List Mgmt. Best 22 for 2014 + structures and strategies

[Ian Dargie]

They are doing a good job, not great but good.

Wow, that's compelling.

Do you have anything to say for yourself that you couldn't write on the back of your hand?

 

[joeyavalanche]

I believe we are trying to develop a team where more players can have stints on the ball.
With the limited rotations that's come in I'd like to think we are going with players like Cripps, Ellis and Yeo to maximise our teams output through the midfield. Simpson has also spoken about having players who can play multiple positions.

 

[Ian Dargie]

I believe we are trying to develop a team where more players can have stints on the ball.
With the limited rotations that's come in I'd like to think we are going with players like Cripps, Ellis and Yeo to maximise our teams output through the midfield. Simpson has also spoken about having players who can play multiple positions.

So how many players who can rotate through the middle would be adequate?

Should we just have three forwards, three backs and 16 midfielders?

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Not sure why rotated through the midfield needs to be interpreted as playing on ball in any meaningful way or being a "midfielder". It's more that players that find themselves on ball are required in situations to be as versatile as possible. That goes for both stoppages around the ground and in other scenarios like at spillages from marks, and in the cases where turnovers occur.

If you have a throw in and a couple of your onball midfielders are out of position. Then it's really useful to have someone in the vicinity who can rotate into the stoppage at the expense of a first pick midfielder, who would have had to bust his guts to get there. Instead he can move into space and freshen up quickly. Which is why you need midfielders who are good in space as well as good at generating scrums and why you need flankers who have some depth to their game and do more than run up and down the ground in straight lines.

Just because someone can rotate somewhere else on the ground doesn't make them a "Jack of all trades" and it doesn't mean you lose your structure around the ground. For me this is a discussion that other clubs like Fremantle, Geelong, Collingwood and Hawthorn had a couple of years ago.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Not sure why rotated through the midfield needs to be interpreted as playing on ball in any meaningful way or being a "midfielder". It's more that players that find themselves on ball are required in situations to be as versatile as possible. That goes for both stoppages around the ground and in other scenarios like at spillages from marks, and in the cases where turnovers occur.

If you have a throw in and a couple of your onball midfielders are out of position. Then it's really useful to have someone in the vicinity who can rotate into the stoppage at the expense of a first pick midfielder, who would have had to bust his guts to get there. Instead he can move into space and freshen up quickly. Which is why you need midfielders who are good in space as well as good at generating scrums and why you need flankers who have some depth to their game and do more than run up and down the ground in straight lines.

Just because someone can rotate somewhere else on the ground doesn't make them a "Jack of all trades" and it doesn't mean you lose your structure around the ground. For me this is a discussion that other clubs like Fremantle, Geelong, Collingwood and Hawthorn had a couple of years ago.

How does this relate to the broader question of team balance?

 

[Eastern Rangers]

How does this relate to the broader question of team balance?

It relates directly to team balance.

You questioned the ability of our midfield to reliably kick goals. The ability for our midfield to kick goals directly relates to it's ability to perform the game plan. Which appears to be one where we kick shorter and then run and link up by hand more than we have in previous seasons. Extra midfielder in a contests helps to generate the extra run around the ground, which helps us generate much needed overlap and get players free around the ground then so be it. Additional player flexibility simply makes it easier to get those extra players to the right positions quicker. It also helps when it comes to bench rotations, injuries ect...

 

[Ian Dargie]

It relates directly to team balance.

You questioned the ability of our midfield to reliably kick goals. The ability for our midfield to kick goals directly relates to it's ability to perform the game plan. Which appears to be one where we kick shorter and then run and link up by hand more than we have in previous seasons. Extra midfielder in a contests helps to generate the extra run around the ground, which helps us generate much needed overlap and get players free around the ground then so be it. Additional player flexibility simply makes it easier to get those extra players to the right positions quicker. It also helps when it comes to bench rotations, injuries ect...

In essence you are saying that our game plan relies on having a massive midfield. And that's fine. But how many midfielders do you think we need in the 22?

At what point does a specialist forward or specialist back become more worthwhile than yet another mid?

 

[SpaceClef]

I reckon the idea of full time stay at home specialist forwards and defenders is waning slightly.

I reckon you need 2 KPF, 2 KPD, a resting ruckman and ideally the rest of the team have the ability to perform across the ground.

The sticking point at the moment are whether we need 3 ruckmen, and the legitimacy Sinclair's position has been discussed a bit already.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[guero]

Team balance is important, but to pick Hill right now would be rewarding mediocrity. He had an average pre-season and a poor game first up in the WAFL. Good on the MC for not selecting him, hopefully he can build form and demand selection.

 

[Obeanie1]

righto O'Doyle.

They are doing a good job, not great but good. It's only round 2 I'd rather give them the time initially to prove themselves and get the confidence. If they were to get dropped the replacement likewise with the replacements.

I'd say Cripps is delivering at a similar level to Hill but has more upside. The coach and club know what Hill can deliver and yes at some stage during the year he will get a game. Right now we have from reports a younger player with high off field work ethic who is pushing himself to keep improving. Cripps has been good defensively and also kicked / set up goals. He's missed a fair few as well some difficult some not so and if he had kicked one more per game everyone would be backing him.

As for the nuf nuf comment from another poster about "shoe horning a mid into a forward pocket" they need to catch up with the modern game and how its evolving. Obviously stuck back in the 90's with some of their views on the game. Don't underestimate the effect of rotations on who gets picked.

So the option is Hill - good forward not so good midfielder kicking 1.5 goals a game on average playing 90% forward or:

Cripps + Masten / Shuey / Wellingham / Sheed rotating forward. My money is this rotation will;

a) kick more than 1.5 goals a game on average and;
b) lead to a more effective midfield which generates more inside 50's which then gets us more scoring opportunities and hey guess what more goals.

I trust this concept is simple enough for even Gunner to understand, its really not that hard. We are talking about Hill getting a game here not Cyril Rioli, damn good up the ground is Cyril isn't he

 

[ziad]

Watching the hawks sort out the dockers it is absolutely clear that everybody needs to run and even KP players must contribute through what we call the middle of the field.
We look to be on the right track. Players than can not fit the role are gone. Time will tell who can and can not but we look to be selecting those that look most likely (and can kick).

Lyon said on Melbourne radio this morning that 'mids' with no speed endurance will be replaced. Sheed looks a good draft as does Ellis and Yoe.

It will be interesting when we play hawks, cats, essendon and the two development teams who are well stocked with speed endurance.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Some pretty interesting numbers that kind of relate to whats been talked about above.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-04-04/getting-the-score-on-the-board

 

[Ian Dargie]

As for the nuf nuf comment from another poster about "shoe horning a mid into a forward pocket" they need to catch up with the modern game and how its evolving.

Fridge Magnet, get back in your box.

If you want to act smug for even a split-second, I'll be happy to remind you about your claims that our current midfield will surpass the 2006 group and your suggestion last year that Dalziell should get "maximum game time" this year.

If you want "nuff nuff" comments, take a look in the mirror. Don't kid yourself, Fridgie.

Back on topic, I definitely think there's still a role for a specialist medium forward. Obviously they still need to have the tank to contribute further afield but this idea that everyone is now a midfielder has a whiff of fashionable bullshit.

So the option is Hill - good forward not so good midfielder kicking 1.5 goals a game on average playing 90% forward or:

Cripps + Masten / Shuey / Wellingham / Sheed rotating forward. My money is this rotation will;

a) kick more than 1.5 goals a game on average and;
b) lead to a more effective midfield which generates more inside 50's which then gets us more scoring opportunities and hey guess what more goals.

The question is whether we could combine this rotation with another goalkicker who spends more time closer to goals.

 

[Ian Dargie]

I reckon the idea of full time stay at home specialist forwards and defenders is waning slightly.

I reckon you need 2 KPF, 2 KPD, a resting ruckman and ideally the rest of the team have the ability to perform across the ground.

That's fair enough but within that, there are going to be guys with different roles.

For example, LeCras and Hurn. Neither are KPPs so do we just bracket them together and think of them as the same player? In reality, one is a rebounding defender and the other is a mid-sized forward. That can still be true, even if we expect them to run and contribute between the arcs. We don't have to suddenly pretend that they're both midfielders.

 

[SpaceClef]

That's fair enough but within that, there are going to be guys with different roles.

For example, LeCras and Hurn. Neither are KPPs so do we just bracket them together and think of them as the same player? In reality, one is a rebounding defender and the other is a mid-sized forward. That can still be true, even if we expect them to run and contribute between the arcs. We don't have to suddenly pretend that they're both midfielders.

You're the one who wanted to group all the players who could play midfield into a list of 14 midfielders ranked from best to 14th best.

I think a lot of this comes into an argument over the extent to which we categorise a player as x or y.

I don't think Le Cras is a midfielder or Yeo, but they are capable in that context. I think the game is moving a little away from labels like forward, mid, defender.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Eastern Rangers]

One thing that should be increasingly obvious. We're too bloody tall!

 

[Ian Dargie]

You're the one who wanted to group all the players who could play midfield into a list of 14 midfielders ranked from best to 14th best.

That's not entirely accurate, but what's your point?

As for ranking them, some guys are going to be picked before others, right? That's the ranking. It only became an issue because you weirdly suggested it wasn't possibly to put these players in any order at all.

My broader question relates to how many midfield runners we need. Is the 14th-best or 15th-best worth picking over a more specialised player at one end or the other?

I don't reckon that's particularly controversial. Apparently, rather than offering any answer, some of you blokes can't even get your heads round the question, which is a bit of a worry.

I don't think Le Cras is a midfielder or Yeo, but they are capable in that context. I think the game is moving a little away from labels like forward, mid, defender.

I disagree. As long as people are savvy enough to know that it's not European handball where players are restricted to certain zones, it's still perfectly sensible to refer to someone like LeCras as a forward.

 

[Ian Dargie]

One thing that should be increasingly obvious. Were too bloody tall!

Time to drop Sinclair?

Maybe there's not room for all of Brown, Mackenzie, Glass and Schofield. Although Schofield's height isn't the issue. He was just bad today.

 

[Monkey Worshipper]

Time to drop Sinclair?

Maybe there's not room for all of Brown, Mackenzie, Glass and Schofield. Although Schofield's height isn't the issue. He was just bad today.

That would depend if Nic Nat can do more. To be quite honest, Nic has been decidedly average this year.

 

[erbenz]

Time to drop Sinclair?

Maybe there's not room for all of Brown, Mackenzie, Glass and Schofield. Although Schofield's height isn't the issue. He was just bad today.

Schofield was awful but Glass had a down day too.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Schofield was awful but Glass had a down day too.

Glass has an obvious role. I really rated Schofield at one point but what's his role now?

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Glass has an obvious role. I really rated Schofield at one point but what's his role now?

To play that role Glass is playing?

 

[Ian Dargie]

To play that role Glass is playing?

Well, Glass has the advantage of being one of the best one-on-one defenders around. Schofield needs another niche or he probably doesn't play.

 

[erbenz]

Glass has an obvious role. I really rated Schofield at one point but what's his role now?

In the WAFL he's playing the generalising 3rd tall role that Glass plays for us at AFL level. Obviously circumstance dictated this wouldn't happen today but Schofield did play well last week and his game isn't something that can be evaluated by pure statistical impact.

Don't get me wrong, Glass is well ahead at the moment but ideally I see Schofield knocking on Glass' door by the end of this year.

 

[Ian Dargie]

In the WAFL he's playing the generalising 3rd tall role that Glass plays for us at AFL level.

I'm not convinced that accurately describes Glass's role. It's not like Glass is permanently manned up on the third forward. Are we sure he's not still just the FB?

Don't get me wrong, Glass is well ahead at the moment but ideally I see Schofield knocking on Glass' door by the end of this year.

I think we'd need Brown to fully take over at FB, allowing Schofield in as a third tall. That may happen but I wouldn't describe that as a straight swap into what Glass is doing currently.