For all our obsession with flexibility...

[Drummond]

How much flexibility do we actually have? Tippett can play up forward and in the ruck. That’s great, but on the other hand it’s actually really bad. We have a potentially dominant key forward with the potential to kick 60 each year but our ruck stocks are so thin that he’s always having to be pulled away from where we need him most. What else? Scott Stevens once kicked 6 goals, but that was back in the days when Cam Faulkner was still being hyped up as the next McLeod. As great as that performance was, it was back in 2007 and futher attempts to get more performances like this have fallen rather flat. Who else in our side offers flexibility? Isn’t flexibility sort of like the all-rounder theme in cricket; they could be selected on either discipline? Tippett could be chosen as a forward or a ruckman, as for the rest of our squad, don’t see much evidence.

That brings me to my next point, how many players out there are truly flexible? Brendan Goddard is one; he can dominate in defence, in the midfield or in attack. Pavlich is another as he can turn it on up forward (as he did last night) or in the midfield. Ablett is probably another, best midfielder in the league while also able to go forward and kick 2 or 3. Goodes is another. The reoccurring theme is that these players are the ELITE players of the competition. You just don’t see bit players with super flexibility, it's just that they're so good at their natural positions. You see, I just don’t think flexibility is as big an issue as Neil Craig likes to make it out to be. Sure it’s a nice luxury to have but is it really worth putting such an enormous demand upon? Neil Craig’s reasoning as to why Taylor Walker wasn’t selected on the weekend. “We need to make sure that we have maximum flexibility”. Can’t get my head around that one. I think I saw Stevens in the defensive half of the ground maybe once on Saturday, I guess that’s more flexibility than Walker would have provided? I'd love to sit down with Craig and have him point out to me all the ways in which this side is flexible. I can't imagine he'd be able to come up with many, certainly not a significant amount more than clubs who put much less of a premium on this aspect of the game.

Perhaps ironically, I think a few of our younger players do have some degree of flexibility, but he hasn’t given them the chance to express it yet. I’m going to keep harping on it but I truly believe that Jared Petrenko could be a great little inside midfielder, in the very few times he’s been there this season he’s shown a distinct ability to get first hands on the ball, get hands free and win the hard ball. Myke Cook, drafted out of the TAC Cup as a wingman and small forward, yet no thought as to ever giving him a brief stint up forward, not even just to get a feel of what he’s capable of?

I know we love to draft players who we feel can play in multiple positions, but as I said, I think the whole “let’s get as much flexibility into the side as humanly possible” is wearing a bit thin. We seem to have gone out of way of late to draft players who can pinch hit here and there, yet to me I struggle to see the evidence that many are going to be able to cut it in multiple positions. Bottom line is you need gun midfielders, defenders, forwards and ruckmen, if that happens to be the ONLY positions they can perform in, then so be it. Maybe once every now and then a freakishly flexible footballer comes around, but it's rare. Having flexible footballers certainly works but it’s not the reason why premierships are won. It’s because of gun footballers who excel at their positions, end of story.

Apologies all, I bet you thought you'd never hear or see the word 'flexibility' more than you do at a Neil Craig press conference...

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I see flexibility a little differently than just being able to play in multiple positions.

For instance Porplyzia offers great flexibility as a forward. He has a strong pair of hands and is excellent on the lead plus he is quite adept at ground level. He can play out of the goal square or a bit higher up the ground. He can be the marking option or hang around at Tippett's feet. Can win the footy at a clearance too.

At the moment Porplyzia essentially plays the one position but is very flexible in the amount of ways he can influence a game. Whereas Walker is predominantly a lead and mark player.

It's the same with a defender. If the other team rotates Didak, Fraser and Dawes through the forward line, is the defender able to stay in that position and handle whatever match up comes his way? If they can, then it allows us to keep a stable structure and the opposition rotations don't really affect us.

If on the other hand we have a mid-sized defender who isn't comfortable being taken back to the goal square or isn't able to play on the quick, elusive types then we are constantly having to reshuffle our back six depending on the opposition set up. The most valuable defenders (like Mattner ) can play on smalls, talls and mids and offer great flexibility without necessarily changing positions.

That's what I've always taken flexibility to mean, more so than the ability to play forward, back and midfield. As you've mentioned, only the absolute champions like Goodes can dominate in a variety of roles.

 

[jenny61_99]

Carl would you put Dangerfield in that category?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Carl would you put Dangerfield in that category?

Not yet. He does have the ability to play around the ball or up forward of course, but I actually posted elsewhere (paraphrased below) that he needs to add some diversity to the way he wins the ball.

He gets a ridiculously high percentage of contested possessions which on one hand is a good thing, but on the other hand it means that he cops an absolute battering during games.

When Dangerfield goes into the midfield the only times he gets the footy is in the thick of the action with five guys hanging off him. He is rarely involved in a chain of possessions, he never runs to receive a handball and he never gets the ball in space. I know winning contested possessions is important but he needs to learn this other stuff to complement the work he does at the bottom of packs. And to ensure that he doesn't just get smashed on a weekly basis.

 

[WALL-e]

I think flexibility has been a trademark of the Rendell years, or even if you push it back to the Craig years, those players are only really just coming through.

I too don't agree with the justification of Walker's dropping.

But on the players you've mentioned as flexible, they're ELITE players and just guns wherever they play. I bet Riewoldt would be a gun CHB.

I think it's a lot of our older brigade that lack the versatility, McLeod and Goodwin excluded.

 

[Elite Crow]

How many positional changes do we make in a game? Not many, so why do we need flexibility?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

How many positional changes do we make in a game? Not many, so why do we need flexibility?

Very few which is why I think my definition of flexibility is more in tune with the Craig hymn book.

Flexibility for defenders is even more important now given that with our zone defence, any time they get the ball through it is basically a mad scramble to find your nearest opponent as we transition to man-on-man. For instance Doughty found himself on Tredrea a few times on the weekend. Luckily Tredders is fat, bald and slow so it worked out ok

 

[spexau]

Yeah I'm not really sure which sort of flexibility Craig goes on about. Whether it's being able to play multiple positions, or one position in multiples ways ala Porps. If it's the former then I don't agree with the thought process behind it. Why try and develop a potentially more than handy HBF/BP player in Petrenko into a sub-par FP/HFF? It doesn't make sense considering we wanted to push for the premiership this year. Wouldn't you play your BEST 22 in their BEST positions to get the BEST results?

I don't know, this season has been very frustrating so far. Hopefully we can somehow win against the Tigers and get some confidence back. I'd love to see Petrenko in the backlines, Cook in the forward line and Jaench in the midfield though. All would probably perform better than the other in the positions they played on the weekend.

 

[King Elvis]

How many positional changes do we make in a game? Not many, so why do we need flexibility?

Flexibility is over-rated.

 

[taylor_walker_13]

How many positional changes do we make in a game? Not many, so why do we need flexibility?

So players can be played out of position

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

So players can be played out of position

Ouch!

Lol.

 

[KUNG FU]

The way the game is played these days, you almost want 22 190cm players who are good contested mark, run 20m under 3.00, solid kick, good at ground level and can read the play, ie 22 Andy Ottens. This is the kind of flexibility that is important. Now Otten is also an example of positional flexibility, but his greatest strength is his ability to perform in most situations. We don't want players with obvious leaks in their game because clubs look to exploit that, putting the opposition on the strategic back foot. In the past you were able to bury a weaknesses by playing a player in a certain role. For example, you have a midfielder who was a clearance winner as a junior. Suddenly they hit AFL and they can't get their hands on it, or their disposal suffers under AFL pressure, you could chuck them into a tagging role or a BP. Or an outside midfielder who doesn't get into the right spots in the AFL, slide them onto a flank. These days, these positions are increasingly irrelevant and we now have 13 midfielders, a ruckman, 2 KPBs and 2 KPPs.

 

[chigwidden]

I wonder whether part of the emphasis on needing flexibility right now is about knowing that a number of our players are carrying injury. If you take in someone who can only play a single role, then any one of the injured guys going down means you're toast.

Bring in a player who can cover for one, two, three players who might go down during the game, and you might feel a bit more in control, and a bit more secure about the game being competitive. For Craig's demands for competitiveness, it almost makes sense.

For mine, I'd rather have a flexible interchange, but take the punt on strong position players. But hey, I don't coach, so, here's my salt shaker.

 

[chigwidden]

Also...

I was at the Swans game on Sat night, and was really interested in how Roos was playing his new players. Watching the rotations, especially once Seaby went out in the first minute, was an education.

One thing that particularly struck me was how he's building a team that trusts each other -- watch the hbf/pocket/wing changes, and how strong some of those combinations are getting after only a couple of weeks of match time. The swans are going to only get better at clearing from defence using their new men. Hannebery, White, Jetta, Richards, even Mumford, all switched along most positions along either wing. It was a good study in flexibility and using it effectively, while retaining the key positions where needed -- you aren't gonna move LRT, Reg Grundy or BRadshaw for love or money in that game).

I'd expected Swans to struggle this year, with so many new players and massive change in rotation, but it's working really well, and I think the Crows can learn from it.

 

[jackster83]

Flexibility is irrelevant compared to our diabolical skill level ATM. Seriously Bryan Strauchan has better footskills than a lot of our players.