Opinion Knightsight v Hinesight v Hindsight 2015

[ChubbyGallon]

Hine seems to use the word "holistic" quite a bit. Perhaps if Laverde played TAC Cup with Moore, then we might have ended up with Leverde instead?

Consider the links between our new and existing players this year ...

Aish + Crisp (Brisbane)
Treloar + Golds + Adams (GWS)
Philips + Crocker + Moore + DeGoey (Oakleigh)
Wills + most of the team (CFC VFL)
Sier + ?
Howe + ?
Smith + ?

Don't forget smith played at the same club as oxley and Thomas so there is he connection

 

[TradeDraft]

Our players once they get into their mid 20s plateau consistently stay the same and fail to improve further.

Once they hit their late 20s they in the most part start to decline and by 30 unless you're a star, you're done and if you're a star you're no longer the same player you once were.

We don't have many in that age group. So how did you come up when they reach 25 they are at there Peak and not Improve?

 

[Knightmare]

We don't have many in that age group. So how did you come up when they reach 25 they are at there Peak and not Improve?

History. Josh Fraser, Alan Didak and Dale Thomas are key examples of players who in their 20s declined terribly quickly and prematurely.

And isn't it revealing that Dane Swan is our only remaining veteran? Even Swan these past couple of seasons as soon as he has hit 30 hasn't looked like nearly the dominant star he was.

 

[Bard]

Hine seems to use the word "holistic" quite a bit. Perhaps if Laverde played TAC Cup with Moore, then we might have ended up with Leverde instead?

Consider the links between our new and existing players this year ...

Aish + Crisp (Brisbane)
Treloar + Golds + Adams (GWS)
Philips + Crocker + Moore + DeGoey (Oakleigh)
Wills + most of the team (CFC VFL)
Sier + ?
Howe + ?
Smith + ?

When you have 40+ players it's not that hard to find connections if you try to look for them

 

[Kilmo]

Hine seems to use the word "holistic" quite a bit. Perhaps if Laverde played TAC Cup with Moore, then we might have ended up with Leverde instead?

Consider the links between our new and existing players this year ...

Aish + Crisp (Brisbane)
Treloar + Golds + Adams (GWS)
Philips + Crocker + Moore + DeGoey (Oakleigh)
Wills + most of the team (CFC VFL)
Sier + ?
Howe + ?
Smith + ?

Bruzzy and Moore went to school together

 

[jc37]

It's interesting having another go at that list a year on.

I'd probably go with.

1. De Goey
2. Heeney
3. Moore
4. McCartin
5. H.Andrews
6. Lever
7. Petracca
8. Brayshaw
9. Maynard
10. Laverde

*Too much Collingwood? I just seriously love what all of De Goey, Moore and Maynard offer. De Goey is a contested ball winning beast and with his skills (will look better with another year in the system and marking areas he can build based on junior ability in these areas) he has Brownlow level scope to develop.

Moore improved in leaps and bounds and while I expect he takes some time to really become good at AFL level I like him certainly more than any of the other forwards given his athleticism and ground level ability and improved aerial ability.

And Maynard with his aggression and improvement as well as footskills, while he'll probably remain back until his endurance improves. I'm also big on his game as someone who may surpass Marley Williams even as our best general backman.

For objectivity I wish I could go past the young Pies, but on performance and rate of improvement and mixes of attributes by position I just can't.



This year will probably give us the insight into whether we're getting our evaluations of tall mids right firstly, and secondly whether we're rating them too highly v other types.

Small mids are such an interesting case. When I look at sub 180cm types my mind goes pretty quickly to "can they play as a crumbing forward?" with those sub 180cm types generally today most successful in that role - if they've got that freakish ability. Through the midfield it's possible but there are increasingly less and less and you have to really be phenomenal now to do it with Dion Prestia and Lachie Neale two of the better examples of worthwhile small mids. If you have a Prestia or Neale, I wouldn't want a second sub 180cm midfielder to play alongside them, but if it's just one, there is room for that if it's the right guy and their production and/or impact is really up there.

As for smaller mids on the outside. If they can do the damage offensively, possibly. With outside times I am cautious from the perspective that they could be exploited going the other way - push deep forward and take a grab on you and offer scoreboard impact. But if you're good enough as Brent Harvey has been, then it doesn't matter, you can make room for them as you'd say of Prestia or Neale through the midfield.

 

[Justlokan]

Treloar, Sidey, Adams and Greenwood aren't exactly giants.

Who do we have as best 22 who you'd regard as tall mids besides Pendles and Crisp?

it was more a comment on current trends and the obsession with tall mids. Granted the success of Fyfe, Bonts, Mundy, Barlow, Cripps and even Blicavs has made it imperative to stock up on tall mids but I'd like to think there is still a place for the shorter mid like Harvey, Mitchell (Sam and Tom) and Neale.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

it was more a comment on current trends and the obsession with tall mids. Granted the success of Fyfe, Bonts, Mundy, Barlow, Cripps and even Blicavs has made it imperative to stock up on tall mids but I'd like to think there is still a place for the shorter mid like Harvey, Mitchell (Sam and Tom) and Neale.

I'm sure there is room, but also sure the trend will be to the bigger size and body.
The rest may have to look at being jockeys

 

[Robroy22]

When the big games aren't dominated by BALL MAGNETS and instead the tall mids dominate THEN I'll start believing the malarky that tall mids are the greatest innovation of the modern game.
Give me a Sam Mitchell or a Greg Williams over a Blicav's, Barlow or Bontempelli anyday....what did JD say?...."You can't kick it if you can't get it"
The best mids have always been the ball magnets, the fact that these ball magnets are getting taller means they're getting taller! BUT the premise still is that they have to be able to read play, position themselves correctly and then have the courage and the dedication to keep on doing it for their careers.
Q: Ball up at a centre bounce, Mitchell V Bonts......who gets the first posession? Who looks good trying?

 

[Apex36]

When the big games aren't dominated by BALL MAGNETS and instead the tall mids dominate THEN I'll start believing the malarky that tall mids are the greatest innovation of the modern game.
Give me a Sam Mitchell or a Greg Williams over a Blicav's, Barlow or Bontempelli anyday....what did JD say?...."You can't kick it if you can't get it"
The best mids have always been the ball magnets, the fact that these ball magnets are getting taller means they're getting taller! BUT the premise still is that they have to be able to read play, position themselves correctly and then have the courage and the dedication to keep on doing it for their careers.
Q: Ball up at a centre bounce, Mitchell V Bonts......who gets the first posession? Who looks good trying?

A: It's a moot question unless you're putting two guys together of the same age and experience.

 

[Robroy22]

So is Mitchell too old? or too short??

 

[Saintly Viewed]

So is Mitchell too old? or too short??

You ofcourse make solid points.
The only thing that is really being said is, currently, if there is two players of equal potential in a draft the bigger one would get the nod.

 

[Robroy22]

You ofcourse make solid points.
The only thing that is really being said is, currently, if there is two players of equal potential in a draft the bigger one would get the nod.

Same as in Mitchell's draft days.....he was never big enough, quick enough, neither was Williams or Shaw or Libba. The indefinable "ability to find the ball" is what's required and the desire to succeed. Taller, smoother running athlete's don't stack up against true ball magnets and besides Fyfe, Pendlebury, Kennedy and Watson tall ball magnets don't exist that much.

 

[Kilmo]

Cox to the midfield 2016

 

[Robroy22]

Cox to the midfield 2016

Well he is tall and he can run....all you need to be a modern day tall mid....he'll dominate against Mitchell as well

 

[Apex36]

So is Mitchell too old? or too short??

More along the lines of Bontempelli is too young and inexperienced to be getting compared to one of the better long term players in the comp.

Why don't you compare Pendlebury or Fyfe to Mitchell?

Or better still, compare Bonts to another highly rated shorter mid from his draft class?

 

[TradeDraft]

History. Josh Fraser, Alan Didak and Dale Thomas are key examples of players who in their 20s declined terribly quickly and prematurely.

And isn't it revealing that Dane Swan is our only remaining veteran? Even Swan these past couple of seasons as soon as he has hit 30 hasn't looked like nearly the dominant star he was.

I think Bucks got Read of the Vet's as they were MM Boys and did not like what Bucks Brought in and some where not big Bucks Fans.

Fraser and Thomas going backwards Injuries played a big part of that and I did not sees Didak go Backwards

 

[Snoop Dog]

I probably didn't see much of McCartin but didn't think he set the world on fire?

Mine was more a list of if those 10 or so players were available now that would be my order. Wasnt solely based on first 12 months.

 

[TradeDraft]

Mine was more a list of if those 10 or so players were available now that would be my order. Wasnt solely based on first 12 months.

Okay and 12 Months is not a Huge Sample Size and Players can Develop and Different Times

 

[Robroy22]

More along the lines of Bontempelli is too young and inexperienced to be getting compared to one of the better long term players in the comp.

Why don't you compare Pendlebury or Fyfe to Mitchell?

Or better still, compare Bonts to another highly rated shorter mid from his draft class?

Ok....so if its Mitchell V Pendles he still wins (even though Pendles is so much taller) Fyfe is a bit more "ball Magnet" himself so its more like a 50:50 there, Mitchell and Luke Ball was always a good go, but Mitchell still wins.

And Bont vs....How about Tom Liberatore? (or is he too old too?)
C'mon Apex you know what I'm saying, a great midfielder doesn't have to be tall, in fact the best of them haven't been, this fad for tallish mids has been after Pendles came along. (who was it before Pendles? Kouta??) A mid that can go forward and mark and kick goals....now the search seems unbalanced. Everyone wants a tall flanker to be transformed into the next great mid. Fyfe clones come along very rarely but recruiters think they can make kids that have played KP all their lives into mids.
I have no problems with teams searching for flexibility (Sheeds did it in the 80's, Norm Smith did it in the 50's with the Demons and Barassi did it with North) but calling a 6'3" flanker a great mid because he picks up 25 possies these days is rubbish. Q Is Nic Nat a ruckman or a midfielder?

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Ok....so if its Mitchell V Pendles he still wins (even though Pendles is so much taller) Fyfe is a bit more "ball Magnet" himself so its more like a 50:50 there, Mitchell and Luke Ball was always a good go, but Mitchell still wins.

And Bont vs....How about Tom Liberatore? (or is he too old too?)
C'mon Apex you know what I'm saying, a great midfielder doesn't have to be tall, in fact the best of them haven't been, this fad for tallish mids has been after Pendles came along. (who was it before Pendles? Kouta??) A mid that can go forward and mark and kick goals....now the search seems unbalanced. Everyone wants a tall flanker to be transformed into the next great mid. Fyfe clones come along very rarely but recruiters think they can make kids that have played KP all their lives into mids.
I have no problems with teams searching for flexibility (Sheeds did it in the 80's, Norm Smith did it in the 50's with the Demons and Barassi did it with North) but calling a 6'3" flanker a great mid because he picks up 25 possies these days is rubbish. Q Is Nic Nat a ruckman or a midfielder?

Interesting points
But Mitchell v Pendlebury and you give it to Mitchell?
Sorry, not even close. Scott is the better player.
Mitchell is terrific but with great respect Scott is far superior in my opinion. Cleverer more adept, also more silky.

 

[Apex36]

Ok....so if its Mitchell V Pendles he still wins (even though Pendles is so much taller) Fyfe is a bit more "ball Magnet" himself so its more like a 50:50 there, Mitchell and Luke Ball was always a good go, but Mitchell still wins.

And Bont vs....How about Tom Liberatore? (or is he too old too?)
C'mon Apex you know what I'm saying, a great midfielder doesn't have to be tall, in fact the best of them haven't been, this fad for tallish mids has been after Pendles came along. (who was it before Pendles? Kouta??) A mid that can go forward and mark and kick goals....now the search seems unbalanced. Everyone wants a tall flanker to be transformed into the next great mid. Fyfe clones come along very rarely but recruiters think they can make kids that have played KP all their lives into mids.
I have no problems with teams searching for flexibility (Sheeds did it in the 80's, Norm Smith did it in the 50's with the Demons and Barassi did it with North) but calling a 6'3" flanker a great mid because he picks up 25 possies these days is rubbish. Q Is Nic Nat a ruckman or a midfielder?

I'm not trying to argue that a smaller mid can be as, or more effective than a taller one, I just found it odd that you'd compare one of the most experienced, biggest ball magnets in the comp to a kid who's only played 2 years of AFL senior footy.

Fwiw, I agree with your point, but it will be interesting to see how effective smaller players become in comparison to the new wave of taller mids coming through.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

Ok....so if its Mitchell V Pendles he still wins (even though Pendles is so much taller) Fyfe is a bit more "ball Magnet" himself so its more like a 50:50 there, Mitchell and Luke Ball was always a good go, but Mitchell still wins.

And Bont vs....How about Tom Liberatore? (or is he too old too?)
C'mon Apex you know what I'm saying, a great midfielder doesn't have to be tall, in fact the best of them haven't been, this fad for tallish mids has been after Pendles came along. (who was it before Pendles? Kouta??) A mid that can go forward and mark and kick goals....now the search seems unbalanced. Everyone wants a tall flanker to be transformed into the next great mid. Fyfe clones come along very rarely but recruiters think they can make kids that have played KP all their lives into mids.
I have no problems with teams searching for flexibility (Sheeds did it in the 80's, Norm Smith did it in the 50's with the Demons and Barassi did it with North) but calling a 6'3" flanker a great mid because he picks up 25 possies these days is rubbish. Q Is Nic Nat a ruckman or a midfielder?

I think you need the right mix of both in your team, but i am very surprised that you rank Mitchell above both Fyfe and Pendles.
Fyfe has been the best player in the comp for 2 years straight, and by quite a fair margin.
Mitchell's 2015 was better than Pendles, but over their careers (if Pendles maintains his level) i would much rather have Pendles.

As i said you need both.
But i also agree with the idea proposed (but very badly worded) by Carey, that Mitchell on a poor team would be rated very differently. He would still be a top 20 or so mid, but nowhere near the top mids in the game.
Pendles - that is questionable.
Fyfe? He would be a champion on any team - same as Ablett.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I'm not trying to argue that a smaller mid can be as, or more effective than a taller one, I just found it odd that you'd compare one of the most experienced, biggest ball magnets in the comp to a kid who's only played 2 years of AFL senior footy.

Fwiw, I agree with your point, but it will be interesting to see how effective smaller players become in comparison to the new wave of taller mids coming through.

I also think we are all likely to agree that size does not matter assuming they are all 5' 10" and above.
I think that's the key.
Whilst the trend may be 6'2" and higher if you are 6' or 5'11" doubt that's the real issue.
It's just the five foot nothing type really has no place in our game, shame but next to never do we see a 5' 5" and below. Just how it is.

 

[Knightmare]

Regarding height. It's a relative competitive advantage, but being tall doesn't make you good, being able to play is why you're good.

The reason the game today is going towards tall midfielders is that tall guys are increasingly learning to play like smalls. Talls today can run and move much more fluently than previous generations, they've often got better skills and on top of that they've often got the greater contested ball winning and ability to push forward and take a mark which makes them all the more dominating. And given all this, we're starting to see a move towards tall midfielders because they are now viable and a relative competitive advantage to have.