Locks ranks the midfields

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Originally posted by The_Flying_Egg
Camporeale was nowhere near as effective this season as he has been in the past

Different role that's all. With no Ratten and no decent ruckman, Campo struggled to cope with the added responsibility. He adapted much better in 2003 and will continue on with added support in 2004.

and while Kouta may have changed his style of play he clearly does not have the same impact on games he had when he was at his best

But his best was sensational and now it is just great. We still lose nothing in comparison to most other midfield stars. Kouta was practically the only player making things happen for the Blues in the midfield last year. He too will benefit from the added support that Stevens and Scotland bring.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Demonheart
You may have missed my point, the pies strength is their depth and evenness across the ground, the fact that every player contributes, including the players coming off the bench. With the exception of Buckly you don't have the stars of the league, that's why I picked you lower than the Eagles etc. If it was the entire midfield, not just 4 or 5 players it would be different, which is what this thread was doing, comparing the top 5 players from each club.
Just my opinion.

Not saying you can't have that opinion but I definitely disagree with it.

I think there is a bit of a misnomer about how Collingwood win games and MM doesn't mind fuelling it either. I actually don’t think we do get enough contribution from some players/position and get carried by too few far too often. Basically the forwards comprise Rocca as a strong marking player, Tarrant as a leading, up the ground forward and Fraser as a part time tall flanker with cameo's from Didak and last season Burns. The backs are just all good solid contributors.

The midfield wins almost every week and it isn't just due to numbers. It is a fact that Buckley wins his position about 90% of the games he plays (20 of 22 weeks). Don't ask me to back that up I admit it is gut feel but about twice a year he gets beaten. Buckley is among the very best footballers of the last decade. Burns gets beaten about as often although I truly can't recall him being beaten in the last 2 years off the top of my head. If he is behind Buckley for effectiveness often then it is pretty marginal. Licuria just does what it takes no matter what the ask and does it better every year. He is no star in the usual sense but he does more than a lot of players rated as stars. He is the tagging and/or offensive option as the number 3 midfielder that would walk into any starting 18. The rest are a bunch of generally effective medium paced workhorses but by and large they have complimentary skills. Saying that, Ben Johnson is very under rated and IMO by the end of 2004 will be the number 4 midfielder. He is basically a fast Licuria.

IMO Collingwood have an outstanding midfield a thin (in numbers) but adequate forward line and a solid, defensively very capable, backline.

I have said for some time that the midfield and mainly the top 3 to 5 of that midfield has carried Collingwood to two grand finals and a night final (for whatever a night final is worth).

The only thing lacking in Collingwood’s midfield is a bit of raw pace. They work around it very well but I would love to get hold of someone like Wells to add to the mix. Regardless of a lack in out and out leg speed Collingwood’s midfield has carried the side for 2 years.

 

[robbieando]

Originally posted by X_box_X
Who do you want me to match up?

Melbourne / Sydney
White / Ball -------------> White 65%
Yze / Williams ----------> Yze 55%
McDonald / Bolton -----> Bolton 52%
Godfrey / Kirk ----------> Kirk 70%
Heffernan / Fosdike ---> Heffernan 55%

Sydney / Bulldogs
Ball / Darcy -------------> Darcy 65%
Williams / West --------> West 60%
Bolton / Johnson ------> Johnson 65%
Kirk / Hahn -------------> Kirk 65%
McMahon / Fosdike ---> Fosdike 70%

That's why.

Gee, Adam Goodes must be the invisable man or something because I guess you forgot he is the All Australian ruckman and ruckman. Plus on form of last season Ball was better in 16 and a bit games than White and Darcy were for an entire season.

Also, Yze isn't better than Williams, Jude Bolton is more than 2% better than McDonald and West and Williams are closer together than that. Plus your ratings on the Bulldogs have a bit a bias towards them afterall it was that midfield that won the wooden spoon not us

To put the Swans 14th is stupid considering we beat Brisbane twice last season, Collingwood, West Coast, Port Adelaide once and according to you have much better midfields.

 

[Fall Out Boy]

Originally posted by SCRAY72
Bulldogs

Out Cooney (Forward line), Ray (Werribee in 2004 )

In Murphy, Gilbee

I hope you're right about Murphy, although i think he'll again be wasted in the backline.

 

[pazza]

A lot will depend on Allan and his output as to how much impact Hille will have in Essendon's.

I agree with the point that it shouldn't just be the best 6, but, who would be in the full rotations of the midfield.

In any one Essendon game, expect the following names to appear in the middle at some stage:

Allan
Hille
Misiti
Bullen
Bolton
Ramanauskas
J. Johnson
M. Johnson
Hird
Solomon
Peverill
McVeigh
McPhee
Haynes
Mercuri
Rioli

So basically...all bar the spine (Bolton excepted), they could all appear in there.

 

[Lockyer24]

Sorry to the Dogs and Tigers fans, on paper I think your midfields LOOK quite good however to be honest I think just about every midfield does....and last year you wouldn't say either midfield starred.

Call me biased, but I strongly defend the Pies being #3.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Lockyer24

Midfields

1. Brisbane
Keating
Voss
Black
Lappin
Power
Scott

Agree with this.

Not to flame, but after that I think you need a re-think.

2. West Coast
Gardiner
Cousins
Fletcher
Judd
Kerr
Banfield

3. Collingwood
Fraser
Buckley
Burns
Licuria
Woewodin
Holland

4. Adelaide
Clarke
Ricciuto
McLeod
Goodwin
Stenglein
Edwards

These three you have in the reverse order.

Clarke is the top-ranking tap ruckman in the competition by quite a looooong way, especially over Fraser. Gardiner is second. It is actually Biglands third, just slightly behind Gardiner.

Buckley won his first Browlow this year ... but so did Ricciuto. Cousins didn't.

Mcleod is worth two of Burns or Fletcher. Judd has potential, Licuria is a damn fine player, but only Goodwin has two (or is it three?) AA jumpers.

Woewodin has had one grat year and every now & then we see a great game from him, but he isn't consistent enough to be highly favoured over Stenglein or Kerr, although all three suffer from inconsistency.

Edwards is a better player than more than half of the whole batch of names in this reply, and certainly far & away the best of the last three on these three lists. Easily. No contest.

PS: You forgot Burton. Put Burton down on one wing, and either Stenglein or Reilly on the other. That probably means Ricciuto & Edwards will rotate around positions, with Roo going forward & Edwards filling in any trouble spot.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Black Thunder
Good rankings, and without trying to sound biased the Eagles are definetaly top 2, and the ultimate proof is in the results last year.

The Eagles played Adelaide three times in 2003, and got well beaten in the midfield each time.

 

[TheHeatleyStand]

Mott (will be first ruck)
Kouta (will improve)
Campo(less pressure to run out a game)
Stevens(will add pace and creativity)
Scottland( will show why most Collingwood supporters rate him)
Waite(is getting bigger, currently 192 cms and bulking up)
Johnson(Pagan rates him and believes he only needs game time-alot of Hawthorn supporters agree)
Hulme(Doesn`t have to get the hard ball out AND crate run which isnt his go )
Bowyer(Grunt and hunger)
Walker(Speed , height and high marking)
Kenna(Speed and will be given at least minimal time in the middle)
Houlihan( Silky skills and is getting harder)
Lappin (Will add something when rotated through the midfield if needed)
McGrath (Already showing more size than when he got here)
Bannister (Injury free and hungry, bulking right up and another with size)
Prendergast( Huge body who can run all day and throw is weight around)
Clarke(Speed, endurance and will most likely get run with roles with players that run all day)
Simpson (Tomorrows Camporeale)
Sporn(Rising star and hopefully stays injury free)
Harford(Fitter and first full pre season in ages - another with something to prove)
Angwin( Can play in the ruck or through the midfield Impossible to match up on.Needs to show he is fair dinkum then will be on the primary list)

I dunno, plenty of depth there and im sure Pagan will find a combination and a rotation to provide a very competitive midfield from this lot)

 

[Mead]

Originally posted by ok.crows
The Eagles played Adelaide three times in 2003, and got well beaten in the midfield each time.

Yes, and on that basis, Adelaide are better than West Coast who are better than Brisbane... But the Roos beat Adelaide, so that means North Melbourne have the best midfield in the competition. Glad we got that sorted.

In reality, two of the three times West Coast played Adelaide, we were without at least 2/6 of our key midfield personnel.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Mead
Yes, and on that basis, Adelaide are better than West Coast who are better than Brisbane... But the Roos beat Adelaide, so that means North Melbourne have the best midfield in the competition. Glad we got that sorted.

Ha! Did you read the original post at all ?

Originally posted by Black Thunder
Good rankings, and without trying to sound biased the Eagles are definetaly top 2, and the ultimate proof is in the results last year.

Now exactly who was it that was trying to say results proved anything ?

Here you are Mead, here are your rolleyes right back at you.

 

[Demonheart]

Originally posted by MarkT
Not saying you can't have that opinion but I definitely disagree with it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bagging your midfield, I wish we had the problems I was talking about with the pies, its just that I rate the bears as number one and the eagles as number two. Gardiner was arguably the best ruckman last year, Cousins is a star (I enjoy watching him play) and enough has been said about Judd without me adding to it. Fletcher and Kerr are pretty handy as well.
I trust my judgement because I'm not biased towards either team.

 

[Mead]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Ha! Did you read the original post at all ?



Now exactly who was it that was trying to say results proved anything ?

Here you are Mead, here are your rolleyes right back at you.

Don't make me bust out the 15cm high rolleyes i have sitting here on my hard drive.

I did read your original post, with great difficulty, let me assure you, because about halfway through, my eyes began to glaze over from reading the usual dubious comparisons and typical 'average-to-good player X from my team is LIGHT YEARS ahead of average to good player Y from your team.' Those sort of discussions will no doubt continue until some point after the sun has expired, but anyway..

If, as popular sentiment would have it, we have a pathetic defence and an less than inspiring forward line, yet somehow we managed to finish as a top 8 side (2nd- 4th for much of the year until the late season injuries hit.) Something must be working for us, yes?

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Mead

If, as popular sentiment would have it, we have a pathetic defence and an less than inspiring forward line, yet somehow we managed to finish as a top 8 side (2nd- 4th for much of the year until the late season injuries hit.) Something must be working for us, yes?

I rate the Eagles. I rate them a very likely top 8 finisher in 2004.

However I simply can't see any rational case for arguing that the Eagles have the second best midfiled.

The results that your midfield does get just don't support that view.

A quick look at this table:

http://stats.rleague.com/afl/stats/2003s.html

suggests that West Coast has a decent forward line but ranks abouth 6th-8th elsewhere.

It also shows that Adelaide ranks ahead of West Coast in most areas apart from scoring.

PS: Why did your eyes galss over when a simple truth - your midfield got consistently well beat by a team you rated lower - was posted in response to an over-enthusiastic claim that "Eagles are definetaly top 2, and the ultimate proof is in the results last year.".

Especially when the actual results don't show any such thing.

 

[Mead]

Originally posted by ok.crows
I rate the Eagles. I rate them a very likely top 8 finisher in 2004.

However I simply can't see any rational case for arguing that the Eagles have the second best midfiled.

The results that your midfield does get just don't support that view.

A quick look at this table:

http://stats.rleague.com/afl/stats/2003s.html

suggests that West Coast has a decent forward line but ranks abouth 6th-8th elsewhere.

It also shows that Adelaide ranks ahead of West Coast in most areas apart from scoring.

Yet despite West Coast having the 4th best goals scored tally in the competition, I think you'd struggle to find any West Coast fan who seriously believes we have a top 5 forward line.
The reality is, West Coast probably have about 8-10th best forward lines and defences in the competition so the goals have to be coming from somewhere.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Mead
Yet despite West Coast having the 4th best goals scored tally in the competition, I think you'd struggle to find any West Coast fan who seriously believes we have a top 5 forward line.
The reality is, West Coast probably have about 8-10th best forward lines and defences in the competition so the goals have to be coming from somewhere.

Fair enough, but it still doesn't get you past the fact that your midfield stats aren't as spectacular as some suggest, and your midfield got consistently beat by some of the other sides who weren't rated as highly.

Argue rationally against that & I will gladly retract the rolleyes.

 

[Portia]

The trick is to count how many goals West Coast have from players that actually play primarily as forwards.

 

[Altum Volantes]

Brisbane at #1 obviously, but after that I'd take Adelaide and then probably Port ahead of West Coast, then Collingwood and Fremantle but the latter 2 aren't far off the Eagles regardless.

All great midfields but Adelaide ahead of WC for me because they have an excellent core of experienced, consistent gun midfielders.
In my book, at this time only Cousins can consider himself in the class of the likes of Ricciuto and McCleod - with Goodwin and Edwards more proven than the likes of Fletcher, Judd and Kerr.

Give the Eagles a few years, they'll move up in the midfield rankings once the majority get some more experience and truely make their mark in the midfield.

Oh yeah, omit Banners from that list, he isn't a midfield starter now - put Embley in there - or Michael Braun if you want to consider Embley a forward (wingman/ half forward that he is.) - the group wouldn't be weakened by Braun, played some top shelf football in the second half of '03.

 

[Altum Volantes]

Originally posted by Porthos
The trick is to count how many goals West Coast have from players that actually play primarily as forwards.

in 'O3, from full time forwards we got 62 goals from Phil Matera, 31 from Ash Sampi and I think 27 from David Haynes (now with Geelong).

Plus from the midfield, 29 from Judd and 31 from Embley - who both spend time up forward, not full time but they are goal scoring wingman/half forwards - Embley is in fact listed as a forward by Locks anyway, so do we get him in there or not Porthos ?

If so, 4 forwards in '03 with returns of 62,31,31 and 27 isn't THAT bad.
No, they aren't key position players, I'm not saying they are, but it's the forward line we have (had), I don't think the returns were diabolical...

The rest of the midfield was nothing remarkable as far as goals go - Gardiner and Fletcher kicked 10 each while Cousins kicked 20 and Kerr 17. I would imagine that's about average for a midfield group.

What's the rest of the league like in these areas - the high scoring teams like Brisbane and Port etc - how does the midfield contributed goals stack up against those teams ?

I'm not trying to tell you that the Eagles have a perfect forward line that doesn't have areas that need attention - I just think that the midfield, which is highly rated by the majority, would kick around the amount of goals most of the other teams with "gun" midfields would kick.

Willing to be proven wrong though.

 

[Portia]

Its a top return from Matera and a fair one from Sampi, but for actual forwards, West Coast is poorly.

You have a very good midfield that provide a lot of opportunities for the forwards.

 

[Kildonan]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
Good point PL - Quality & depth is something Brisbane definitely have!

For the Crows, there is going to be good competition for places in 2004. The starting line-up is likely to be something as follows:

R: Biglands, Goodwin, McLeod

C: Burton, Ricciuto, Stenglein

Biglands is putting in a huge pre-season, so I expect he will take over as #1 ruckman from Clarke, who will be the backup.

I expect Edwards, Bode, Ladhams & Reilly will form a significant part of the midfield rotation.

I reckon our midfield onsong is up there with the best going around.

? Shirley

 

[theorangeapple]

i believe it is touch and go whether the eagles midfield is better than the crows. it comes down to a lot of factors on the day..ie weather. i respect the crows emmensely, and as much as i hate to admit it their midfield playing directly on the eagles...crows are better. however, these teams do not clash every week and i think that the eagles midfield is just as effective ...although they go about their work almost oppositely.

having said all this i think if u took a look in 5 yrs then you'll find the eagles heading this list and the crows holding it up.
the whole eagle midfield would be aged between 25- 29 and unfortunatley most of the current crow midfield would be being pushed around the nursing home by there grankids

i dont think either of the sides supporters would swap midfields..and that is the beauty of the game.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Demonheart
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bagging your midfield, I wish we had the problems I was talking about with the pies, its just that I rate the bears as number one and the eagles as number two. Gardiner was arguably the best ruckman last year, Cousins is a star (I enjoy watching him play) and enough has been said about Judd without me adding to it. Fletcher and Kerr are pretty handy as well.
I trust my judgement because I'm not biased towards either team.

Impossible to argue with Brisbane as a clear number 1 IMO. After that it's fairly close with a few sides.

 

[utility]

IMO West Coast may just about have the #1 midfield in 2004 given where they are and where they can go. Gardiner is THE number one ruckman in the comp when fit, and ruck is THE most important position on the ground. Then throw in the likes of Cousins, Kerr, Fletcher, Judd, Embley and co., they are mighty good... their demolition of Brisbane at the Gabba last year showed what they can do... let's see what they will do. I think they are just about coming into their prime too, whereas Brisbane have probably peaked, and wear and tear will begin to show. If it wasn't for injuries the Eagles would have finished top four last year, and have a look at their forward/back lines.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by StKildonan
? Shirley

Knew I would miss someone. Yeah, he will be part of the midfield rortation. Good pick up.