Ivan Maric

[Kane McGoodwin]

We had to play Kenny McGregor at CHF in his rookie year and it took him 3 years to recover. Tom Gilligan was absolutely fed to the wolves in his rookie year, playing his first game or close to it in the very first showdown. He got murdered in that game and I am sure was a prime reason he went home to Vic. These kids ie. the big lads need time to mature, there is no need to rush them into the side apart from injuries. Jonathon Ross and Chrid Groom's bodies were not ready either and both got injured badly. Fungus Watts was ALWAYS going to go to Daddy. Forget him, think of him as a poor man's ANGWIN.

Are you talking about maturity physically or mentally? Maric already has a sold build - certainly more than those you have mentioned above. Also, he has a had a full year of solid SANFL footy. How is playing him for 10mins a quarter as a backup to Biglands throwing him to the wolves? I'm not asking for him to lead our rucks or play a key role like CHF.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Point is, quite simply you reward for not age. If the kids are good enough, they will get games. If not its not an issue. As I said, NC has shown that he will pick kids if their form warrants it. He picked up VB every chance he got. He gave Knights a couple of games because his form warranted it. He has given Jericho a game when he deserved it. He picked Bock when his form warranted it. If the kid's form warrants a selection, he will get picked. If it doesn't, he will play SANFL. Simple as that.

You really can't argue with that logic

 

[Macca19]

I think if Marics form warrants a game then give him a game. He was quite good this year. A couple of flaws that he needs to work on but his actual ruckwork is excellent. His flaws include not getting to enough contests when playing kick behind the play and as Stiffy said he does drop quite a few marks.

He still showed good signs that he will become a good player. If he has good form then it wouldnt hurt it give him a few games.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

Whilst I do agree you only give a spot on the final 22 as a reward for effort on the track and in the magoos, but injury and or suspension plays a big part in when a player gets their opportinities not when they are ready as we all know. Just like Gilligan. This will test their strength of character not just the physical side of their game. Tom wasnt upto it and we found out so everyone moved on. Ivan will get a couple iMO because we cant be so lucky with injury again could we? If we do then ofcourse he must earn his call up, but it one of the big 2 go down then we have no choice.

I feel as he has come on so well from when we picked him up last year with a good pre season (and dont forget he started behind the eight ball with tendinitis) this year, there should be nothing stopping him from getting a couple of games next year. But he must put everything into it. Character building is just as important as body building.

I wait with baited breath (have to start cleening my teeth) to see if he takes it not given it.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

I honestly don't see what the rush is with ruckmen?????? If we were talking about midfielders and to lesser extent KPP then I would be with you 100% but for crying out loud we are talking about ruckmen here. They generally take 3 years just to get ready for the rigours of AFL footy. 3 years just so they can crack a debut game not be established players in the system.

Why is it a must to give ruckman time next year?????? We have Biglands and Clarke next year. 2 experienced players who have been there and done it before. 2 players that complement each other well. We also have Hudson who is recovering from the knee reconstruction. What is wrong with playing the experienced 2 and giving a game here and there to Maric and/or Meesen when the opportunity arises??????? Why must we play them in an important role??????

In 2007 we will still have Biglands and Hudson coming off a knee reco. By 2007 I suspect one if not all 3 of the young ruck prospects will be ready. By then Biglands will be nearing the end as a footballer and Hudson will be just getting his feel of the game after a knee reconstruction.

If we didn't have Husdon on our list then I would be 100% with you about blooding these kids but the point is we have a player there who is our #1 ruckman.

Personally, I will be fine if neither of our young rucks don't get a regular season game for us in 2006. However, I woudl be one peeved off individual if players like Van berlo, Knights, et al are not blooded next year.

We are fine in a ruck department regardless if there kids come on next year or not. We will struggle in the midfield down the track with we don't start bloodign them NOW. Blooding ruckman can wait. Blooding midfielders can't.

How would you blood them Stiff?

 

[marvin]

Maric should play ahead of Clarke????? Based on what????? Age?????

Because it certainly isn't on form

Form is only one factor in selection. If it was the only criteria, Chris Ladhams would have played more than zero games for the Crows in 2005. And if it was the only criteria, a half fit Matthew Clarke or a semi-mobile Rhett Biglands would never have played in Round 1 ahead of a fit John Meesen (who had good pre-season form under his belt).

Off the top of my head, Skipworth. Got thrown to the wolves very early. He made his AFL debut before he made his SANFL debut and as a concequence he got found out at AFL level early and it took him years to recover from it. Even getting delisted along the way and spending time on the rookie list.

You could possibly argue the same thing about Reilly. Got a game when he clearly wasn't ready. Looked like a boy in man's land and arguably he hasn't come on as well as expected by both the club and the supporters.

Josh Fraser from Collingwood. Wasn't expected to play much in the first year, got thrown to the wolves early and has never reached his potential.

Those are just 3 example off the top of my head. I am sure there are many more example if we really sat down and analysed each case separately.

3 pretty poor examples, Stiffy.

- are you seriously saying that the deficiencies that are in Skipworth's game (such as the inability to kick a football more than 35 metres) are because he made his AFL debut before his SANFL one?

- Brent Reilly had more SANFL experience and form than plenty of other guys who've gone on to better things - Nick Stevens, Tredrea, Peter Burgoyne, Tyson Stenglein...

- Reilly and Skipworth have played 38 and 44 games respectively. Aren't you one who advocates waiting 50+ games to judge a player?

- Besides which, Reilly and Skipworth are both midfielders. Aren't you also the same person who is arguing elsewhere in this thread that we need to be throwing midfielders to the wolves?

- Here's links comparing Josh Fraser's 2004 to the 2004 AA ruckman and Josh Fraser's 2003 to the 2003 AA ruckman. He's not far short of the elite ruckmen in the competition at ages 21/22. He may not be the new Polly Farmer, redefining footy as we know it, but most clubs would kill for a 23 year old player with those levels of production.

I'm sure you can come up with more cases of guys who haven't kicked on, but for every one you do, I am sure I can match it with a Riewoldt, a Haselby, a Cameron Bruce, a Makepeace, a Ben Johnson, a Jonathon Brown - guys who got a quick immersion, found their feet and flourished.

 

[GoSarge]

Form is only one factor in selection. If it was the only criteria, Chris Ladhams would have played more than zero games for the Crows in 2005.

Attitude is another thing aswell. If he had his head screwed on, he'd have definitely got a game as his form warranted it. Ladhams is probably the exception to the rule in this case, as he was tearing up the SANFL at times.

I'm sure you can come up with more cases of guys who haven't kicked on, but for every one you do, I am sure I can match it with a Riewoldt, a Haselby, a Cameron Bruce, a Makepeace, a Ben Johnson, a Jonathon Brown - guys who got a quick immersion, found their feet and flourished.

Some of these players were played because the club they played for were were forced to play them, either because of a severe shortage of talent or injuries. Riewoldt and Haslebyby are good examples.

Our club is not in the situation where we have to throw Maric and Meesan in to AFL action, but if their SANFL form warrants their selection (ie good ruck work and good around the ground field work), then I can see merit in the idea that they replace Clarke or Biglands at AFL level (probably Clarke).

All I am saying is that they display good solid form at SANFL level before they are promoted. Surely that has to be a pre requisite for an AFL debut ?

 

[GoSarge]

The Crows played Gilligan after not many games.

From what I can remember, at the time when Gilligan was played we had the following injuries : Rehn, Pittman, Chalmers, Robran.

Gilligan was played purely out of desperation for big men.

 

[marvin]

From what I can remember, at the time when Gilligan was played we had the following injuries : Rehn, Pittman, Chalmers, Robran.

Gilligan was played purely out of desperation for big men.

Your recollection is correct. Aaron Keating broke his pelvis in Round 1; Rehn didn't get fit till Round 5; and Pittman went down early in Round 2 (the "pathetic" game). Brent Chalmers and Matthew Robran were both out, as were Peter Caven and Ashley Fernee.

The only players who we could throw in the ruck at that stage were Tom Gilligan, backed up by the one and only Barry Standfield.

A bit like 1999 when we had the Matthew Golding / Lucas Herbert era.

 

[GoSarge]

Your recollection is correct. Aaron Keating broke his pelvis in Round 1; Rehn didn't get fit till Round 5; and Pittman went down early in Round 2 (the "pathetic" game). Brent Chalmers and Matthew Robran were both out, as were Peter Caven and Ashley Fernee.

The only players who we could throw in the ruck at that stage were Tom Gilligan, backed up by the one and only Barry Standfield.

A bit like 1999 when we had the Matthew Golding / Lucas Herbert era.

Our 99 ruck stocks make me cringe even now.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Why is it we need to make a 1000 different excuses as to why we don't play our youngsters earlier. Other teams do it. What do our guys have some sort of defect that makes them implode if they play regular AFL footy before they turn 21 and have played 50 games of sanfl. No wonder we're known as the conservative club.

Using Skippy and Gil etc as examples of why not to play youngsters too early is ludicrous - how about they weren't good enough to begin with, not
they were burnt out.

The smell of Gary Ayres still lingers.

 

[marvin]

Attitude is another thing aswell. If he had his head screwed on, he'd have definitely got a game as his form warranted it. Ladhams is probably the exception to the rule in this case, as he was tearing up the SANFL at times.

True. It's attitude. It's fit for the job required. It's player development. It's NOT just form.

Some of these players were played because the club they played for were were forced to play them, either because of a severe shortage of talent or injuries. Riewoldt and Haslebyby are good examples.

Our club is not in the situation where we have to throw Maric and Meesan in to AFL action, but if their SANFL form warrants their selection (ie good ruck work and good around the ground field work), then I can see merit in the idea that they replace Clarke or Biglands at AFL level (probably Clarke).

All I am saying is that they display good solid form at SANFL level before they are promoted. Surely that has to be a pre requisite for an AFL debut ?

I'd dispute that good form at SANFL level is a pre-requisite. Why should a kid who burns the track up in pre-season, gets picked for the Wizard Wok and plays well there have to go back to Noarlunga or whereever and demonstrate good form to get a game? If that's the case, why bother playing the pre-season? It also disadvantages interstate draftees. If we'd been in the position to get Cooney or Griffen the last few years, they'd be eligible for the senior side in Round 1 because they'd played well in the SANFL, but by that logic, we'd never pick a Judd or a Ball or a Dal Santo in Round 1 no matter how good they looked in training and in pre-season.

Who knows who we'll draft this year yet, but we've got a real imbalance at the bottem end of our list. Of the 5 guys on our list who haven't played a game yet, we've got 3 ruckmen, and Gibson as another KPP type. I just don't see how we can afford not to give at least one of them a decent try at AFL level, because if not, we're only 1 injury to Biglands or Hudson away from revisiting 1999 all over again.

 

[Stiffy_18]

How would you blood them Stiff?

By giving them a game when their form warrants it and I am not saying cameo appearences off the bench. I am talking about playing some 80% of the game time. Play them in peripheral positions for majority of their game time and give them a bit of a run in the midfield if they are up to it.

Also when you get someone like Doughty and say Van Berlo with similar form and both have a claim on the spot in the 22, you pick up the one with more upside down the track.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Form is only one factor in selection. If it was the only criteria, Chris Ladhams would have played more than zero games for the Crows in 2005. And if it was the only criteria, a half fit Matthew Clarke or a semi-mobile Rhett Biglands would never have played in Round 1 ahead of a fit John Meesen (who had good pre-season form under his belt).

I never said it was the only criteria. I never said that. However, form is one of the many aspects as to why a player gets picked. No one gets picked if their form is not up to it no one. If their form is good, their work ethic is good, and other aspects of their game that you might be looking for are good then of course you play them. I never said don't play them. All I said is don't play them unless they earn that spot. A lot of people here seem to be suggesting we play Maric instead of Clarke because he is the future and Clarke isn't. I disagree with that because if Clarke is in better form he should play.

3 pretty poor examples, Stiffy.

- are you seriously saying that the deficiencies that are in Skipworth's game (such as the inability to kick a football more than 35 metres) are because he made his AFL debut before his SANFL one?

No I am not saying that but what I am saying is that after his AFL denut against Sydney in round 1, Skippy was so much out of his depth that his confidence suffered. You make it sound like the skills are the only pre-requisite to play when clearly its not. If it were then no player would have a form slump ever. I am talking about the phsychological impact these things have on players.

- Brent Reilly had more SANFL experience and form than plenty of other guys who've gone on to better things - Nick Stevens, Tredrea, Peter Burgoyne, Tyson Stenglein...

Again you are not comparing apples with apples because every player is different. Some players are mentaly tough enough to start straight away, others take a bit of time to mature, some players are thrown in out of desperation because there is no one better to take their spot. Just for the record, Stenglein had more SANFL experience than Reilly when he got his AFL debut. Lets remember that Reilly spent half of his first year playing in Sturt reserves and he got called up to AFL football against St. Kilda to cover for injured Kane Johnson after only about a month of decent form in Sturt seniors. It was as plain as daylight that he wasn't ready at the time both mentally and physically.

- Reilly and Skipworth have played 38 and 44 games respectively. Aren't you one who advocates waiting 50+ games to judge a player?

Yes I am advocate of that. However there are certain things that are noticable. Prior to his debut, I have never seen Reilly shirk a contest. Never. And I have watched quite a few of the Clader cannons game that year and I have seen him play in SANFL that year. He got found out and he became more timid. Its not what the exposure did for him physically, its what impact it has on a youngster mentally. Plus his overall football ability at the time were no anywhere near the AFL standard.

- Besides which, Reilly and Skipworth are both midfielders. Aren't you also the same person who is arguing elsewhere in this thread that we need to be throwing midfielders to the wolves?

Again, there is throwing them to the wolves and then there is bringing them along slowly. Playing them in the guts for prolonged time does more harm than good. Playing them on the flanks and giving them occasional run in the guts is a proven way to go about it.

Secondly, are you seriously suggesting that same criteria applies to ruckman and midfielders?????? Midfielders you can bring along slowly by playing them on flanks. Ruckman, you have no choice but to play them in the ruck and if they are not ready then good luck.

Roo, McLeod, Edwards, Goodwin, Shirley, Stenglein, Kane Johnson et all have all started their careers on flanks rather than the guts. They gradually got moved to the midfield where they have blossomed into very good players.

- Here's links comparing Josh Fraser's 2004 to the 2004 AA ruckman and Josh Fraser's 2003 to the 2003 AA ruckman. He's not far short of the elite ruckmen in the competition at ages 21/22. He may not be the new Polly Farmer, redefining footy as we know it, but most clubs would kill for a 23 year old player with those levels of production.

Those stats are all well and good but you cannot seriously tell me that Josh Fraser has the same impact on games as Jeff White or Adam Goodes??????

Stats can be manipulated any way you want to prove a certain point but there is no way in hell you can convince me that Fraser had similar impact on the games in 2003 to the impact 2 AA ruckman had. Bearing in mind that Adam Goodes won a brownlow in 2003. Man thats just laughable.

I'm sure you can come up with more cases of guys who haven't kicked on, but for every one you do, I am sure I can match it with a Riewoldt, a Haselby, a Cameron Bruce, a Makepeace, a Ben Johnson, a Jonathon Brown - guys who got a quick immersion, found their feet and flourished.

Again, there are players that can hadle it and those that can't. Some players you mentioned were in a situation where there was no one better at the time. Reiwoldt hardly played in his first year because of injury and in the case of Haselby there was no one better to take his spot. Jonathan Brown was as a ready made footballer as you could get.

I will say again, Craig has shown this year that he is prepared to play youngsters if he thinks they are ready and their form warrants selection. He had no hesitation in giving the kids a game in their first year. Van Berlo played 11 games in his first year despite being built like a insect. Hell he even played him in an AFL final. If we did that to Reilly in his first year we would have to submit him to Glenside. He gave Knights a taste of it because he though that the kid is ready for it. He didn't give Meesen a taste of it because he though the kid is miles off. Maric showed promising signs but there is no way in hell he was ready for AFL footy with what he has shown in SANFL. He has been good but not THAT good.

Again as I have said throughout this thread, if Maric makes a clear claim for a spot of a 1st or 2nd ruckmen than of course you pick him instead of Clarke or Biglands. What I am against, is giving him charity games just because he is 20.

 

[GoSarge]

I'd dispute that good form at SANFL level is a pre-requisite. Why should a kid who burns the track up in pre-season, gets picked for the Wizard Wok and plays well there have to go back to Noarlunga or whereever and demonstrate good form to get a game?

Ok, perhaps in that instance, I'd agree that you'd have to look closely at giving him a game for round 1, bearing in mind that the tempo of the game in the wizard wok cup is a bit slower than AFL. His direct opponents would also have to be taken in to consideration also. If he kicks David Fanning's ass in a pre season game, I'd be less than impressed than if he took it right up to someone like, say, Jeff White or Spider.

I'm basically saying, and I think Stiffy is also saying, string some solid senior games together before you're selected - No charity games as others are alluding to.

 

[Lefty]

Ok, perhaps in that instance, I'd agree that you'd have to look closely at giving him a game for round 1, bearing in mind that the tempo of the game in the wizard wok cup is a bit slower than AFL. His direct opponents would also have to be taken in to consideration also. If he kicks David Fanning's ass in a pre season game, I'd be less than impressed than if he took it right up to someone like, say, Jeff White or Spider.

I'm basically saying, and I think Stiffy is also saying, string some solid senior games together before you're selected - No charity games as others are alluding to.

I agree with what you guys are saying.

However, it does make me wonder why Nathan Van Berlo was picked & played for 11 games in 2005 (Rounds 3-5, 11, 14-18, & 22) when quite often his form at South Adelaide (& the Crows) didn't warrant a spot.

Check out his stats for the Crows :-

http://www.footywire.com/fw/web/ft_player_games?pid=1507

Hardly awe inspiring are they ?

Yes I know he's young, spent time on the bench, and the balance of the team required a defender type more than a midfield type of player.

That being said I can't help thinking of the term "charity games" and how it definately applies to Van Berlo.

In comparison Chris Knights was blitzing them down at Woodville Oval and yet only played the 2 games (Rounds 15 & 16) which he thoroughly deserved to play.

I am still to be convinced Van Berlo will deliver the goods at AFL level but given he seems to be a Craig favourite he is a certainty for the first team.

So, whilst I agree with what you guys are saying it doesn't seem to be put into practise in our team. Thus one can only assume that one out of Maric or Meeson will be given game time this year even if their form doesn't warrant inclusion (based on the "Van Berlo Charity Game" factor).

 

[marvin]

I never said it was the only criteria. I never said that. However, form is one of the many aspects as to why a player gets picked. No one gets picked if their form is not up to it no one. If their form is good, their work ethic is good, and other aspects of their game that you might be looking for are good then of course you play them. I never said don't play them. All I said is don't play them unless they earn that spot. A lot of people here seem to be suggesting we play Maric instead of Clarke because he is the future and Clarke isn't. I disagree with that because if Clarke is in better form he should play.

I've got no issue with Clarke being picked ahead of Maric last year when Hudson went down, despite being an advocate of a youth policy. We needed to make that decision last year, going in to a finals series. Same with going for Massie in the 1st final.

However, I would argue that it's different this year. Say, for example, Torney goes down early in the year. I'd advocate picking Van Berlo over Massie, even if Massie's form for Norwood was better, and I suspect you'd agree.

If the form line is Clarke (brilliant) vs Maric (terrible), then I'm not advocating picking Maric. If the form line is Clarke (good) vs Maric (OK) then I think that the upside / future issues tilt things Maric's way in my mind.

No I am not saying that but what I am saying is that after his AFL denut against Sydney in round 1, Skippy was so much out of his depth that his confidence suffered. You make it sound like the skills are the only pre-requisite to play when clearly its not. If it were then no player would have a form slump ever. I am talking about the phsychological impact these things have on players.

You've never seen a kid look more out of his depth than Nick Riewoldt in his first game, either. Barely got a touch, fell over his feet more than once, dropped chest marks, saw his side get done by nearly 100 points and his coach get sacked.

Now, that could be psychologically shattering to a some players, but obviously Riewoldt survived.

Of course every player is different, but I think it's a bit of a "one size fits all" approach that would have every young player having to mature in the SANFL to get ready for their AFL debut. Who's to say, as much as Skipworth was intimidated and set back by debuting too early, others may not be set back by debuting too late, thinking they have to be the perfect SANFL footballer to make an impact in the AFL?

Again you are not comparing apples with apples because every player is different. Some players are mentaly tough enough to start straight away, others take a bit of time to mature, some players are thrown in out of desperation because there is no one better to take their spot.

Isn't that what we're both arguing? Every player is different. A player that takes time to mature should be certainly be given that time. A player that has exploded forwards from being a raw, converted basketballer to a legitimate first team SANFL player within 6 months is probably maturing more quickly than anticipated, I would have thought, and to me that shows the mental maturity that would mean that AFL exposure would not be a crippling setback to his long term development - probably the opposite.

Yes I am advocate of that. However there are certain things that are noticable. Prior to his debut, I have never seen Reilly shirk a contest. Never. And I have watched quite a few of the Clader cannons game that year and I have seen him play in SANFL that year. He got found out and he became more timid. Its not what the exposure did for him physically, its what impact it has on a youngster mentally. Plus his overall football ability at the time were no anywhere near the AFL standard.

But did that happen because he played 10 minutes against St Kilda in his first year, or because he got his collarbone busted a few weeks later for Sturt? There's no doubt that a serious injury can change a player's style - witness Matthew Robran pre-1993 and post-1993 overhead, or James Begley post Pickett.

Again, there is throwing them to the wolves and then there is bringing them along slowly. Playing them in the guts for prolonged time does more harm than good. Playing them on the flanks and giving them occasional run in the guts is a proven way to go about it.

Reilly as a youngster was hardly rushed along - 1 game in 2002, 6 more the next year.

Secondly, are you seriously suggesting that same criteria applies to ruckman and midfielders?????? Midfielders you can bring along slowly by playing them on flanks. Ruckman, you have no choice but to play them in the ruck and if they are not ready then good luck.

You can always go with 3 rucks. We did it successfully in 2 grand finals, including one where there was less interchange options _and_ we lost 2 players by quarter time. Letting your young ruckman develop as a forward while they develop their strength and endurance is also a proven tactic.

Those stats are all well and good but you cannot seriously tell me that Josh Fraser has the same impact on games as Jeff White or Adam Goodes??????

Stats can be manipulated any way you want to prove a certain point but there is no way in hell you can convince me that Fraser had similar impact on the games in 2003 to the impact 2 AA ruckman had. Bearing in mind that Adam Goodes won a brownlow in 2003. Man thats just laughable.

Well, in 2004 (his last real season), AA ruckman Jeff White got 15 Brownlow votes and Josh Fraser was the next best ruckman with 9. White had 4 BOGS and 3 single votes, and Fraser had 3 BOGS.

My point is simply that Josh Fraser is by no means a dud. Statistically, he's been just a fraction below the AA ruckmen in the last 2 years he played, and he was the best player (or nearly so) for his side in 2 grand finals. Throwing him into the deep end has not turned him in to Romano Negri. He's still a very good player, coming in to the prime years of his career.

Fraser's ability/influence is easily overlooked because (a) he plays ruck in a different way to some - less dropping across half back and more moving forward as an attacking option, and (b) being drafted as number 1 to the most public club in the land meant that the spotlight was more intense what has been on Travis Johnstone (who was supposed to be the best midfielder in 10 years) for example.

Again, there are players that can hadle it and those that can't. Some players you mentioned were in a situation where there was no one better at the time. Reiwoldt hardly played in his first year because of injury and in the case of Haselby there was no one better to take his spot. Jonathan Brown was as a ready made footballer as you could get.

So your argument is that a player who is thrown in early has a better chance of reaching their potential if they make their debut due to extentuating circumstances, be it injury or an ordinary list around them?

What else is the difference between Riewoldt/Haselby/Brown and Reilly/Skipworth/Fraser? They all debuted earlier than form would dictate.

I will say again, Craig has shown this year that he is prepared to play youngsters if he thinks they are ready and their form warrants selection. He had no hesitation in giving the kids a game in their first year.

He's debuted 2 players in 34 games. Let's not get carried away.

Van Berlo played 11 games in his first year despite being built like a insect. Hell he even played him in an AFL final. If we did that to Reilly in his first year we would have to submit him to Glenside.

Reilly played in an AFL final in his 7th game.

 

[marvin]

Rehn hardly looked comfortable as Mickan's back up

You are right - he looked better than him very quickly. Round 18 debut, Round 24 3 Brownlow votes.

 

[GoSarge]

I agree with what you guys are saying.

However, it does make me wonder why Nathan Van Berlo was picked & played for 11 games in 2005 (Rounds 3-5, 11, 14-18, & 22) when quite often his form at South Adelaide (& the Crows) didn't warrant a spot.

Check out his stats for the Crows :-

http://www.footywire.com/fw/web/ft_player_games?pid=1507

Hardly awe inspiring are they ?

Yes I know he's young, spent time on the bench, and the balance of the team required a defender type more than a midfield type of player.

That being said I can't help thinking of the term "charity games" and how it definately applies to Van Berlo.

In comparison Chris Knights was blitzing them down at Woodville Oval and yet only played the 2 games (Rounds 15 & 16) which he thoroughly deserved to play.

I am still to be convinced Van Berlo will deliver the goods at AFL level but given he seems to be a Craig favourite he is a certainty for the first team.

So, whilst I agree with what you guys are saying it doesn't seem to be put into practise in our team. Thus one can only assume that one out of Maric or Meeson will be given game time this year even if their form doesn't warrant inclusion (based on the "Van Berlo Charity Game" factor).

Excellent point Lefty. The only conclusion I can come to was the fact that there was a need to blood youngsters and a utility type position in the 22 to fill. VB was a good fit for both those categories and hence got the nod.

I thought, based on form, team balance and a need to blood youngsters, Watts and Knights should have got more game time last year. Both showed good solid progress for WWT and should have been played ahead of others. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I agree with what you guys are saying.

However, it does make me wonder why Nathan Van Berlo was picked & played for 11 games in 2005 (Rounds 3-5, 11, 14-18, & 22) when quite often his form at South Adelaide (& the Crows) didn't warrant a spot.

Check out his stats for the Crows :-

http://www.footywire.com/fw/web/ft_player_games?pid=1507

Hardly awe inspiring are they ?

Yes I know he's young, spent time on the bench, and the balance of the team required a defender type more than a midfield type of player.

That being said I can't help thinking of the term "charity games" and how it definately applies to Van Berlo.

In comparison Chris Knights was blitzing them down at Woodville Oval and yet only played the 2 games (Rounds 15 & 16) which he thoroughly deserved to play.

I am still to be convinced Van Berlo will deliver the goods at AFL level but given he seems to be a Craig favourite he is a certainty for the first team.

So, whilst I agree with what you guys are saying it doesn't seem to be put into practise in our team. Thus one can only assume that one out of Maric or Meeson will be given game time this year even if their form doesn't warrant inclusion (based on the "Van Berlo Charity Game" factor).

Thats not quite right. Van Berlo's form in SANFL has been very good this year. He also busted his backside during the pre-season training. I went to a couple of training sessions and he was one of the best performers on the track. Van Berlo was hardly getting a charity game. He earned his stripes no doubt about it.

Van Berlo's stats might not have been eye catching this year but there are a few things we need to take into account here. One is playing time and the other is that he was a first year player.

True, Knight has been burning up in SANFL. No one can deny that BUT if we are brutally honest about the kid, his disposal lets him down a fair bit. I like what he brings to the table and I think he will be a good player for us once he cleans up his disposal. If he doesn't fix it up, he will be another Bode.

Knights can get away with that sort of thing at SANFL level because he gets so much footy that he is head and shoulders above the rest. At AFL levle he won't be getting that much of the footy and his low hurt factor won't go well with the AFL coaches.

Knights had a good enough form that just couldn't be ignored but he needs to tidy up his disposal if he wants a few games at AFL level.

I would strongly disagree with your claim that VB was given charity games. He earnt those fair and square.

 

[GoSarge]

However, I would argue that it's different this year. Say, for example, Torney goes down early in the year. I'd advocate picking Van Berlo over Massie, even if Massie's form for Norwood was better, and I suspect you'd agree.

We all would.

If the form line is Clarke (brilliant) vs Maric (terrible), then I'm not advocating picking Maric. If the form line is Clarke (good) vs Maric (OK) then I think that the upside / future issues tilt things Maric's way in my mind.

Yup. Agree with that.

Who's to say, as much as Skipworth was intimidated and set back by debuting too early, others may not be set back by debuting too late, thinking they have to be the perfect SANFL footballer to make an impact in the AFL?

Be reasonable, we're not saying that. All we're asking is to string 3 or 4 quality games in the SANFL / pre season together before selection. If you're a half decent player (a la Knights, it shouldn't be too difficult).

Isn't that what we're both arguing? Every player is different. A player that takes time to mature should be certainly be given that time. A player that has exploded forwards from being a raw, converted basketballer to a legitimate first team SANFL player within 6 months is probably maturing more quickly than anticipated, I would have thought, and to me that shows the mental maturity that would mean that AFL exposure would not be a crippling setback to his long term development - probably the opposite.

He's maturing quickly, agreed. I also would have thought a development year for the PAMFC, 2 tough SANFL finals, a second solid pre season and waiting til he show some good form at SANFL before he gets an AFL gig would also ' not be a crippling setback to his long term development'....

You can always go with 3 rucks. We did it successfully in 2 grand finals, including one where there was less interchange options _and_ we lost 2 players by quarter time. Letting your young ruckman develop as a forward while they develop their strength and endurance is also a proven tactic.

Also agree, Port have done it for a while with Lade, Brogan and Primus. Again, if Maric's form warrants it, perhaps its an option to play all 3.

Well, in 2004 (his last real season), AA ruckman Jeff White got 15 Brownlow votes and Josh Fraser was the next best ruckman with 9. White had 4 BOGS and 3 single votes, and Fraser had 3 BOGS.

My point is simply that Josh Fraser is by no means a dud. Statistically, he's been just a fraction below the AA ruckmen in the last 2 years he played, and he was the best player (or nearly so) for his side in 2 grand finals. Throwing him into the deep end has not turned him in to Romano Negri. He's still a very good player, coming in to the prime years of his career.

Fraser's ability/influence is easily overlooked because (a) he plays ruck in a different way to some - less dropping across half back and more moving forward as an attacking option, and (b) being drafted as number 1 to the most public club in the land meant that the spotlight was more intense what has been on Travis Johnstone (who was supposed to be the best midfielder in 10 years) for example.

I agree with you on the Fraser example and his stats do look pretty good.
Different kettle of fish though, Collingwood had no other options but we do. We'll still get good value out of Clarke in the short term at AFL level whilst Maric and Meesan continue to improve at SANFL level. When Maric (or Meesan) gets to a level where his form warrants AFL selection then IMO we either -

1) Maric in, Clarke out or
2) Play all 3.

Simple as that.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I've got no issue with Clarke being picked ahead of Maric last year when Hudson went down, despite being an advocate of a youth policy. We needed to make that decision last year, going in to a finals series. Same with going for Massie in the 1st final.

However, I would argue that it's different this year. Say, for example, Torney goes down early in the year. I'd advocate picking Van Berlo over Massie, even if Massie's form for Norwood was better, and I suspect you'd agree.

I don't disagree with that. I actually mentioned that in one of my posts. If you have a Doughty type player and VB in similar form then of course you pick VB. We actually agree on this one.

If the form line is Clarke (brilliant) vs Maric (terrible), then I'm not advocating picking Maric. If the form line is Clarke (good) vs Maric (OK) then I think that the upside / future issues tilt things Maric's way in my mind.

Thats entirely different argument. If the form is similar you pick the youngster. If there is a significant difference between the 2 then you pick the one that performs best.

You've never seen a kid look more out of his depth than Nick Riewoldt in his first game, either. Barely got a touch, fell over his feet more than once, dropped chest marks, saw his side get done by nearly 100 points and his coach get sacked.

Now, that could be psychologically shattering to a some players, but obviously Riewoldt survived.

Again, every player is different. A case with Reiwoldt is a classic case of someone taking a bit of time to find their feet.

Of course every player is different, but I think it's a bit of a "one size fits all" approach that would have every young player having to mature in the SANFL to get ready for their AFL debut. Who's to say, as much as Skipworth was intimidated and set back by debuting too early, others may not be set back by debuting too late, thinking they have to be the perfect SANFL footballer to make an impact in the AFL?

They don't have to be perfect SANFL footballer to make an impact in the AFL. Thats is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that one player might be ready to play AFL footy without playing a single game in local comp. Then there are players that also need to play 20 to 30 local league games before they can step in and have some sort of impact in the AFL. It is simply not a case of "one fits all". Every player and every case is different and sometimes there are significant differences between 2 players.

Isn't that what we're both arguing? Every player is different. A player that takes time to mature should be certainly be given that time. A player that has exploded forwards from being a raw, converted basketballer to a legitimate first team SANFL player within 6 months is probably maturing more quickly than anticipated, I would have thought, and to me that shows the mental maturity that would mean that AFL exposure would not be a crippling setback to his long term development - probably the opposite.

But its not all about mental maturity. Its a combination of factors and mental maturity is one of those factors. There is also a skill level and football ability to consider. Maric has come on in leaps and bounds this year. He has been a breath of fresh air with his development. No one is arguing that. However, as steep as his learning curve has been there is still a long way to go for him before you can feel comfortable enough to play him at AFL level. He was never going to get a game this year as long as we had 2 of the experienced ruckman fit.

While his development has been exceptional this year, his football ability is still a fair way off from being AFL ready. Anyone seen Maric's finals series this year?????? He showed promising signs but his level of play was a fair way from even being comparable to AFL level.

What I am saying here is quite simple. If we are talking about the form both players showed this year, then based on that form Clarke should be picked ahead of Maric every time. However, if Maric's development rate continues at current pace, he will improve even further during the pre-season providing he doesn't have injuries and is able to compete in the drills, then it truly will be a line ball decision come round 1 next year. If its a line ball decision you pick Maric. Simple as that.

The player I watched a few times in the second half of the year playing in the SANFL is just not up to it yet. Down the track yes, but as of right now he is not ready even for 10 minutes a quarter in the AFL.

Seriously the kid has developed at an excellent rate but he is not as good as people make him out to be. He will be one day but as of right now he is a fair way off.

But did that happen because he played 10 minutes against St Kilda in his first year, or because he got his collarbone busted a few weeks later for Sturt? There's no doubt that a serious injury can change a player's style - witness Matthew Robran pre-1993 and post-1993 overhead, or James Begley post Pickett.

He smashed a collar bone playing for Calder cannons before getting drafted and there was no noticable timidness afterwards in his game at Sturt. Now maybe the second time got him more timid but to me he even struggled at SANFL level after his AFL debut. There is no doubt in my mind that the early debut played with his confidence. Again thats just my opinion and its subjective.

Reilly as a youngster was hardly rushed along - 1 game in 2002, 6 more the next year.

The point is he wimply wasn't ready for that 1 game in 2002. He wasn't physically ready, he wasn't mentally ready and he wasn't ready in terms of his football ability at the the time. He was completely lost on the field.

You can always go with 3 rucks. We did it successfully in 2 grand finals, including one where there was less interchange options _and_ we lost 2 players by quarter time. Letting your young ruckman develop as a forward while they develop their strength and endurance is also a proven tactic.

Thats entirely different argument all together. People are claiming that Maric should back up Biglands. In other words they want Maric as back up ruckman and Clarke in SANFL. I would not be against playing 3 ruckmen if all 3 have earnt their spot. What you are suggesting here is competely different to what other posters have suggested.

Well, in 2004 (his last real season), AA ruckman Jeff White got 15 Brownlow votes and Josh Fraser was the next best ruckman with 9. White had 4 BOGS and 3 single votes, and Fraser had 3 BOGS.

Gee now you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Skippy got 9 brownlow votes in 2004 (IIRC), does that mean he had as big an impact as Edwards in 2004?

My point is simply that Josh Fraser is by no means a dud. Statistically, he's been just a fraction below the AA ruckmen in the last 2 years he played, and he was the best player (or nearly so) for his side in 2 grand finals. Throwing him into the deep end has not turned him in to Romano Negri. He's still a very good player, coming in to the prime years of his career.

He is no where near what his potnetial suggests. His ruckwork is ordinary at best. His general play skills are OK but as an overall package he is at least a class if not more below White and Goodes. As I said previously, stats can be used to make an argument either way but you can only get the feel of the impact the player makes on the game by watching them play. White and Goodes had much bigger impact on the games than Fraser.

I am not saying Fraser is a dud. What I am saying is that he hasn't reaches his potential after a fair bit of time in the league and he doesn't look like reaching it.

Fraser's ability/influence is easily overlooked because (a) he plays ruck in a different way to some - less dropping across half back and more moving forward as an attacking option, and (b) being drafted as number 1 to the most public club in the land meant that the spotlight was more intense what has been on Travis Johnstone (who was supposed to be the best midfielder in 10 years) for example.

In this case, how he plays his role compared to others is irrelevant to the impact he has on game. He gets similar stats to White and he kicks more goals than White but his impact is significantly lesser. Clarke does bugger all around ground but his impact on the game can be huge because of his ruckwork.

So your argument is that a player who is thrown in early has a better chance of reaching their potential if they make their debut due to extentuating circumstances, be it injury or an ordinary list around them?

Thats not my argument at all. My argument is that different players are ready at different times. Sometimes they are thrown to the wolves and they swim. Sometimes they sink. Its different for different players. We need to know their entire make up before we can say he is ready or he is not.

What else is the difference between Riewoldt/Haselby/Brown and Reilly/Skipworth/Fraser? They all debuted earlier than form would dictate.

Talent level for starters. Maturity at the time of their debut, both mentally, physically and in terms of their football ability at the time.

He's debuted 2 players in 34 games. Let's not get carried away.

He couldn't debut anyone in 2004 because there was no one to debut. Everyone bar Krueger played a game in 2004 and the only reason Kruger didn't play is because he had a back injury.

This year he debuted players that earnt their stripes and were ready to make a debut. He can't give a game to someone who isn't good enough to debut. Maric showed good signs but he was simply not ready.

Reilly played in an AFL final in his 7th game.

And he was ready to play it. The same way Van Berlo was ready to play a final this year.

 

[marvin]

IThey don't have to be perfect SANFL footballer to make an impact in the AFL. Thats is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that one player might be ready to play AFL footy without playing a single game in local comp. Then there are players that also need to play 20 to 30 local league games before they can step in and have some sort of impact in the AFL. It is simply not a case of "one fits all". Every player and every case is different and sometimes there are significant differences between 2 players.

OK, I may have misunderstood your argument. I agree with this 100%.

What I am saying here is quite simple. If we are talking about the form both players showed this year, then based on that form Clarke should be picked ahead of Maric every time. However, if Maric's development rate continues at current pace, he will improve even further during the pre-season providing he doesn't have injuries and is able to compete in the drills, then it truly will be a line ball decision come round 1 next year. If its a line ball decision you pick Maric. Simple as that.

I don't think we differ here greatly, either. I guess where we'll have to agree to disagree is that I'd pick Maric if it was not quite line ball on form early next year (as I've said, I would have picked Clarke ahead of him this year too), rather than waiting till it's a truly line ball decision. Then again, I'm not a selector.

Gee now you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Skippy got 9 brownlow votes in 2004 (IIRC), does that mean he had as big an impact as Edwards in 2004?

Skippy got 3 votes last year, not 9. 1 BOG effort might just mean the planets are in alignment or something. (Even James Gallagher got BOG votes once). 3 BOG votes in a season suggests you are doing something right.

He is no where near what his potnetial suggests. His ruckwork is ordinary at best. His general play skills are OK but as an overall package he is at least a class if not more below White and Goodes. As I said previously, stats can be used to make an argument either way but you can only get the feel of the impact the player makes on the game by watching them play. White and Goodes had much bigger impact on the games than Fraser.

I am not saying Fraser is a dud. What I am saying is that he hasn't reaches his potential after a fair bit of time in the league and he doesn't look like reaching it.

In this case, how he plays his role compared to others is irrelevant to the impact he has on game. He gets similar stats to White and he kicks more goals than White but his impact is significantly lesser. Clarke does bugger all around ground but his impact on the game can be huge because of his ruckwork.

I haven't got a handle on what you think Fraser's potential is. Best player in the league? Best ruckman in the league?

Personally, I think the Goodes/White comparisons are pretty fair. Goodes is a pretty ordinary in pure tapwork, too, but he is a dominant around the ground player, and obviously better than Fraser. He's also 2 years older.

White IMHO has decent tap work (but a level below the best in the league) and his around the ground play has very little hurt factor. He gets brilliant stats against the David Fanning's of the world, but becomes the invisible man against the real elite ruckmen. When you watch him against a Cox, or the Port squadron, or usually against our guys, his impact is not that great.