Best Youth in the league - best teams in 3-5 years

Remove this Banner Ad

Looks kind of funny when one is now delisted, one is a vfl level player and the other two are sporadically good but largely average.

Then again I used to think Cameron Faulkner was going to be a star based on one game agains north at Manuka in the early 2000s. Next Andrew McLeod they said. A decade later I was facing him in some s**t country league
Not really sure you've worked out what you are on about. Three of those four players will most likely play 200 games at north. The other went nowhere. That is a good strike rate. If your much hyped youth stay around as long they might get some success. Just as likely, some will make it, some will stagnate and some will leave and you will be talking up the next round of youth in five years time. Just like melbourne.
 
Wouldn't have Collingwood on that list. But its honestly impossible to see what will happen in 2 years time, let alone 5, a lot of things can change in that time.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I think we have great group in that 23 and under bracket but I don't think the list put up for us representated it well.

Langdon, Williams, Grundy, Witts, Adams, Treloar, De Goey, Aish, Elliott, Moore, Fasolo, Frost, Broomhead, Oxley. Some others like Marsh and Ramsay are not as well known but have shown great signs. Cox could be anything. It's a very promising bunch with three or four absolute diamonds in Grundy, Treloar, De Goey and Moore. Even Sidebum is only 25.
 
Every year the same discussion is brought up countless times, every team drafts superstars, that's until in 2-3 years time the majority get delisted and or traded for a bag of chips.

Let the kids develop, history shows that not all top picks will come good, and even if they do play, it's not up to expectations that the fans placed on them.

It's why the comp has a handful of absolute star forwards, mids, backs and rucks.
with the majority of AFL players being just good ordinary players.
 
Cox could be anything.
He is not really that young. New to the game, yes, but 25 years old.
He looks ok though. I remember when Paul Salmon began he started as a key forward and virtually no key defenders were tall enough to stop him. Mason Cox has that advantage too. Just a matter of whether he can kick enough goals to make the experiment all worth whole.
It seems like he has the work ethic so would not surprise me if he makes it. Would not expect him to take the league by storm like Salmon did early in his career as a forward but it should prove interesting to watch how key defenders cope with his size.
 
I've contributed to these kinds of threads numerous times, but 'best youth' means nothing... Now and in the future.
Maturity and coaching/leadership is a much bigger factor in success. Instead of arguing about whether their youth is the best or not, doggies supporters should be celebrating how good Luke Beveridge is. I know it's only been 1 year but I think he's second behind Clarkson.
Gotta agree with you there on Luke.

Still...

dogsU241.png

I'd take a pepsi max challenge anyday of the week against any other under 24 team. (yes they are all under 24)

Bonti with 13 brownlow votes in only his 2nd year of football? Seriously?
Liberatore, the number 1 clearance player AND number 1 tackling player in 2014....in the entire AFL?
Stringer with 50 goals and an All-Australian?

Dahlhaus? Wallis? I mean, i'm not talking about youth who "could be anything" i'm talking about players with PROVEN performance.

Because when the whips were cracking last year in our midfield, we didn't have older superstars to rely upon. It was Wallis, Dahlhaus, Bonti, Hunter, Macrae. Not to mention our ongoing ruck problems!

Add in a fit Liberatore this year? Forget it. This under 24 squad would demolish any other team of a comparable age.

I will admit that GWS have some good....players. Sheil, Cameron and Coniglio. The rest that have been mentioned in here like Whitfield, Kelly, Steele, Greene? I'm sorry, I would not take any of those players over guys like Dahlhaus, Hunter, Macrae and Wallis. They've shown glimpses but are still inconsistent in their output.

No contest.
 
Last edited:
Hawks have won flags. Maybe if GWS won flags the comparison works.

And you listed Hawk older players who are aiming to create a legacy. Again doesnt compare with GWS.

Well this is the most stupid thing I've ever read.

What is stopping GWS players from trying to create a legacy? And lol @ "the Hawks have won flags"...yes, they have, which means you probably have to pay your ******* stars more, because they are premiership stars...or they, you know, take unders to stay.
 
Well this is the most stupid thing I've ever read.

What is stopping GWS players from trying to create a legacy? And lol @ "the Hawks have won flags"...yes, they have, which means you probably have to pay your ******* stars more, because they are premiership stars...or they, you know, take unders to stay.

Is there a history of clubs sticking together and accepting pay cuts while not winning flags?

I assume there are examples?

There are plenty of examples of top teams keeping players who could get more elsewhere.

Brisbane Geelong Hawthorn in the last 15 years.
 
I remember when I thought guys like Scully, Morton, gysberts, jurrah and blease were gunna lead us to a flag...

I don't even know what's going to happen this year let alone in 5 years time.
 
Not really sure you've worked out what you are on about. Three of those four players will most likely play 200 games at north.

I was simply pointing out that all supporters do it. All well and good to throw stones at others but in every team's development cycle there comes a point where the output of youth is not measurable to the hype.

Those north players are prime examples throughout their careers, I used them because as a north supporter they are players you could clearly identify and analyse over their careers.
 
Youth talent means nothing if it is coming in the door as fast as it goes out. Ill back our ability to retain players we actually want over GWS who lose players they paid high draft picks for then selling them at much lower value. I don't like a revolving door culture. We didn't want to keep Dixon and Bennell, Ablett said it in a recent article. Was concerned for their welfare off field.

Young players -

Defenders: May, Kolodjashni, Saad, Lemmens, Rory Thompson probably 24 now but still has plenty of improvement in him

Midfield: Prestia, Swallow, O'Meara, Miller, Lonergan, Sexton, Hallahan, Fiorini then we have two top academy prospects to come in through Scheer and Bowes at the end of this year. Scheer is a bull inside mid and is already huge (Ollie Wines size).

Forwards: Lynch, Day, Wright, Martin, Matera, Garlett, Ah Chee, MacPherson

GWS and one or two others pip us for sheer talent but I would take our spine over GWS.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Gotta agree with you there on Luke.

Still...

View attachment 222872

I'd take a pepsi max challenge anyday of the week against any other under 24 team. (yes they are all under 24)

Bonti with 13 brownlow votes in only his 2nd year of football? Seriously?
Liberatore, the number 1 clearance player AND number 1 tackling player in 2014....in the entire AFL?
Stringer with 50 goals and an All-Australian?

Dahlhaus? Wallis? I mean, i'm not talking about youth who "could be anything" i'm talking about players with PROVEN performance.

Because when the whips were cracking last year in our midfield, we didn't have older superstars to rely upon. It was Wallis, Dahlhaus, Bonti, Hunter, Macrae. Not to mention our ongoing ruck problems!

Add in a fit Liberatore this year? Forget it. This under 24 squad would demolish any other team of a comparable age.

I will admit that GWS have some good....players. Sheil, Cameron and Coniglio. The rest that have been mentioned in here like Whitfield, Kelly, Steele, Greene? I'm sorry, I would not take any of those players over guys like Dahlhaus, Hunter, Macrae and Wallis. They've shown glimpses but are still inconsistent in their output.

No contest.
I agree your future looks very promising and some of the youngsters are already guns. However, I don't think there would be a team in the league that would take Hunter over Whitfield as you have suggested. Whitfields output to date over his career has undoubtedly been better than Hunter's. Hunter just had his first good season and pretty much played only half a season while Whitfield has been at least decent/good every year.
 
I agree your future looks very promising and some of the youngsters are already guns. However, I don't think there would be a team in the league that would take Hunter over Whitfield as you have suggested. Whitfields output to date over his career has undoubtedly been better than Hunter's. Hunter just had his first good season and pretty much played only half a season while Whitfield has been at least decent/good every year.
Point taken. We'll see how both compare after this year.
 
Gotta agree with you there on Luke.

Still...

View attachment 222872

I'd take a pepsi max challenge anyday of the week against any other under 24 team. (yes they are all under 24)

Bonti with 13 brownlow votes in only his 2nd year of football? Seriously?
Liberatore, the number 1 clearance player AND number 1 tackling player in 2014....in the entire AFL?
Stringer with 50 goals and an All-Australian?

Dahlhaus? Wallis? I mean, i'm not talking about youth who "could be anything" i'm talking about players with PROVEN performance.

Because when the whips were cracking last year in our midfield, we didn't have older superstars to rely upon. It was Wallis, Dahlhaus, Bonti, Hunter, Macrae. Not to mention our ongoing ruck problems!

Add in a fit Liberatore this year? Forget it. This under 24 squad would demolish any other team of a comparable age.

I will admit that GWS have some good....players. Sheil, Cameron and Coniglio. The rest that have been mentioned in here like Whitfield, Kelly, Steele, Greene? I'm sorry, I would not take any of those players over guys like Dahlhaus, Hunter, Macrae and Wallis. They've shown glimpses but are still inconsistent in their output.

No contest.
I'm more than happy to take Whitfield and Kelly before Hunter.
 
I agree your future looks very promising and some of the youngsters are already guns. However, I don't think there would be a team in the league that would take Hunter over Whitfield as you have suggested. Whitfields output to date over his career has undoubtedly been better than Hunter's. Hunter just had his first good season and pretty much played only half a season while Whitfield has been at least decent/good every year.

Don't know how you can clearly say Whitfield is better than Hunter after last season. Last season is the only season you can compare the 2 because Whitfield came in as a #1 draft pick to a terrible/young team so pretty much was given full game time in the midfield as soon as he walked in the door, in fact I don't think he has ever had to be sub in his career. On the other hand Hunter is younger and has had to come in to a much older and more competitive team with a gun midfield so had to spend his first 2 seasons as a small forward/sub or VFL.

Also at the start of last season he was suspended for a few weeks for missing a recovery session, then almost straight after that was suspended for another 4 weeks for the gambling incident. So he missed most of the start of last season and was the sub for 3-4 games after returning. But then after being sub for the last time in round 16, he was was given full game time in the midfield for the rest of the season, and he averaged 30 disposals per game for the rest of the season (8 games). In comparison Whitfield only averaged 21 touches a game playing every single game in the midfield, without ever being sub.

I'm not saying that Hunter is definitely better, but to say Whitfield is clearly way better is just wrong.
 
Don't know how you can clearly say Whitfield is better than Hunter after last season. Last season is the only season you can compare the 2 because Whitfield came in as a #1 draft pick to a terrible/young team so pretty much was given full game time in the midfield as soon as he walked in the door, in fact I don't think he has ever had to be sub in his career. On the other hand Hunter is younger and has had to come in to a much older and more competitive team with a gun midfield so had to spend his first 2 seasons as a small forward/sub or VFL.

Also at the start of last season he was suspended for a few weeks for missing a recovery session, then almost straight after that was suspended for another 4 weeks for the gambling incident. So he missed most of the start of last season and was the sub for 3-4 games after returning. But then after being sub for the last time in round 16, he was was given full game time in the midfield for the rest of the season, and he averaged 30 disposals per game for the rest of the season (8 games). In comparison Whitfield only averaged 21 touches a game playing every single game in the midfield, without ever being sub.

I'm not saying that Hunter is definitely better, but to say Whitfield is clearly way better is just wrong.

So you discount Whitfields exposed form because it was in a weak side but then want to claim a run of 8 games in a side that is playing well and he wouldn't have got any attention...

Wilson corr Williams
Buntine Haynes Marchbank
Scully coniglio Whitfield
Kelly Cameron WHE
McCarthy Patton Tomlinson

Lobb Greene Shiel

Steele hopper M Kennedy Pickett

Nice try but I highly doubt a neutral supporter would take your Bulldogs team over this one


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Don't know how you can clearly say Whitfield is better than Hunter after last season. Last season is the only season you can compare the 2 because Whitfield came in as a #1 draft pick to a terrible/young team so pretty much was given full game time in the midfield as soon as he walked in the door, in fact I don't think he has ever had to be sub in his career. On the other hand Hunter is younger and has had to come in to a much older and more competitive team with a gun midfield so had to spend his first 2 seasons as a small forward/sub or VFL.

Also at the start of last season he was suspended for a few weeks for missing a recovery session, then almost straight after that was suspended for another 4 weeks for the gambling incident. So he missed most of the start of last season and was the sub for 3-4 games after returning. But then after being sub for the last time in round 16, he was was given full game time in the midfield for the rest of the season, and he averaged 30 disposals per game for the rest of the season (8 games). In comparison Whitfield only averaged 21 touches a game playing every single game in the midfield, without ever being sub.

I'm not saying that Hunter is definitely better, but to say Whitfield is clearly way better is just wrong.
I didn't say he was the clearly better player or that he would turn out to be clearly better. All I was saying is that his career output to date has been better than Hunter's, which it has.

Whitfield wasn't being gifted games for being a #1 pick, he came into the league with footskills better than most midfielders and could provide a strong link on the outside.

Hunter really came on strong in the 2nd half of last year and showed a lot. It will be interesting to see if he maintains that form and becomes another vital cog to your already deep young midfield.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top