nice flat field kick that only got used occasionally. He showed pretty good hands in the limited chances he had both above his head and below his knees and when he flew he did very nicely in keeping his feet on landing. He rucked a few times and despite giving away a lot of weight he mixed it up well and got a tap or two with an aggressive approach. This is definitely a guy I will be keeping an eye on for the rest of the year.
2. Dadds – this was the other really pleasant surprise. We are a bit short on small forward types and Dadds did nicely in that role in difficult circumstances in this game. He is a lean runner type who looks both quick and fast (another thing we definitely need). He works hard to apply defensive pressure on the opposition backmen and forces them to make rushed decisions even when he does not get there. When he is around the ball he is a frantic type who seems to be going at 100 miles and hour. He makes things happen though and has nice quick hands and pretty good judgement and awareness. One thing I like to look at with small forwards is the ability to recover their feet when they go to ground (look at Betts for the amount of goals he gets from this skill) and I was impressed a couple of times by the quickness with which he bounced up. I only noted one shot on goal which was a left foot snap on a tight angle which hit the post. Not many other opportunities came his way but he is one to look at more closely in future games.
20. Christie – this is Judge’s player to watch this year. He is a broad shouldered, powerfully built kid who moves very smoothly around the park. He was playing off the flanks in this game (mostly the back from memory) and did not get a heap of the ball. He seemed to be playing a close checking role a lot and did not have a big part in the ball going forward. His skills are neat enough and he reminded me a bit of Corvo from last year. He has good pace and he uses his body well in contested situations. Given his physique and the smoothness with which he gets around the park he is someone who stands out and if he can get enough of it he is someone who could grab the attention of recruiters.
4. Mason – played on the wing in the first half and onball in the second. He is another blondy who stands out because of it. He is another good mover who seems to have reasonable pace. He has pretty good size and is well balanced in contested situations. He has decent skills and for the most part hit his targets. Defensively he did some nice chasing on the wings. Onball he was around it a lot but did not win a great many clean clearances. He was moving in the contests though which I like to see and he showed nice lateral movement. His hands are average for cleanness and quickness. Mason does look like a footballer and might be another to keep an eye on.
12. Walker – got more into the game in the second half when Allison went off. He worked hard around the packs but he lacked a bit of nous I thought. He found himself behind a lot and when he did get his hands on the ball he was not overly clean and he did not get a lot of balls out to his receivers. Finding himself behind he did make a lot of tackles. He moves through traffic well but does lack some top end speed. He will be an important player for the Qld side this year I think but I am not seeing him as a star at this stage.
5. Fletcher – very similar type to Walker although he did not get as much of it. He is another who was around it a fair bit but was not clean enough or using it well enough to really impact on the game. He was another who found himself behind a fair bit in clearance situations and whilst he made tackles he was not positioned to win the ball. Under pressure his skills were a bit scrappy.
8. Lachie Dennis – unlike Nate, Lachie is a small defender / mid. I saw a bit to like with him but he does need to do the good things a bit more. I noticed one particularly good long kick to hit a target but he needs to bring that weapon out more. Dennis has good strength and is one of the harder tacklers in the Academy side. His hands could be cleaner but they are quick and he can flick a ball out well.
18. Lambert – not sure if he was on in the first half but was certainly a lot more noticeable in the second. He is a bit of an old fashioned footballer type being stocky with short legs. He is quite strong and balanced over the ball. In tight spaces he has pretty good lateral movement and is difficult to shut down. He knows what is around him and his skills are solid. Whilst many of the Academy look like an athlete first and a footballer second, Lambert looks like a footballer.
Overall the Lions got a flogging in this match with the Aspley side being much bigger and generally just better. It would not surprise me if there were a few overagers amongst the Aspley team but they did play very well. For us we lacked ball winning mids and our spread was quite poor. At the back we were undermanned in the height department with Watson carrying the load with others who were generally outmuscled too easily. Our skills around the ground were pretty poor although the lack of open targets certainly did not help. The forwards struggled a lot from poor service but in fairness they were not exactly out in the clear either.
Anyway onto a few of the players. I have included what I believe were the numbers for the players so that if you go and have a look you at the vision you might have some idea about who is who (ie there is no commentary with the vision). I have used the numbering from another game and it does seem to line up but if you think anyone might have been wearing a different number for this game please pipe up. Also I am going to be critical here but it is worth bearing in mind that this is one game only and people should not get too excited or too disappointed.
15 Allison – only played the first half as far as I could tell. Played onball and was around it quite a bit. He was flat footed a lot though and easy pickings when he got the ball. He did not read the taps particularly well nor was he particularly clean when the ball game to him or quick with it. Overall as an inside mid I was not seeing a huge improvement over last year. Inside he made quite a few tackles but they tended to be wrapping tackles rather than hitting tackles. On the outside his defensive work was generally poor and on one occasion he was going with his player and then just let the guy run ahead of him, he received a pass and then ran in and goaled. Terrible effort. In fairness there was a play latter in the half when he really worked to put pressure on a mark and then hauled butt to the downfield contest. His spread was also pretty poor and I only really noticed one play when he got up and running in space. On that occasion he looked really good with quick long strides although it is worth noting his kick was a bit off target. Virtually all his kicks were long and the penetration he got regularly caught the markers unaware where they would move under the ball and it would go over their head. He does need to use his short and intermediate targets more. Overall I was pretty disappointed in him. His running needs to improve as does his effort. There is a lot of talent but unless he is prepared to work he is not going to be the player he could be.
3. Rolls – he was another who I think only played the first half. I was expecting to see him play mostly in the midfield this year but it looks like he will be playing at the back again this year. That is fine really as that is certainly a need for us. His superb short kicking was again on display and I think he did very nicely at the back. He had one shot on goal where he struggled to get the distance from 50 which probably indicates that he works within his restrictions. Under pressure he was very good and he backpedalled, keeps distance and dances really well. Also in the clinches he does not panic and was strong and got the ball away well. He is starting to put on some additional weight. Overall I thought he was very good but I would have liked to have seen him get more of the ball. The side is better with the ball in his hands. He did not get enough of it for me.
29. Ballenden – this was really a hard game to assess him as a forward given the ball seldom found its way that far forward and when it did it was not coming in to his advantage. Overall though I thought he was clearly outshone by Himmelberg (more on him later). Bellenden is a big powerful man already and he uses his strength to overpower opponents. That will be effective to a certain extent at AFL level but he does need to add other strings to his bow which I did not see in this game. I did see a lot of walking and defensively he had virtually no impact when he was up forward. He needs to up his effort in this regard. I was also not impressed with his hands. He was not clean either above his head or below his knees. Where he showed the most was in the ruck. If he grew a couple more centimetres I could easily see him being our long term ruck solution. He is already the height of Mumford but I do like rucks to be 200cm. Ballenden is also not much of a jumper so he is not going to get over top of his opponent with his jump. Where he very good is in the around the ground ruck contests. At 17 he was man-handling the quite a bit bigger Aspley ruck who was doing the same to Dennis. He was getting his hand to the ball and directing his taps nicely. He likes to get in there and mix it up. This was a very hard game to assess the key forwards and more so with Ballenden who looks to be a stay at home type up forward. The rucking though does give him a good back up option to impact games when things are not going well for him up forward.
13. Watson – he had a pretty good game notwithstanding he was under pressure all game. He worked into the game and looked better the further it went. Watson does look bigger than last year and is putting on some bulk although he could still get stronger through the core. He remains an athletic type and his closing speed is still very evident. He played both KPD positions in this game and I don’t recall him being shown up. He spoilt well and showed a good ability to get a fist into the marking contest without infringing. He is a fluid mover with good change of direction. I thought he did stick with his man a bit much when the Lions got the ball and I would have liked to see him present as an option going forward more. He had a couple of out of bounds kicks early but overall I like his kicking. He was taking a lot of the kick ins and finding targets well. He has good style and assessed the options well. I noticed on a couple of occasions he left his man to back his own judgement of the ball in the air and he was in the right place on each occasion. A nice game under trying conditions for Watson I thought.
30. Nate Dennis – he has improved since last year but is still pretty raw. One of the things which put me off last year was his tendency to shy away from physical contests. In that regard he has improved a lot. He is still more of a finesse player but when he has to commit to a contest he does and the results are often good. He was significantly outmuscled in this game but he kept getting in there and competing which I found very encouraging. His tap work was solid but nothing more than that. The two rucks tended to neutralise each other a lot. Dennis’ kicking technique is still very awkward but he does seem to have more confidence in it this year and he was hitting targets. By hand he was also fairly good. When the ball hit the ground in the ruck contests he competed and tackled although I described his tackling in my notes as being persistent rather than strong. He rested up forward and like most of the talls was not very effective. He had a couple of marking opportunities which he spilled when I would have expected him to have taken. It is worth noting that he did take one very nice pack mark of a kick in early in the game.
10. Clayton – he was playing at the back with Rolls and was under pressure a lot with the ball coming in. He did work pretty hard both ways but I did think he was a bit sloppy with the ball. He missed quite a few targets and had a few where he put too much loop on the ball. Being a bottom ager in the situation he found himself in I can forgive him but it did clearly identify for me what he needs to work on. Physically he has a nice build and I think he will be a powerful player by the time he is finished. He is elusive but is not one of those players who seems to have a lot of time. Generally he moves well though.
28. Himmelberg – one of the two very pleasant surprises for me. Himmelberg is a 196cm KPF who is eligible for the upcoming draft. He is blond and so stands out but in this game he stood out for all the right reasons. He played a lot like Josh Kennedy of West Coast in that he worked hard both offensively and defensively. Unlike Ballenden who spent a lot of time up forward wandering casually about when Aspley had it Himmelberg worked really hard and put some really good pressure on. He is long and athletic and seems to have good pace. He did not get a heap of it but did get up onto the wing on occasions to mark the ball. He got the only goal for the Academy with some nice body work to protect the drop at the top of the square. His set shot is generally pretty well balanced although he does wave the ball around a bit late. He has a very nice flat field kick that only got used occasionally. He showed pretty good hands in the limited chances he had both above his head and below his knees and when he flew he did very nicely in keeping his feet on landing. He rucked a few times and despite giving away a lot of weight he mixed it up well and got a tap or two with an aggressive approach. This is definitely a guy I will be keeping an eye on for the rest of the year.
2. Dadds – this was the other really pleasant surprise. We are a bit short on small forward types and Dadds did nicely in that role in difficult circumstances in this game. He is a lean runner type who looks both quick and fast (another thing we definitely need). He works hard to apply defensive pressure on the opposition backmen and forces them to make rushed decisions even when he does not get there. When he is around the ball he is a frantic type who seems to be going at 100 miles and hour. He makes things happen though and has nice quick hands and pretty good judgement and awareness. One thing I like to look at with small forwards is the ability to recover their feet when they go to ground (look at Betts for the amount of goals he gets from this skill) and I was impressed a couple of times by the quickness with which he bounced up. I only noted one shot on goal which was a left foot snap on a tight angle which hit the post. Not many other opportunities came his way but he is one to look at more closely in future games.
20. Christie – this is Judge’s player to watch this year. He is a broad shouldered, powerfully built kid who moves very smoothly around the park. He was playing off the flanks in this game (mostly the back from memory) and did not get a heap of the ball. He seemed to be playing a close checking role a lot and did not have a big part in the ball going forward. His skills are neat enough and he reminded me a bit of Corvo from last year. He has good pace and he uses his body well in contested situations. Given his physique and the smoothness with which he gets around the park he is someone who stands out and if he can get enough of it he is someone who could grab the attention of recruiters.
4. Mason – played on the wing in the first half and onball in the second. He is another blondy who stands out because of it. He is another good mover who seems to have reasonable pace. He has pretty good size and is well balanced in contested situations. He has decent skills and for the most part hit his targets. Defensively he did some nice chasing on the wings. Onball he was around it a lot but did not win a great many clean clearances. He was moving in the contests though which I like to see and he showed nice lateral movement. His hands are average for cleanness and quickness. Mason does look like a footballer and might be another to keep an eye on.
12. Walker – got more into the game in the second half when Allison went off. He worked hard around the packs but he lacked a bit of nous I thought. He found himself behind a lot and when he did get his hands on the ball he was not overly clean and he did not get a lot of balls out to his receivers. Finding himself behind he did make a lot of tackles. He moves through traffic well but does lack some top end speed. He will be an important player for the Qld side this year I think but I am not seeing him as a star at this stage.
5. Fletcher – very similar type to Walker although he did not get as much of it. He is another who was around it a fair bit but was not clean enough or using it well enough to really impact on the game. He was another who found himself behind a fair bit in clearance situations and whilst he made tackles he was not positioned to win the ball. Under pressure his skills were a bit scrappy.
8. Lachie Dennis – unlike Nate, Lachie is a small defender / mid. I saw a bit to like with him but he does need to do the good things a bit more. I noticed one particularly good long kick to hit a target but he needs to bring that weapon out more. Dennis has good strength and is one of the harder tacklers in the Academy side. His hands could be cleaner but they are quick and he can flick a ball out well.
18. Lambert – not sure if he was on in the first half but was certainly a lot more noticeable in the second. He is a bit of an old fashioned footballer type being stocky with short legs. He is quite strong and balanced over the ball. In tight spaces he has pretty good lateral movement and is difficult to shut down. He knows what is around him and his skills are solid. Whilst many of the Academy look like an athlete first and a footballer second, Lambert looks like a footballer.
