Review Josh Fraser...

[doppleganger]

As you clearly state he has been a "serviceable player", which is not something that is applicable to the number one picks from every draft following Frasers that are currently rateable e.g. 2000-2005

What about the number 1 picks prior to Josh?

Waterhouse, Gardiner, T.Johnstone, D.Headland......gee all superstars!!

I am not knocking Fraser as a player, as you say he has had a serviceable career and will play over 200 games, the fact of the matter is, like it or not he was rated by us and most others at the time as a number one pick, he had enormous potential and showed good signs early on his career, and has not lived up to his billing and therefore has underachieved and that is taking injury and workload into account.

Potential is a dirty word in football.

Once you enter an AFL club everybody is equal, only fanboys on internet forums get excited about potential and draft numbers.

D.Roach had potential, B.Morrison had potential, C.Egad had loads of potential, R.Cole had potential.

At the end of the day many high draft picks fail to live up to expectactions, someone mentioned Justin Koschitzke and he like Fraser has underachieved on his potential and rating, sometimes players do not reach the heights of what their potential and talent suggests and unfortunately IMO Josh Fraser falls into this category.

You do realise that the draft order has nothing to do with how a players career will end up?

Fraser turned into a great follower, arguably the best of the 2000s. His body let him down and he never turned into a massive intimidating ruck.....point being he was never a physically dominating ruck at junior level anyway.

Josh not living up to some posters over inflated expectation is no reason to degenerate his career or write him off.

 

[Quicky]

What frustrates me is people cant seem to acknowledge that Josh has had a good career in the BnW, sure he aint a superstar that we hoped he may become, but he has been an important member of the team for a decade. And still could play a vitally important role in any future success.

I don't think this is true. The issue with discussing Fraser is that he tends to polarise opinion. Someone either loves him and thinks he's the answer to solving world poverty or they hate him and reckon he's as useless as **** on a bull. The truth is usually somewhere in between.

 

[soreplums]

up until about 2 years ago, if Fraser was out of the side we would really struggle as a side to play well.

FC compared his stats with Cox and they faired better apart from the hitout category. But the main difference was the impact each had on the game and the physical and imposing figure that Cox was compared to Fraser.

 

[rose jam]

My recollecion of Josh's career;
2000-2004
Josh's form rise from 2000 through to 2004 was exactly what the club would have hoped for. His second half of 2003 was what took us from being 6-6 to only losing 1 more match for the year going into the GF.
Despite the insistance that we lost GF's due to Clark Keating whacking the ball forward Josh's around the ground performances and goals in those GF's smacked of future captaincy material.
2005
His preseason in 2005 was spectactular, and was absolutely going nuts against the Swans in the last preseason game and hurt his knee at a centre bounce and missed the entire 2005 season (tried to play a few games but it was pointless).
That was the most crucial thing that happened in Josh's career. At that point he was fast, mobile, jumping, and kicking the ball beautifully. He would have been the player we always hoped for, but that knee injury wrecked him.
2006
His limited preseason in 2006 made a slow start to the year but his form kept getting better after MM disposed of the second ruckman and he had a terrific year.
2007
His 2007 was again starting to get better and better but a back injury debilitated him and he missed the finals.
2008
No pre-season again in 2008 but a very good start to the year. Then that stupid state game and he got his PCL. But still, when he got back his form was good and another super 2 finals performances followed.
2009
2009, struggling with that PCL early, but a good form surge in the middle of the year until the knee couldn't last and he missed the finals.

 

[leons magic]

What about the number 1 picks prior to Josh?

Waterhouse, Gardiner, T.Johnstone, D.Headland......gee all superstars!.

No they are not and they have all underachieved as number one picks, you are exactly right none of them are superstars and neither is Fraser.

Potential is a dirty word in football.

Once you enter an AFL club everybody is equal, only fanboys on internet forums get excited about potential and draft numbers.

D.Roach had potential, B.Morrison had potential, C.Egad had loads of potential, R.Cole had potential.

Every player has potential if they are drafted to the AFL, the difference between Josh and these boys is he was the cream of the crop. You cannot tell me that a pick 7, 17, 10 and 12 respectively which these boys were drafted with had the same expectations, hopes and talent that Josh Fraser did. These boys were massive underachievers for there draft places which i know happens every draft, but none of them were meant to be the next big thing like Josh who underachieved aswell.

You do realise that the draft order has nothing to do with how a players career will end up?

Fraser turned into a great follower, arguably the best of the 2000s. His body let him down and he never turned into a massive intimidating ruck.....point being he was never a physically dominating ruck at junior level anyway.

Josh not living up to some posters over inflated expectation is no reason to degenerate his career or write him off.

Clearly i understand this, but you must realise the higher the draft pick the more expectations there are on a player, and the only point i have ever made is that Josh has not reached these expectations and in my eyes underachieved as a number one pick. Josh Fraser has been a good solid contributer to the Collingwood football club, so i believe as a passionate Collingwood man with the talent he had and we all saw in him he should have had a better career. That is not an over-flated expectation its a realistic one. We agree to disagree on this one.

And lets just clarify Josh was not one of the best followers in the 2000's, its a pitty his position was as a ruckman, and ruckman are there to win hit outs as their primary objective. This was something that Fraser was average at best in doing. In the 2000's there were plenty of better ruckman than Josh Fraser and if you want, compare him against onballers he wouldnt be in the top 100 of the 2000's.

 

[doppleganger]

Every player has potential if they are drafted to the AFL, the difference between Josh and these boys is he was the cream of the crop. You cannot tell me that a pick 7, 17, 10 and 12 respectively which these boys were drafted with had the same expectations, hopes and talent that Josh Fraser did. These boys were massive underachievers for there draft places which i know happens every draft, but none of them were meant to be the next big thing like Josh who underachieved aswell.

Yep, Josh was the best junior player in the land.......that doesn't mean anything was you get on a senior AFL list.

Billy Morrison was going to be the next J.Brown.
R.Cole was a star in the super draft.

They all have massive expectations, were all meant to be the next big thing.

For a variety of reasons they didn't make it at AFL level.

Read Rosejams post, it sums Josh' career up perfectly. Injury had plenty to do with him not progressing even further.

Clearly i understand this, but you must realise the higher the draft pick the more expectations there are on a player, and the only point i have ever made is that Josh has not reached these expectations and in my eyes underachieved as a number one pick. Josh Fraser has been a good solid contributer to the Collingwood football club, so i believe as a passionate Collingwood man with the talent he had and we all saw in him he should have had a better career. That is not an over-flated expectation its a realistic one. We agree to disagree on this one.

Is it Josh' fault he has had injuries in the second half of his career?
Was it L.Walker's fault that his knee's didn't hold up.
What about Rusling and his shoulder.

Josh has been a great player when fit, and a mediocre one when trying to play with injury.

And lets just clarify Josh was not one of the best followers in the 2000's, its a pitty his position was as a ruckman, and ruckman are there to win hit outs as their primary objective. This was something that Fraser was average at best in doing. In the 2000's there were plenty of better ruckman than Josh Fraser and if you want, compare him against onballers he wouldnt be in the top 100 of the 2000's.

There were some better rucks, but Josh was the best follower.....there is more to the ruck than simply winning HOs.

Sandilands only became a dominant force when he learnt how to make an impact around the ground, when he started he would get a HO but offer nothing else.

Fraser gave a good contest in the ruck, would have the odd day out where he could beat quality rucks like Everitt, but for the most part he was there to nullify and then run off and offer more around the ground....which he did with great success.

Compare Fraser to some of the better rucks......Cox, Ottens, Jolly, Sandilands, Hille and his career aint half bad.

http://finalsiren.com/PlayerCompare...s=495,750,689,1081,32,1158,496,64,&Compare=Go

 

[shawthing09]

The draft order thing does really need to let go of, It's something that really annoys me. Once a player is on the list their career should be judged on their performance as a league player alone and not how it stacks up to their juniour career.

In any case to date Josh would probably be the best first round ruck pick in the last 10 years (actually second to McIntosh) and their is still a question mark whether even the great Kreuz or Nic Nat will catch up. I mean they both look like they should have him covered comfotably but when Josh was that age he certainly didn't look like he would end up this way.

Drafting rucks is a troublesome thing, it's a huge risk to use a first round and even bigger to use a first pick on a ruckmen. The amount of super athletic big teenagers out there playing football in juniors aren't reflective of those in the big league. It is a bigger jump then any other possie from juniors to seniors.

Some just don't grow into thier body, some bigger guys seem more prone to injury, none of them are competeting with guys with anything near the balance of strength and mobility that they will be competiting against. Leunberger, Meesen, Wood etc etc there are a massive number of early draft picks that just don't turn out when it comes to ruckmen and not a large number that do. The two best rucks in the comp are off the rookie list.

There were some better rucks, but Josh was the best follower.....there is more to the ruck than simply winning HOs.

You lose me with this arguement. In theory it's all good and well but I just can't agree in reality. If your conceding that he was mostly a big follower then a big ruck then really his numbers should be comparable to good midfielders and they are not. I just don't buy conceding the ruck on the basis of having a guy get more touches unless it's by a considerable margin. Without looking at the stats I'd guess that even at his absolute best Fraser would have probably averaged low 20's for possies and again I'd be guessing the league average for rucks would be low to mid teens.

The other factor to weigh into all that is that Fraser's touches where a lot more linking even around the ground he never played tall, so there is a big chance that there was a lot more "impact" in a genuine rucks touches.

 

[doppleganger]

You lose me with this arguement. In theory it's all good and well but I just can't agree in reality. If your conceding that he was mostly a big follower then a big ruck then really his numbers should be comparable to good midfielders and they are not. I just don't buy conceding the ruck on the basis of having a guy get more touches unless it's by a considerable margin. Without looking at the stats I'd guess that even at his absolute best Fraser would have probably averaged low 20's for possies and again I'd be guessing the league average for rucks would be low to mid teens.

The other factor to weigh into all that is that Fraser's touches where a lot more linking even around the ground he never played tall, so there is a big chance that there was a lot more "impact" in a genuine rucks touches.

Fraser averages 11.5 HOs per game......this is seen as poor by an overwhelming majority of pies fans.

B.Lade averaged 15.1 HO
D.Hille averages 14.3 HO
B.Ottens averages 16 HO
S.Rehn averaged 15.2 HO

These blokes are some of the really good tap rucks of recent times, and at most the are 4 HO ahead of Josh.

J.Barnes averaged 12.9 HO
L.Darcy averaged 10.6 HO

A couple of the more highly rated mobile esque ruck, similar lower HO numbers just like Josh. Fraser and Darcy's numbers are eerily similar. Wonder if many dogs fans reckon L.Darcy was a mediocre player at best!?

My point being that there is more to being a ruckman than just winning HO, and Fraser is just solid in the HO......but around the ground he is in the top echelon.

We drafted a mobile ruck, yet try and compare him to the big monsters?!

 

[Old Spice]

Some fair points dg, that is really the field that Fraser needs to be judged against - the mobile ruck types.

The question becomes is Fraser still mobile enough to maintain this advantage. Hopefully he is, but my feeling is he has lost it, certainly so far this season.

Hopefully I'm wrong.

 

[shawthing09]

Fraser averages 11.5 HOs per game......this is seen as poor by an overwhelming majority of pies fans.

B.Lade averaged 15.1 HO
D.Hille averages 14.3 HO
B.Ottens averages 16 HO
S.Rehn averaged 15.2 HO

These blokes are some of the really good tap rucks of recent times, and at most the are 4 HO ahead of Josh.

J.Barnes averaged 12.9 HO
L.Darcy averaged 10.6 HO

A couple of the more highly rated mobile esque ruck, similar lower HO numbers just like Josh. Fraser and Darcy's numbers are eerily similar. Wonder if many dogs fans reckon L.Darcy was a mediocre player at best!?

My point being that there is more to being a ruckman than just winning HO, and Fraser is just solid in the HO......but around the ground he is in the top echelon.

We drafted a mobile ruck, yet try and compare him to the big monsters?!

Darcy for mine is over rated but that's another issue, My guess would be all the names above with around the 15 average would have a higher percentage of those being to advantage which is the stat the really counts. I certainly don't think Fraser was mediocre at best over his career although I'd say his form this year has been (probably as Spicey has addressed above because he doesn't seem to be getting the TOG nor have the mobility to be a real "mobile ruck")

Fraser has been on the better "mobile rucks" but my view has always been that the around the ground mobile stuff is only good if coupled with good ruck work. I think your being pretty kind in calling him good in the ruck work department and whilst his around the ground stuff is "in the top echelon" a ruck who does less around the ground but plays tall and can block a whole in defence or take a contested mark as a foward is IMO more valuable.

My point is Fraser has been good at doing the role he is suited to and selected for, but I personally don't see value in that role. He may well (and early days looked promising) have had a more personally sucessful career had he been developed as a mobile foward (As I think Kreuzer will have a better career if used in that fashion) but unfortunately we didn't have the luxury of using him in that manner. He did the job he was asked too well, he was a great clubmen etc and he may well be one of the best mobile rucks of the decade but I am not sure how much value that actually holds.

 

[Rohan25]

Just indulge me in some random late night musings here. I was scouring the list to see whether or not Chris Dawes is eligible for the RS nomination this week, (he isn't). While I was doing so, I noticed something else I found interesting.

If Josh Fraser's good VFL form holds, and he manages to earn a recall for the game against Richmond in Round 17, then there is a good chance he will play his 200th game on the same day that Leon Davis and Ben Johnson play theirs. If you recall, these three players made their debut on the same day in Round 1 2000.

Now whether or not you think Fraser deserves a recall to the seniors, the fact is he will be getting it sooner or later. So as a fan of nice little touches of symmetry, I for one would like to see this happen. It would be a very special day for the club.

 

[doppleganger]

Good find Rohan, it would be great to see 3 of our most maligned players play their 200th game together!

All great clubmen who have played plenty of good footy for the pies in the last decade.