Brad Crouch

[Bicks]

OK forgive my oversight there but the principle is the same......Dangerfield, B, Crouch, Sloane as opposed to B. Crouch and Sloane.

Bottom line is you do not lose a top 3 player in the competition without feeling the loss unless you are Hawthorn and have plenty of other proven, quality cover in the pipeline.

Dangerfield was our best midfielder and top 3 player in the competition. If people think that we are not going to feel that loss, then they are on some seriously strong shit.

I don't know that I necessarily agree with this....I expect our midfielders will be a lot more cohesive without the "see ball, get ball" Dangerfield in there "hogging" the clearances and play more of a team orientated clearance set up under Pyke who has gone to great lengths to push his "team" philosophy. Who could forget the Campo vs Dangerfield dust up because Patrick was not adhering to midfield set ups at centre ball ups?

 

[Stiffy_18]

I know the stats are somewhat skewed with Dangerfield playing a lot of his earlier years as a forward and having taggers in his back pocket in later years but it is scary just how good Brad Crouch has been once he has crossed the white line. The stats are at least an interesting, albeit somewhat skewed comparison

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/...1=3633&tid2=10&pid2=2310&type=A&fid1=C&fid2=C

 

[1970crow]

I honestly think we'll improve more by replacing Van Berlo and MacKay in the line up with capable players that have speed and class like Hampton & Seedsman as opposed to swapping Dangerfield with Brad Crouch.

No doubt about that at all.

 

[earlsta]

I know the stats are somewhat skewed with Dangerfield playing a lot of his earlier years as a forward and having taggers in his back pocket in later years but it is scary just how good Brad Crouch has been once he has crossed the white line. The stats are at least an interesting, albeit somewhat skewed comparison

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/...1=3633&tid2=10&pid2=2310&type=A&fid1=C&fid2=C

Brad also had a lazy 40 touches against a full strength Hawthorn midfield as a 19 year old in his..what was it? 13th game or something stupid like that.
Brad will be the better player IMO.

 

[1970crow]

I know the stats are somewhat skewed with Dangerfield playing a lot of his earlier years as a forward and having taggers in his back pocket in later years but it is scary just how good Brad Crouch has been once he has crossed the white line. The stats are at least an interesting, albeit somewhat skewed comparison

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/...1=3633&tid2=10&pid2=2310&type=A&fid1=C&fid2=C

Need the contested marking breakdown. Can't judge midfielder stats without it. Be like looking at ruckmen without running bounces.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I don't know that I necessarily agree with this....I expect our midfielders will be a lot more cohesive without the "see ball, get ball" Dangerfield in there "hogging" the clearances and play more of a team orientated clearance set up under Pyke who has gone to great lengths to push his "team" philosophy. Who could forget the Campo vs Dangerfield dust up because Patrick was not adhering to midfield set ups at centre ball ups?

But you are assuming that our approach will change. Do we know that for certain? Campo is still our midfield coach that had Dangerfield doing that for years. Walshy also preached team but Dangerfield still played the same way. Pyke's approach is very similar to that of Neil Craig. He is preaching the same things that Neil did when he took over as our head coach. Nothing wrong with that, or bad about it but we are assuming that just because Dangerfield has gone that our set up will change. We don't know that and if anything, judging by who is still in charge of the midfield or the set up that Pyke is preaching, there is a very good chance that we will be very similar in our approach. Win the contested ball, ground ball gets etc.... we should just have a lot more outside run now than we have in years.

Dangerfield's approach and claimed selfishness which I find laughable, certainly did not prevent Thompson from being a clearance and contested ball king for us (and leading the clearance stats over the years despite Dangerfield "hogging" them), nor did it have any impact on Brad Crouch's ability to win the contested ball and clearances when he shared the midfield duties with Dangerfield.

People make it sound that "see ball, get ball" or the "raging bull at the gate" approach that Dangerfield had is a negative when in fact is it one of the best qualities that an inside midfielder can posses. I want all of my inside midfielders to attack the contest and the ball in the same manner as Dangerfield. That is what separated average players from guns.

 

[Tex200]

I think in terms of his talent and production when he has been able to get on the park, there is little doubt that Brad Crouch is an A grader. Having said that, you are absolutely right in saying that we are way to quick to count on him when he has not been able to play a full season of AFL footy one in his AFL career. It's a massive IF for us and his talent level (A grade) is why he is our most important player for our chances in 2016. He comes back and plays a full season at his best, we are then a VERY different team to the one if he misses yet another year of football.

You're right and once I re read the post I edited...but you were too quick for me lol

 

[ad victoriam]

You're right and once I re read the post I edited...but you were too quick for me lol

Would you look at M Crouch being more of Thommo type replacement, tough, inside type, has a knack at getting the ball, not a noted runner (yet?)
While B Crouch like PD are in a class of there own. But alas we will compare them and there will plenty of debates about them.
I just hope we are having a conversation in 10 years about who will be both Brad and Matts replacements.

 

[Pdub]

OK forgive my oversight there but the principle is the same......Dangerfield, B, Crouch, Sloane as opposed to B. Crouch and Sloane.

Bottom line is you do not lose a top 3 player in the competition without feeling the loss unless you are Hawthorn and have plenty of other proven, quality cover in the pipeline.

Dangerfield was our best midfielder and top 3 player in the competition. If people think that we are not going to feel that loss, then they are on some seriously strong shit.

Although Ideal to have 3 a-graders in the midfield, there is only a certain amount of possessions in a game, so many midfield minutes available to the midfielders. Losing Dangerfield gives more minutes to Crouch and Sloane on the ball, lets them be the guys Sauce hits it towards more often. When you have 3 guns the 3rd guy isn't able to be as involved and be as good as he could be in a lesser midfield.

If the order is Dangerfield > Sloane > B.Crouch vs Sloane > B.Crouch > M.Crouch, B.Crouch will be a better more valuable player in the second than the first, just because he gets more opportunity.

When I look at the loss of Dangerfield I look at his stats and think can someone new replace them. Can someone replace his 18 Effective disposals, 0.6 goal assists, 0.9 Goals, 5.5 tackles and 5 inside 50s?

The effective disposals, Goal assists, tackles should be easily covered by imports. The 5 inside 50s might be harder but only averaging 0.6 goal assists to 5 inside 50s shows that his entries into 50 weren't as good as a Brad Crouch would with his neater skills. Almost a goal a game is great for a midfielder and that will be missed, but it's only 1 goal a game that needs to be created by someone else.

As impressive as Danger's individual statistics are, he did waste the ball a bit, if you take dangers average of 27 disposals per game and give them to Brad Crouch (which you can't do if they are in the same team), I think the team would be more dangerous. I think Brad will get more inside 50s and more score involvements per disposal than Dangerfield did.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Although Ideal to have 3 a-graders in the midfield, there is only a certain amount of possessions in a game, so many midfield minutes available to the midfielders. Losing Dangerfield gives more minutes to Crouch and Sloane on the ball, lets them be the guys Sauce hits it towards more often. When you have 3 guns the 3rd guy isn't able to be as involved and be as good as he could be in a lesser midfield.

If the order is Dangerfield > Sloane > B.Crouch vs Sloane > B.Crouch > M.Crouch, B.Crouch will be a better more valuable player in the second than the first, just because he gets more opportunity.

When I look at the loss of Dangerfield I look at his stats and think can someone new replace them. Can someone replace his 18 Effective disposals, 0.6 goal assists, 0.9 Goals, 5.5 tackles and 5 inside 50s?

The effective disposals, Goal assists, tackles should be easily covered by imports. The 5 inside 50s might be harder but only averaging 0.6 goal assists to 5 inside 50s shows that his entries into 50 weren't as good as a Brad Crouch would with his neater skills. Almost a goal a game is great for a midfielder and that will be missed, but it's only 1 goal a game that needs to be created by someone else.

As impressive as Danger's individual statistics are, he did waste the ball a bit, if you take dangers average of 27 disposals per game and give them to Brad Crouch (which you can't do if they are in the same team), I think the team would be more dangerous. I think Brad will get more inside 50s and more score involvements per disposal than Dangerfield did.

I am sorry but I don't subscribe to that theory at all. Eagles midfield or Cox, Judd, Cousins, Kerr and even Fletcher who was performing as a high level B grader and collecting insane possession counts would disagree. So would our midfield of yester years.

Bottom line is that we would all rather have another A grader in our team than not and it's not about possessions per game or anything like that. It is the impact they have on the game. Someone like Dangerfield will have a big impact on the game with his 25 touches but someone like Matthew Wright won't. It's the difference in class and impact that is the key here. Great players have bigger impact even with less stats than average players with more stats. Eddie Betts does not get more of the ball than other small forwards in the competition but he sure as hell has a hell of an impact on the game.

Number of possisions don't matter. The impact matters and no matter how we try to spin it, midfield class and depth is very important. Without it, you are not going to get too far. Premiership teams have great midfields and high quality players playing through there. It's the heat of the battle, arguably the most pressure cooked area of the ground so you want your cream of the crop in there because those types have the biggest impact on the game.

 

[Geoffa32]

People make it sound that "see ball, get ball" or the "raging bull at the gate" approach that Dangerfield had is a negative when in fact is it one of the best qualities that an inside midfielder can posses. I want all of my inside midfielders to attack the contest and the ball in the same manner as Dangerfield. That is what separated average players from guns.

I agree it is a very good attribute to have. Another good attribute to have is the ability to put the ball where your team mates can make use of it, or at least not down the opposition team's throat. Been watching a few of our games this off season and one thing that stands out to me even moreso now is that Danger is brilliant at winning the contest, he is manic in hitting the contest and winning it. But more times than not his possession goes against our advantage after this. The Hathorn Final is a great example of this, I am sure Clarko instructed his players to position for a Danger kick from centre.

Not saying we wont miss the guy. But he has a massive flaw for an inside ball winner. And I also wonder how many centre clearances he will win without Sauce. Can see why Geelong brought in Zach Smith, he is better than the Rucks they have had, but he aint no Sauce.


BTW, I see Matty Crouch as being a similar player. His attack on the ball at times this year was better than Danger at the same age and is building to be a very strong player. Just hope he can be better at positioning the ball after such a contest.

 

[Pdub]

I am sorry but I don't subscribe to that theory at all. Eagles midfield or Cox, Judd, Cousins, Kerr and even Fletcher who was performing as a high level B grader and collecting insane possession counts would disagree. So would our midfield of yester years.

Bottom line is that we would all rather have another A grader in our team than not and it's not about possessions per game or anything like that. It is the impact they have on the game. Someone like Dangerfield will have a big impact on the game with his 25 touches but someone like Matthew Wright won't. It's the difference in class and impact that is the key here. Great players have bigger impact even with less stats than average players with more stats. Eddie Betts does not get more of the ball than other small forwards in the competition but he sure as hell has a hell of an impact on the game.

Number of possisions don't matter. The impact matters and no matter how we try to spin it, midfield class and depth is very important. Without it, you are not going to get too far. Premiership teams have great midfields and high quality players playing through there. It's the heat of the battle, arguably the most pressure cooked area of the ground so you want your cream of the crop in there because those types have the biggest impact on the game.

Obviously everybody always wants more A-graders in the side, but they don't always make the difference you would hope. Geelong improved in 2011 without Ablett, Hawthorn lose Buddy and became a better side, Sydney gained buddy and are not a better side than their 2012 side without him or Tippet.

 

[Tex200]

Although Ideal to have 3 a-graders in the midfield, there is only a certain amount of possessions in a game, so many midfield minutes available to the midfielders. Losing Dangerfield gives more minutes to Crouch and Sloane on the ball, lets them be the guys Sauce hits it towards more often. When you have 3 guns the 3rd guy isn't able to be as involved and be as good as he could be in a lesser midfield.

If the order is Dangerfield > Sloane > B.Crouch vs Sloane > B.Crouch > M.Crouch, B.Crouch will be a better more valuable player in the second than the first, just because he gets more opportunity.

When I look at the loss of Dangerfield I look at his stats and think can someone new replace them. Can someone replace his 18 Effective disposals, 0.6 goal assists, 0.9 Goals, 5.5 tackles and 5 inside 50s?

The effective disposals, Goal assists, tackles should be easily covered by imports. The 5 inside 50s might be harder but only averaging 0.6 goal assists to 5 inside 50s shows that his entries into 50 weren't as good as a Brad Crouch would with his neater skills. Almost a goal a game is great for a midfielder and that will be missed, but it's only 1 goal a game that needs to be created by someone else.

As impressive as Danger's individual statistics are, he did waste the ball a bit, if you take dangers average of 27 disposals per game and give them to Brad Crouch (which you can't do if they are in the same team), I think the team would be more dangerous. I think Brad will get more inside 50s and more score involvements per disposal than Dangerfield did.

If that's going to become a reality then Crouch also has to iron out his deficiencies.

In the fabled 40 touch game v Hawks he only kicked the ball 11 times. A few weeks earlier in a 30 poss game v WCE he only kicked it 10 times.

We lost both games and you have to question whether he hurt the opposition. We need him doing as you suggested - kicking it i50

 

[Sanders]

None of the players around Pick 10 were of the quality of Crouch

dunno about that

Davis + Taylor Adams is a fair shout against crouch and brown

 

[BRL121]

I am sorry but I don't subscribe to that theory at all. Eagles midfield or Cox, Judd, Cousins, Kerr and even Fletcher who was performing as a high level B grader and collecting insane possession counts would disagree. So would our midfield of yester years.

Bottom line is that we would all rather have another A grader in our team than not and it's not about possessions per game or anything like that. It is the impact they have on the game. Someone like Dangerfield will have a big impact on the game with his 25 touches but someone like Matthew Wright won't. It's the difference in class and impact that is the key here. Great players have bigger impact even with less stats than average players with more stats. Eddie Betts does not get more of the ball than other small forwards in the competition but he sure as hell has a hell of an impact on the game.

Number of possisions don't matter. The impact matters and no matter how we try to spin it, midfield class and depth is very important. Without it, you are not going to get too far. Premiership teams have great midfields and high quality players playing through there. It's the heat of the battle, arguably the most pressure cooked area of the ground so you want your cream of the crop in there because those types have the biggest impact on the game.

This is so true. For me, we need to replace the match-winning ability that he who must not be mentioned had, not his possession count. I accept that his disposal was generally awful, and he could go missing for long periods, but he did have match-winning abilities. In supporting us recruiting an A-grade midfielder, I'm assuming that he will give us further match-winning skills.

 

[Danger in Texas]

dunno about that

Davis + Taylor Adams is a fair shout against crouch and brown

A fit Crouch > a fit Adams any day of the week.

Don't know about Davis, seems to be tracking okay at the Giants. Brown is at least on par with him though, IMO

 

[ok.crows]

in 2017, Thommo will no longer be on our list so what should have been a midfield made up on Dangerfield, B. Crouch, M. Crouch and Douglas all of a sudden will be a Dangerfield short.

... no it won't ... the will be down by a Dangerfield and a Thommo but possibly up by a Milera and a Gore. In 2017 it is probable that neither Milera not Gore will be first year rookies any more, and the acquisition of both Milera and Gore is a direct consequence of the loss of Dangerfield, and so they both need to be accounted for in evaluating the balance of the deal.

 

[Sanders]

A fit Crouch > a fit Adams any day of the week.

Don't know about Davis, seems to be tracking okay at the Giants. Brown is at least on par with him though, IMO

A fit crouch is more than a match for most, but do we have one?

 

[Pdub]

If that's going to become a reality then Crouch also has to iron out his deficiencies.

In the fabled 40 touch game v Hawks he only kicked the ball 11 times. A few weeks earlier in a 30 poss game v WCE he only kicked it 10 times.

We lost both games and you have to question whether he hurt the opposition. We need him doing as you suggested - kicking it i50

A handpass to Brodie Smith is better than a kick. But nearly all midfielders start off handpass heavy in the first few years, as confidence grows so does their kick to handball ratio.

 

[Paladin]

If that's going to become a reality then Crouch also has to iron out his deficiencies.

In the fabled 40 touch game v Hawks he only kicked the ball 11 times. A few weeks earlier in a 30 poss game v WCE he only kicked it 10 times.

We lost both games and you have to question whether he hurt the opposition. We need him doing as you suggested - kicking it i50

Agree but a Crouch handball >>> a Dangerfield kick

 

[1970crow]

If that's going to become a reality then Crouch also has to iron out his deficiencies.

In the fabled 40 touch game v Hawks he only kicked the ball 11 times. A few weeks earlier in a 30 poss game v WCE he only kicked it 10 times.

We lost both games and you have to question whether he hurt the opposition. We need him doing as you suggested - kicking it i50

I'd prefer a handball to a player with more time than a hurried kick forward every day of the week. We just need players who take the best option more often, if that's a handball, then so be it. When handballs are disadvantaging us, then re-training is needed. Something to take into account with Brad is that he hasn't had an uninterrupted run at it. You need a bit of confidence in your speed, fitness, strength to be able to fully utilise your talents. Brad will be in and under this year after a full year out, question is whether you want him handballing to someone outside the stoppage or hacking it forward without looking to keep his ratios where you like them.

 

[Tex200]

I'd prefer a handball to a player with more time than a hurried kick forward every day of the week. We just need players who take the best option more often, if that's a handball, then so be it. When handballs are disadvantaging us, then re-training is needed. Something to take into account with Brad is that he hasn't had an uninterrupted run at it. You need a bit of confidence in your speed, fitness, strength to be able to fully utilise your talents. Brad will be in and under this year after a full year out, question is whether you want him handballing to someone outside the stoppage or hacking it forward without looking to keep his ratios where you like them.

Thanks so much for the advice - if you'd bothered to actually read the post you might have noticed I was responding to someone else's proposition that Crouch would be a more prolific I50 player than Danger.

My point was, if that is to be the case he will need to kick more often.

We were not discussing the merits of hand balling v hacking the ball forward - you have injected that yourself.

Its pretty insulting to assume I'd prefer indiscriminate kicking than creating handball

 

[1970crow]

Thanks so much for the advice - if you'd bothered to actually read the post you might have noticed I was responding to someone else's proposition that Crouch would be a more prolific I50 player than Danger.

My point was, if that is to be the case he will need to kick more often.

We were not discussing the merits of hand balling v hacking the ball forward - you have injected that yourself.

Its pretty insulting to assume I'd prefer indiscriminate kicking than creating handball

Sorry, you confused me when you referred to ironing out his deficiencies. I read that to mean you thought this was an aspect to his game that needed attention/improvement. I've obviously missed the context. Although, I'd argue that there's a chance that Danger's goals and assists could come from the amount of time he has played as a forward as opposed to his midfield prowess of hitting up targets and kicking goals. The flip side to this is that this could explain why Crouch after so few games is not far behind Danger for possession averages.

Anyway, we probably won't see Brad using much of his pace to clear packs this year, but next year I think we'll see him kicking a lot more, Football Gods willing.

 

[Tex200]

Sorry, you confused me when you referred to ironing out his deficiencies. I read that to mean you thought this was an aspect to his game that needed attention/improvement. I've obviously missed the context. Although, I'd argue that there's a chance that Danger's goals and assists could come from the amount of time he has played as a forward as opposed to his midfield prowess of hitting up targets and kicking goals. The flip side to this is that this could explain why Crouch after so few games is not far behind Danger for possession averages.

Anyway, we probably won't see Brad using much of his pace to clear packs this year, but next year I think we'll see him kicking a lot more, Football Gods willing.

Look I won't completely duck from a position where I would like to see a more even kick to handball ratio, however I would never want to see it evened up via indiscriminate kicking for the sake of it.

Kids a jet and at the end of the day I think we all just want to see him playing and backing his own judgment

 

[Coopers]

Bottom line, crouch is still unproven. Looks the goods, but hasn't had a whole season yet to put it together.