grant thomas

[Kenny_01]

Originally posted by Sera
what those will look like in 2-3 years is anyone's guess. Anything can happen to those players inbetween now and then. I mean look at Josh Fraser he looked like a star a few years ago and now look at him...

That's one way of looking at it.

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by Kenny_01
That's one way of looking at it.

He's in denial

 

[Au_Blue#24]

The lists are fairly comparable Kenny. How you think freo's is much better is due to your purple myopia.

I mean, you've got Pav and Judd, Kerr and Headland..... anyone can make a good argument for both lists.

Freo fans can bleat till thier hearts content, but we've got the runs on the board, remember rd 5 ??

Their are more important aspects of how your lists sounds or looks like on paper - and that will never will a premiership.

Its how the team gels with each other and the coach. How the coach instills discipline, and work ethic into players. This is something that WC has done better than most clubs in the last two years.

It is something Freo has always lacked.

 

[Kenny_01]

Originally posted by Au_Blue#24
The lists are fairly comparable Kenny. How you think freo's is much better is due to your purple myopia.

I mean, you've got Pav and Judd, Kerr and Headland..... anyone can make a good argument for both lists.

Freo fans can bleat till thier hearts content, but we've got the runs on the board, remember rd 5 ??

Their are more important aspects of how your lists sounds or looks like on paper - and that will never will a premiership.

Its how the team gels with each other and the coach. How the coach instills discipline, and work ethic into players. This is something that WC has done better than most clubs in the last two years.

It is something Freo has always lacked.

Anyone non-WCE would pick our list of youngsters over yours. You'd expect them to to because we have had low picks over the last 3 or 4 years.

What's this got to do with Rd 5? That's like me saying remember Rd. 16 last year? And your team has more established senior players than us.

And how do you expect them to win a premiership when they are just 21 years and younger? They are the core of our side so when they are 24/25, then we will hit our peak. And even now, we are doing ok.

Agree about the coaching part.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Kenny_01
So Frodo, what do ya reckon?

Which list of youngsters has more talent?

Sorry for butting in, but Fremantle.

Whether or not they will be a better team over the next few years is an entirely different question though.

 

[Mead]

Originally posted by Au_Blue#24
Their are more important aspects of how your lists sounds or looks like on paper - and that will never will a premiership.

Its how the team gels with each other and the coach. How the coach instills discipline, and work ethic into players. This is something that WC has done better than most clubs in the last two years.

It is something Freo has always lacked.

I said prior to this season, on paper Fremantle have one of the best lists in the comp- depending on how you define list. Their top echelon of players is outstanding- Pavlich, Hasleby, Headland and Bell all fit into the category of elite, and then they have a fair few people in the vein of Simmonds, Medhurst, Polak, Woods, McPharlin etc who are clearly pretty good players. Bias aside, I'm not sure which way I'd go if I had to argue whether the Eagles or Freo had a better selection of big names. You can put Gardiner, Cousins, Judd, Kerr, against the first four I mentioned, and its not an easy one. If Freo has a hole in their list, its just that its a shade uneven- you look at people like McManus, Walker and co. and they simply would not be getting a game with us.


As for why West Coast are better (and at this point in the season, we are, by any measuring stick you care to use) is some combination of chemistry and depth. We're sitting second on the ladder, despite having missed Wirrpunda, Kerr and Gaspar, our dominant FF is languishing in the WAFL due to two games of the type that Croad churns out every week, and we're still winning. We went up against Melbourne in Melbourne, and won sans our top #2 midfielders, our only real bona fide CHF, and our best back pocket player (and arguably, given he averages more defensive rebounds than anyone in the comp, the best one in the league) Send Freo to Melbourne minus Hasleby and Bell, Pavlich and Woods, and see how they go.

If you had to use a word for it, its chemistry. West Coast and Freo were probably in the same boat about 2 years ago- our team was shoddy due to crap drafting and overreliance on elderly sorts who'd won us flags a decade earlier, Fremantle were experiencing just how much fun you could have utilising the hacks that Neesham liked to draft with Drum's coaching smarts. By 2001, both teams were at rock bottom in terms of their list, skills and ethos.
When they both started on their road back under Connolly and Worsfold (when feeling particularly morbid, I still wonder how different the last two years would have been if Worsfold had accepted Fremantle's offer), both teams took different paths. West Coast made a conscious decision not to trade, backed the quality of the non-performers we had, and used draft picks for drafting- since Worsfold took over, we've traded for two players- Adkins and Chick, and the latter only happened because we got him at absolutely bargain basement prices.
We drafted pretty okay, and did delist a few- but with the exception of Harding, I think all of the guys who were pushed into retirement over the last few years were 'gap fillers' picked up by Judge- Merenda, Taylor, and Prior. The only exception was Harding, and lets not go there

Fremantle went for the big names, and traded for Farmer, Croad, Simmonds McPharlin and Headland, to name a few. They also did a fair amount of 'new broom' around the club, turning out people like Dodd and Shipp. I get the impression Fremantle's turnover of players has been significantly higher than West Coast's.

Both strategies have certainly improved the fortunes of either club over the dark Judge and Drum eras. The reason I think West Coast has advanced further than Fremantle so far is down to chemistry- by preserving our list and making sure the same people are still playing together, we've built a stable group who play together well, understand each other and work together. I think I remember reading that Brisbane not only have the most experienced list in the competition, they have the list that has played the most games together. The reason West Coast is substantially a better team than Fremantle at the moment doesn't have a huge amount to do with list quality, its just that we've been playing together long enough to gel.

 

[Au_Blue#24]

Originally posted by Kenny_01
Anyone non-WCE would pick our list of youngsters over yours. You'd expect them to to because we have had low picks over the last 3 or 4 years.

True, you have had the better picks over the last 5 years. But lets look at our top 4 V your top 4

ours: judd, kerr, sampi and cox

yours: pav, des, hase, medhurt

going on that - i wouldnt say it would be a one side affair, maybe slightly towards freo.

On another point, we continually hear Connelly go on about his core group of players being together for 10 years.

Thats a fairly optomistic claim, especially coming out of the freo camp who probably have the highest player turnover in the comp.

 

[Ripper]

That is 100% correct mead. Well done.

P.S. I like the fact that Splinter get mentioned in the same sentence as Pav, Haze & Bellie.

 

[iceman]

Good post Mead

Dont think anyone could find too many faults in your argument, both teams are definetly on the rise.

As to the youngsters, Freo have bigger name young players such as Polak, Pavlich and co but the Eagles have put a bunch of unknowns (ie: not top of the draft) players and have started to gell them into a team

 

[Kenny_01]

Originally posted by bunsen burner

Whether or not they will be a better team over the next few years is an entirely different question though.

Yeah agree, 100%. As Mead said, the Eagles are gelling better at the moment but they have also played longer together. They seem to have the right blend of players who compliment each other well.

 

[llosis]

When it gets down to it though, what does "best list" or "best young talent" (and the logie goes to...) have to do with it?

Potential is over-rated. Clubs are always looking for players with big upsides - potential to nurture and train before releasing onto the competition. Croad is a classic example of this. Athletically he has huge potential. But the guy does not produce results on the field. On form - what he actually does vs what he could do or threaten to do - he should not be playing AFL football. The AFL is littered with blokes with potential who aren't good footballers. Croad could become the next Kouta or he could become a nothing. Time will tell, "potential" or not.

THe other point is the media love potential. Why? Because it gives them somethin to talk about, hype up, sell their newspapers/advertising space with. A fella who is a good honest footballer without a huge upside but who produces week in and out (this year at least) - eg Chad Fletcher - is not considered to be on the same sort of level as a HEadland who over the course of his career has promised much and delivered little. The view generally is that Headland is the better player (based on potential) but Fletcher, based on results, has got to be considered the better player.

Potential is a dangerous gauge by which to judge a team. At the end of the day the list is important but I'd rather results on the board than the hope of potential year in and year out.

 

[Au_Blue#24]

Originally posted by llosis
. A fella who is a good honest footballer without a huge upside but who produces week in and out (this year at least) - eg Chad Fletcher - is not considered to be on the same sort of level as a HEadland who over the course of his career has promised much and delivered little. The view generally is that Headland is the better player (based on potential) but Fletcher, based on results, has got to be considered the better player.

excellent point

 

[noodle]

Originally posted by llosis
When it gets down to it though, what does "best list" or "best young talent" (and the logie goes to...) have to do with it?

Potential is over-rated. Clubs are always looking for players with big upsides - potential to nurture and train before releasing onto the competition. Croad is a classic example of this. Athletically he has huge potential. But the guy does not produce results on the field. On form - what he actually does vs what he could do or threaten to do - he should not be playing AFL football. The AFL is littered with blokes with potential who aren't good footballers. Croad could become the next Kouta or he could become a nothing. Time will tell, "potential" or not.

THe other point is the media love potential. Why? Because it gives them somethin to talk about, hype up, sell their newspapers/advertising space with. A fella who is a good honest footballer without a huge upside but who produces week in and out (this year at least) - eg Chad Fletcher - is not considered to be on the same sort of level as a HEadland who over the course of his career has promised much and delivered little. The view generally is that Headland is the better player (based on potential) but Fletcher, based on results, has got to be considered the better player.

Potential is a dangerous gauge by which to judge a team. At the end of the day the list is important but I'd rather results on the board than the hope of potential year in and year out.

i agree with you there llosis. If games were decided on potential the Saints would have the Grand Final wraped up.

 

[Kenny_01]

Originally posted by llosis

THe other point is the media love potential. Why? Because it gives them somethin to talk about, hype up, sell their newspapers/advertising space with. A fella who is a good honest footballer without a huge upside but who produces week in and out (this year at least) - eg Chad Fletcher - is not considered to be on the same sort of level as a HEadland who over the course of his career has promised much and delivered little. The view generally is that Headland is the better player (based on potential) but Fletcher, based on results, has got to be considered the better player.

Agreed to an extent but what has fletcher done before this year? And he has 2 years on Headland. And Headland at his best is pretty damn good, hence collected 16 Brownlow votes in half a season. He has only just produced good form over the last 2 weeks but if you were going to pick one of them for your side, you would pick Headland (well I would anyway ) because he is younger and has more scope for improvement and his best is better than Fletcher's best (as good as Fletcher is).

 

[TheRealBuzz]

Very happy with our list.

Cheers.

 

[nurries]

Originally posted by iceman
Good post Mead

Dont think anyone could find too many faults in your argument, both teams are definetly on the rise.

As to the youngsters, Freo have bigger name young players such as Polak, Pavlich and co but the Eagles have put a bunch of unknowns (ie: not top of the draft) players and have started to gell them into a team

Heres a few "unknowns" taken low in the draft or elevated.

Woods was taken @ 51 in the draft
Medhurst @ 56
Browne around 52
Haddrill - Rookie elevated
Haines - Rookie elevated
Grover - Rookie elevated
Sandilands - Rookie elevated
Hayden - Rookie elevated

 

[Streaker]

I think Grant Thomas and Haselby have done West Coast a favour by shifting the Media focus on to the Dockers. We have a big game coming up this week and all everyone is talking about is Freo and Haselbys Helmet. Great Stuff

 

[iceman]

Originally posted by nurries
Heres a few "unknowns" taken low in the draft or elevated.

Woods was taken @ 51 in the draft
Medhurst @ 56
Browne around 52
Haddrill - Rookie elevated
Haines - Rookie elevated
Grover - Rookie elevated
Sandilands - Rookie elevated
Hayden - Rookie elevated

Out of those, the players i have seen play and rate are:

Haselby - excellent player
Haddrill - seen him past couple of weeks, looks set to hold down a key defensive post
Hayden - good defender, has the wood on Phil Matera which shows how good he is/can be

Now, from the rest:

Woods - although he's had some good games, he hasnt convinced me he's that great. Maybe cos he's from the Gerard Neesham school is why im against him

Sandilands - giant of a player, but has he actually done anything yet to warrant him being a great future player?? Seems like the Spider Burton saga revisited

Grover - from what ive seen he hasnt been the best player, cant comment much more but hasnt really impressed me

Haines/Brown - havent seen in action, cant comment on them fairly, saw a little bit of Haines in the pre-season and looked pretty good

What it comes down to is, Freo like StKilda had a few seasons in a row where they picked the cream of the crop. Players such as Haselby, Pavlich, Brown, Polak and co plus the trading to recieve recieve Croad/McPharlin

Potential wise, Freo looks better with their crop of youngsters but until they get the wins on the board its just that, potential

 

[llosis]

Originally posted by Kenny_01
Agreed to an extent but what has fletcher done before this year? And he has 2 years on Headland. And Headland at his best is pretty damn good, hence collected 16 Brownlow votes in half a season. He has only just produced good form over the last 2 weeks but if you were going to pick one of them for your side, you would pick Headland (well I would anyway ) because he is younger and has more scope for improvement and his best is better than Fletcher's best (as good as Fletcher is).

Kenny you say Headland at his best is very good - I would agree. Then you say if you were going to pick one of them you'd pick Headland. I think most people would. But why? Maybe it is the issue of potential again. The upside on Headland is consider huge - but then again he's only shown that for half a season (in a team of absolute champions) out of the 4 and bit seasons he's been in the caper.

Based on production (pure statistics) though the picture is not so clear.

Chad Fletcher

Year Games Kicks Marks H.Ball Disp Goal
1999 1 1 1 1 2
2000 17 181 48 90 271 11
2001 20 253 81 126 379 8
2002 18 212 72 125 337 10
2003 7 115 33 67 182 4
Totals 63 762 235 409 1171 33


Des Headland

Year Games Kicks Marks H.Ball Disp Goal
1999 3 19 9 10 29 5
2000 9 48 22 24 72 2
2001 20 147 52 51 198 11
2002 20 293 139 95 388 34
2003 7 85 31 24 109 9
Totals 59 592 253 204 796 61

Both products of Subiaco - both at similar stages of their careers, they have played a similar number of game since debuting in 99.
Headland hada stellar season in front of goal last year with 34 but apart from that the figure stack in favour of Fletcher.

I am not trying to make a case for who is the better player - but this serves as an example that potential is not the best indicator of reality on the paddock. Fletcher has arguably had a better career to this point than Headland but, as you say Kenny, the popular opinion is that Headland is by far the better player; an opinion that seems to be based on the "what could be's". Having a team full of what could be's is a false economy and doesn't necessarily get you results (eg why St Kilda are favourite for premiers).

 

[Kenny_01]

What you have to rememeber is during Headland's first 2 or 3 seasons, when he did play, he spent a lot of the game on the bench. And he still is 2 years younger than Fletcher so he has time to make up for it.

 

[Sera]

Who cares what Grant Thomas says? We've never paid any attention to him before so why start now? With the amount of disinformation he spreads, you would think he would be in-line as the next Iraqi information minister!

 

[noodle]

Originally posted by Kenny_01
What you have to rememeber is during Headland's first 2 or 3 seasons, when he did play, he spent a lot of the game on the bench. And he still is 2 years younger than Fletcher so he has time to make up for it.

he's also a number 1 draft pick. it would be disappointing if he wasn't better.

 

[GoEagles]

Originally posted by RIPPER_46
Very astute man Grant Thomas. Dennis and Brad agreed with him tonight on 6 pee ahh.

If they agreed with Cornflakes then he must be right.

 

[GoEagles]

If Freo are better than us - they need to beat St Kilda by more then 70 points as thats what we beat them by a few weeks back. Then we'll see if Cornflakes is crisp or soggy.

 

[drexel]

Matthew Pavlich - Chris Judd......Judd

Paul Hasleby - Daniel Kerr......Kerr

Luke McPharlin - (career injury) - Macdougall........who cares

Des Headland- Andrew Embley (Embley's destroyed him in the last 2 games)...... Superstar Embley

Justin Longmuir - David Haynes...tie

Paul Medhurst - Ashley Sampi....Sampi's hair destroys medhurst.

Robert Haddrill - Glass...Hadrill

Aaron Sandilands -Cox.....Cox

Dion Woods
Roger Hayden
Graham Polak - Backline only players don't mean anything. We're talking match winners here.


Byron Schammer -
Daniel Haines
Andrew Browne - All no-names so far