Don't pack up that gold pass just yet

[Portia]

Yep

 

[crazy_big_al]

I think that kingers will be a player that will play most of his games for the magpies but will get a run when people get hurt. He is no longer in the best 25 but he is a good insurance policy to fall back on rather than a kid who may not be able to step up and at least contribute during the game and look a little lost

 

[PAfolwr]

Originally posted by Nicski
Yes that is pretty strange, Choco did have big wraps on him. And that seemed to continue this year as he was picked for the prelim final, only to be delisted anyway....which would get even more confusing if he were to be picked up again!

Just a quick note, didn't Kingsley win the medal in 1998, just before Mark started coaching?

Pre HBF days.

 

[Eago77]

Originally posted by mic59
Yes, I thought that too. I would have thought that with the demise of Nick Stevens Kingsley was going to have more of a role in midfield so I doubt very much if he will be picked up.

Food for thought. It's possible he could cover some of the slack left by Stevens going. One things for sure he wont get tagged unless he is having a belter and by then it may be too late.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by Eago77
Oh dear.

I'd much rather pick Paxman back up than Kingers.

This is what I don't understand.

You have plenty of HBF / midfield utility type players such as Poulton, Cassisi, etc who were being held back in their development by playing Kingsley in 2003 ... yet Paco coming off a better year than Kingsley is delisted when you lack key defensive position depth. Sure Thurstans should be persisted with at CHB & Wakelin can cover FB, but what if Thurstans continues to have injury problems or Bishop's form continues to slide. Would have thought Paxman deserved another year to ensure Thurstans established himself in the side.

 

[Portia]

Whatever young backman we draft at #15 should get plenty of game time at least. Or they're really sure we'll get Parry.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
This is what I don't understand.

You have plenty of HBF / midfield utility type players such as Poulton, Cassisi, etc who were being held back in their development by playing Kingsley in 2003 ... yet Paco coming off a better year than Kingsley is delisted when you lack key defensive position depth. Sure Thurstans should be persisted with at CHB & Wakelin can cover FB, but what if Thurstans continues to have injury problems or Bishop's form continues to slide. Would have thought Paxman deserved another year to ensure Thurstans established himself in the side.

Kingsley barely played half the season so I don't think he delayed anyone's development too much ... his absence in the latter part of the year (until the lead up to the finals) probably opened the door for Cassisi. But Kingsley shouldn't be on the list. He only survived because Port couldn't get a trade for Stevens and Choco's conservatism demanded that he have established options available on the list. I fear for player development next year tho if he does get fit. Especially after Russell and Clarkson talked him up on the weekend .. *sigh*

But it was time for Paxman to go too. He was solid but stolid. He became a completely negative defender and Port's defence isn't particularly rebounding at the best of times. Next year would've been one year too many like Meady ... and you can't afford that on short lists these days. I didn't think Bishop waned, he probably was our best tall defender again this finals series. Now that Morgan is gone, if we do get an injury to a KP defender, we're looking at White or Gilham to fill a role - which will at least give a young player some development opporunity.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by Ford Fairlane
Kingsley barely played half the season so I don't think he delayed anyone's development too much

Yes he did, he took finals experience.

But it was time for Paxman to go too. He was solid but stolid. He became a completely negative defender and Port's defence isn't particularly rebounding at the best of times.

All that said, who are we replacing him with? Wakelin and Bishop don't rebound much - although Bishop is memorable when he does, its pretty rare really. And PAXMAN has better defensive instinct than either of them. On that score, I can't see a good reason why Paxman needed to go.

Next year would've been one year too many like Meady ... and you can't afford that on short lists these days.

I don't reckon Meady had one year too long - he started well, got made into a scapegoat for a loss and spent 10 weeks performing on hack SANFL forwards. No wonder he wasn't up to speed when he was brought back for a final.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Originally posted by Porthos
Yes he did, he took finals experience.

All that said, who are we replacing him with? Wakelin and Bishop don't rebound much - although Bishop is memorable when he does, its pretty rare really. And Bishop has better defensive instinct than either of them. On that score, I can't see a good reason why Paxman needed to go.

I don't reckon Meady had one year too long - he started well, got made into a scapegoat for a loss and spent 10 weeks performing on hack SANFL forwards. No wonder he wasn't up to speed when he was brought back for a final.

On Kingsley, granted he took finals experience. Whether that equates to development is another matter. Also he probably kept Poulton ratehr than a young player out, which I don't think he should have. But would another losing 3 game finals series have developed him any more?

Paxman should be replaced with Thurstans. I don't have a problem with that. Personally I thought he was lucky to survive last year coming off a knee reco at 30+. There's time for generational change in the defence. They can't all go at once, but they couldn't all stay together. Paco was the most likely candidate. I don't want to see Hardwick and Montgomery in defence at the same time next year either. In fact I think Hardwick should be limited to a pinch hitting midfield role from now on. Unless it's raining.

We'll have to agree to disagree on Meady.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by Ford Fairlane
Kingsley barely played half the season so I don't think he delayed anyone's development too much ... his absence in the latter part of the year (until the lead up to the finals) probably opened the door for Cassisi. But Kingsley shouldn't be on the list. He only survived because Port couldn't get a trade for Stevens and Choco's conservatism demanded that he have established options available on the list. I fear for player development next year tho if he does get fit. Especially after Russell and Clarkson talked him up on the weekend .. *sigh*

When Kingsley came back, the likes of Cassisi and Poulton who were playing good football dropped out of your side. Kingsley isn't your future & he is taking the spot of better players IMO. You have ample young utility types who have been demanding more opportunities at the higher level.

Originally posted by Ford Fairlane
But it was time for Paxman to go too. He was solid but stolid. He became a completely negative defender and Port's defence isn't particularly rebounding at the best of times. Next year would've been one year too many like Meady ... and you can't afford that on short lists these days. I didn't think Bishop waned, he probably was our best tall defender again this finals series. Now that Morgan is gone, if we do get an injury to a KP defender, we're looking at White or Gilham to fill a role - which will at least give a young player some development opporunity.

Not going to disagree on Mead.

No doubt that I would have liked to have seen Thurstans playing a couple of years ago, but the fact is he was held back & hasn't fully established himself at AFL level. Even though I think he will make it, Paxman would have been worth keeping as insurance for another year - no guarantees that White or Gilham would step up if required. What if Wakelin gets injured for the medium term?

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
What if Wakelin gets injured for the medium term?

The definition of ambivalence.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
When Kingsley came back, the likes of Cassisi and Poulton who were playing good football dropped out of your side. Kingsley isn't your future & he is taking the spot of better players IMO. You have ample young utility types who have been demanding more opportunities at the higher level.


Not going to disagree on Mead.

No doubt that I would have liked to have seen Thurstans playing a couple of years ago, but the fact is he was held back & hasn't fully established himself at AFL level. Even though I think he will make it, Paxman would have been worth keeping as insurance for another year - no guarantees that White or Gilham would step up if required. What if Wakelin gets injured for the medium term?

I think an argument can be mounted that some players' development was delayed on a number of fronts. Shaun Burgoyne could have been dropped any time after half way thru the season but he was retained ... was he delaying a player's development? Michael Wilson was good with the Magpies and contributed to the Power, but was he any more deserving of a place in the Power side ahead of say Brett Ebert on anything other than reputation? Hardwick was lucky to be playing league late in the season too. Don't get me wrong, I'm no rap for Kingsley and I would have maintained his delisting. But I don't think all the ills of the world can be laid at his feet. A lot of players came back from injury late in the season and he can only keep one player out. Ultimately that decision comes from higher up than him.

As for keeping Paco for insurance, I have the same view of that as keeping Kingsley for insurance. It won't work. The coach has shown time and again that he will revert to type and select his trusted experienced players when it "matters". It's like that old chestnut about it being harder to get out of the Australian cricket team than into it. Port is like that.

They realise there may be problems if a KP defender falls over, hence the bid for Rawlings in trade week, but thanks to Stevens' intransigence it never happened. Losing the next most likely back up in Morgan was unfortunate then, but he wanted to leave. And I don't blame him. This time around they will be forced to blood young players and rightly so. If they can't play at least we'll know now and won't have to wait around 5 years for a handful of games and still not be sure ....

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by Ford Fairlane
I think an argument can be mounted that some players' development was delayed on a number of fronts. Shaun Burgoyne could have been dropped any time after half way thru the season but he was retained ... was he delaying a player's development? Michael Wilson was good with the Magpies and contributed to the Power, but was he any more deserving of a place in the Power side ahead of say Brett Ebert on anything other than reputation? Hardwick was lucky to be playing league late in the season too. Don't get me wrong, I'm no rap for Kingsley and I would have maintained his delisting. But I don't think all the ills of the world can be laid at his feet. A lot of players came back from injury late in the season and he can only keep one player out. Ultimately that decision comes from higher up than him.

As for keeping Paco for insurance, I have the same view of that as keeping Kingsley for insurance. It won't work. The coach has shown time and again that he will revert to type and select his trusted experienced players when it "matters". It's like that old chestnut about it being harder to get out of the Australian cricket team than into it. Port is like that.

They realise there may be problems if a KP defender falls over, hence the bid for Rawlings in trade week, but thanks to Stevens' intransigence it never happened. Losing the next most likely back up in Morgan was unfortunate then, but he wanted to leave. And I don't blame him. This time around they will be forced to blood young players and rightly so. If they can't play at least we'll know now and won't have to wait around 5 years for a handful of games and still not be sure ....

During the season when you had many injuries, you were still winning games & the younger players were contributing. Towards the end of the season many of these players were dropped even though they were playing well, for "name" players, based on repututations. I agree that Jnr Burger should have been dropped to give him a rocket for taking it easy (similar to what I was arguing for Ladhams & Bode at various stages - but AFC did drop them... eventually). I also, thought Hardwick & Bishop were lucky not to get dropped. Still can't see the sense of playing Kingsley in front of Poulton or Cassisi (or even Ebert).

The difference between Kingsley & Paxman is that you have several players ready to replace Kingsley - I don't think the same could be said for Paxman.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
During the season when you had many injuries, you were still winning games & the younger players were contributing. Towards the end of the season many of these players were dropped even though they were playing well, for "name" players, based on repututations. I agree that Jnr Burger should have been dropped to give him a rocket for taking it easy (similar to what I was arguing for Ladhams & Bode at various stages - but AFC did drop them... eventually). I also, thought Hardwick & Bishop were lucky not to get dropped. Still can't see the sense of playing Kingsley in front of Poulton or Cassisi (or even Ebert).

The difference between Kingsley & Paxman is that you have several players ready to replace Kingsley - I don't think the same could be said for Paxman.

Don't disagree with any of that. I see the retention of several players on reputation/experience/whatever, including Kingsley, as symptoms of the greater concern. I didn't agree with Kingsley being brought back on the basis of some questionably good games for the Maggies (lots of stats, major query over effectiveness), but I thought that about several players. There's no doubt he was selected ahead of more deserving players - the query I had was more about how much he arrested their development. He can only displace one player in the end.

I think Paxman had reached his use by date but you're right, there aren't several players to replace him - not obvious ones anyway. Maybe that says something about list management, or just dumb luck. Now it's about risk management and it's time to see if Thurstans, White and even Gilham are ready to stand up. Maybe even Ackland in some defensive role.

 

[Vindaloo Mat]

I see a role for Cornes in the backline...with White & Trdders up fwd.

Or even Tredders down back on occasion.

IF White can play then having White, Cornes and Tredders (with the off Lade or Primus) up fwd is too top heavy.

IMHO Cornes is the most likely of those to drop back.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by Vindaloo Mat
I see a role for Cornes in the backline...with White & Trdders up fwd.

Or even Tredders down back on occasion.

IF White can play then having White, Cornes and Tredders (with the off Lade or Primus) up fwd is too top heavy.

IMHO Cornes is the most likely of those to drop back.

If White can step up & hold down FF, it will make heck of a difference to your KPP options as you mentioned.

 

[crazy_big_al]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
If White can step up & hold down FF, it will make heck of a difference to your KPP options as you mentioned.

It seems that everyone thinks that white is going to play. I am not so convinced. I think that it would be great to allow either Tredders or Cornes go back and play at CHB because they both would do well there. but u could also play Lade just as a KPP up Fwd and then u do not need White, then one of those players can still play back.

 

[mic59]

Originally posted by crazy_big_al
but u could also play Lade just as a KPP up Fwd and then u do not need White, then one of those players can still play back.

Lade has been played as a key forward at differing times in his career. He has never been a success as a CHF, which you will generally find with most ruckmen, and he has only played a very few useful, not dominating games as a FF or FP. He is a good player to have in reserve to throw up forward during the game, but he could not be a KPP.

 

[PAfolwr]

Originally posted by mic59
Lade has been played as a key forward at differing times in his career. He has never been a success as a CHF, which you will generally find with most ruckmen, and he has only played a very few useful, not dominating games as a FF or FP. He is a good player to have in reserve to throw up forward during the game, but he could not be a KPP.

100% agree with all of that.