Apples' Training Reports

[Bard]

Good points.

But Moore was actually legit top 10 key position player.

Yeah basically, and I don't think we've seen many utility players go in top 10 anyway, it's more that 11~20 bracket where a few start to come up.

 

[Bored_Pie]

So Club is Right with only Chasing Mids then? Can have 21 Mids with 1 Ruck?

You know thats a outlandish call.

 

[WalterBlaknWhte]

You know thats a outlandish call.

Ahh - you've made a newbie error

You turned right and entered BigFooty

You needed to turn left and go to the end of the corridor for the post-doctoral logic seminar

 

[cityslick1]

I think you just take the best available, and we have sought to do that for a long time now. It's why I'm against taking players who are referred to as 'utility' or 'swingmen' in the first round, because all that means is they're probably not actually in the top echelon in any position, they're just capable of playing multiple. Moore is just about the only exception to that rule I was happy with.

Maynard was referred to as a utility... he's doing alright now.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Ahh - you've made a newbie error

You turned right and entered BigFooty

You needed to turn left and go to the end of the corridor for the post-doctoral logic seminar

Should've turned right at Albuquerque.

 

[sr36]

and Monkhurst was huge for us in 1990

This is a myth. In 1990 Monky was a young bloke still cutting his teeth - barely ever had games with 20 hit outs.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Ahh - you've made a newbie error

You turned right and entered BigFooty

You needed to turn left and go to the end of the corridor for the post-doctoral logic seminar

Yes he's a newbie

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Should've turned right at Albuquerque.

Bugs Bunny indeed

 

[Bard]

Maynard was referred to as a utility... he's doing alright now.

I'm referring to those mid-190cm players who are touted to be able to play anywhere on the field yet regularly find themselves without a permanent position and their development stalls. I'm not sure who referred to Maynard as a utility but it seems a weird call? But then again it's a very ambiguous term.

 

[jackcass]

and Monkhurst was huge for us in 1990

Even more huge now.

 

[Apex36]

This is a myth. In 1990 Monky was a young bloke still cutting his teeth - barely ever had games with 20 hit outs.

His hitout numbers were below average (although hitout numbers were lower as a general rule those days anyway), but he was still massive for us as an accumulating ruck, much like Grundy these days.

I remember him having a 28 disposal, 26 hitout game against North that year, and I was only 6 at the time.

 

[soreplums]

His hitout numbers were below average (although hitout numbers were lower as a general rule those days anyway), but he was still massive for us as an accumulating ruck, much like Grundy these days.

I remember him having a 28 disposal, 26 hitout game against North that year, and I was only 6 at the time.

Didn’t Monkey finish top three in the Brownlow one year?

 

[Scodog10]

Is that what was said though? I took it to mean that's how they have played and it would be good if Moore got some time in defence because of it. It indicates that's what might happen this year but it's still just a guess.

If we do go a five man forward line I honestly can't see us making the finals this season. It's just an uncompetitive set-up if we do. Unless we get a heavy score involvement from our mids, who historically get in good positions and blow it (except Wells). That's the only way it works.

A former assistant coach spoke of how stubborn Buckley is as a coach and at the very least Moore stated that was the 2017 structure. On that basis how would you frame odds on it being our structure in 2018? I personally think it’s a waste of time speculating on any other structure because even if there is a change who here will notice it? Who here even knew we structured up as a 5 man forward setup?

We don’t get any info on how they setup at training only who’s in the structure and the game moves to quick for the average punter to notice. You can see it in how we move the ball too and even in the list management decisions we’ve made. Crisp down back, Moore with increased minutes down back and Murray in. All are moves designed to speed us up in transition in order to supply a certain type of forward structure.

My advice (not that it counts for s**t) would be to accept it for what it is because short of Buckley coming out and stating “a 5 man fwd group is our go to setup” that’s as close as you’ll ever get to knowing the ins and outs of the system.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Moore will play back (at least initially) and his old mans opinions really dont matter that much....especially now that Darcy has sacked him and got a real manager.

As for structure, it solves for itself. If you are winning then by definition your structures and game plan are good....if youre losing then structure and game plan are the first thing that are criticised....even if youre using the same game plan as the teams that are winning. Its such an overrated topic that its ridiculous. Richmonds one kpp forward line is a case in point. Is this the new way of doing things or is it only something you can get away with if you have the likes of Dustin Martin in your 22? Methinks the latter. Its about personnel, not game plan.

 

[sr36]

His hitout numbers were below average (although hitout numbers were lower as a general rule those days anyway), but he was still massive for us as an accumulating ruck, much like Grundy these days.

I remember him having a 28 disposal, 26 hitout game against North that year, and I was only 6 at the time.

I just looked at his stats from that year because I was sceptical, and you're right about that day, but most games he had low teen possessions that season. He became a gun later, but wasn't in 2010.

 

[Frank Gallagher]

I just looked at his stats from that year because I was sceptical, and you're right about that day, but most games he had low teen possessions that season. He became a gun later, but wasn't in 2010.

Was it 2011?

 

[Apex36]

I just looked at his stats from that year because I was sceptical, and you're right about that day, but most games he had low teen possessions that season. He became a gun later, but wasn't in 2010.

I think we can all agree on that

 

[sr36]

Was it 2011?

I'd say he became good in 1992 and was an absolute star in 1994, before gradually tapering off.

 

[DaVe86]

So Club is Right with only Chasing Mids then? Can have 21 Mids with 1 Ruck?

I think our recruiting over the off-season was more a reflection of what was available than list needs. I also think the club is bullish at making a play for Tom Lynch this year, and there are better KPP's in this draft.

Most clubs take best available with a top 10 pick, and then needs after that. Nathan Murphy was too good to pass up, and we had committed to Tyler Brown. We recruited a few mid sized defenders to sure up the defence in the rookie draft, so that's a reflection we will a bit light on in our defensive stocks.

I think at full strength we are ok for KPP's. The issue is if injury occurs, and also we are assuming Mason Cox can fit in. It would also help if McLarty break through as that allows Reid and Moore to play forward.

I'd be pretty shocked if we didn't address KPP stocks next off-season.

FWIW, Richmond may have been short up forward, but had 4 tall defenders down back. Adelaide has 4 key forwards (Lynch, Walker, Jenkins and McGovern), and had at least 3 key defenders. Sydney won something like 14 of its last 15 games with Franklin, Reid and Sinclair/Tippett up forward.

So I think this notion that teams are going shorter is misconceived.

 

[TradeDraft]

I think our recruiting over the off-season was more a reflection of what was available than list needs. I also think the club is bullish at making a play for Tom Lynch this year, and there are better KPP's in this draft.

Most clubs take best available with a top 10 pick, and then needs after that. Nathan Murphy was too good to pass up, and we had committed to Tyler Brown. We recruited a few mid sized defenders to sure up the defence in the rookie draft, so that's a reflection we will a bit light on in our defensive stocks.

I think at full strength we are ok for KPP's. The issue is if injury occurs, and also we are assuming Mason Cox can fit in. It would also help if McLarty break through as that allows Reid and Moore to play forward.

I'd be pretty shocked if we didn't address KPP stocks next off-season.

FWIW, Richmond may have been short up forward, but had 4 tall defenders down back. Adelaide has 4 key forwards (Lynch, Walker, Jenkins and McGovern), and had at least 3 key defenders. Sydney won something like 14 of its last 15 games with Franklin, Reid and Sinclair/Tippett up forward.

So I think this notion that teams are going shorter is misconceived.

I do agree I get the Feeling the Club is Super Confident they can Actually get Tom Lynch. I not even as Confident as the Club makes it look.

Wasn't Stephenson the Top 10 Pick we had and outside of Brander there was no Real 1st Round KPF in the Draft.

We don't have much Depth at the KPP Postion so we don't want any Injuries in those Postioins.

Well we either get Lynch or Another KPF or Go to the Draft where the lot of Good Young KPP in the Draft

 

[Mark W]

I just looked at his stats from that year because I was sceptical, and you're right about that day, but most games he had low teen possessions that season. He became a gun later, but wasn't in 2010.

It is true he was only a developing kid in 1990, but he did play a very good grand final and really put Madden, Somerville and Salmon to the sword.

 

[Mark W]

I'd say he became good in 1992 and was an absolute star in 1994, before gradually tapering off.

I think he tapered off quite rapidly and was really a shadow of his former self by 96, thanks mainly to a foot injury which prevented any sort of a leap. He just couldn't get off the ground in his later years

 

[Mark W]

I think our recruiting over the off-season was more a reflection of what was available than list needs. I also think the club is bullish at making a play for Tom Lynch this year, and there are better KPP's in this draft.

Most clubs take best available with a top 10 pick, and then needs after that. Nathan Murphy was too good to pass up, and we had committed to Tyler Brown.

I think at full strength we are ok for KPP's. The issue is if injury occurs, and also we are assuming Mason Cox can fit in. It would also help if McLarty break through as that allows Reid and Moore to play forward.

I'd be pretty shocked if we didn't address KPP stocks next off-season.

All well and good if it was just this year in isolation. But in the previous two years we gave up two pick 7s for a single midfielder when a whole cohort of highly rated talls were available: Curnow, McKay, Weideman, Logue and Marchbank.

In 2014, we went with De Goey instead of Wright. In 2013 took Freeman when McCarthy was on the table. In 2012 Broomhead and Kennedy were taken before Stewart O'Brien and Clurey....

Now I dont want to get into some detailed discussion on whether all those talls were good. Some of them are clearly very good, some of em so so (but no worse then BenKen, Broomy and Freeman). Nor do I want to get into a year by year discussion, sure, I can hear the argument that Stephenson was better then Naughton, or McCarthy had the go home factor....The key point I want to make is that in the past decade, with 10 first round and 10 second round picks available to us, we have invested in precisely TWO KP players: Moore and McLarty. Sooner or later we simply have to take a punt and invest in some early KP talent.

I would share your shock if we dont address the KP stocks next off-season, but Ive been shocked about this for 5 seasons now...

FWIW, Richmond may have been short up forward, but had 4 tall defenders down back. Adelaide has 4 key forwards (Lynch, Walker, Jenkins and McGovern), and had at least 3 key defenders. Sydney won something like 14 of its last 15 games with Franklin, Reid and Sinclair/Tippett up forward.

So I think this notion that teams are going shorter is misconceived.

I completely agree with you on this one. There have been lots of big conclusions drawn on the basis that the last two premiers did not have great goal to goal lines. But both the Bullies and Richmond have gone tall in the draft the last couple of years. I think these two teams realise they won despite their modest KP stocks...

 

[Snoop Dog]

Interesting call. I think when fit he is pretty locked into the 22. Of the 8 you named plus Varcoe 7 should fill the back half spots. There would be some versatility with Sack, Crisp, Varcoe and Moore able to play elsewhere so potentially all could play.

Interested where you see Murray. Given his interuppted pre season , his good but not great NEAFL season and that he was never seemingly near senior selection at the Swans I would see him as long odds to be in the senior team for round 1. If I had to guess I would rate him a less than 50:50 to become an AFL regular. He has a lot to show before he pushes the incumbents out of the 22

Yeah I see the back half at present as;

B Scharenberg - Dunn - Goldsack
HB Crisp - Moore - Howe

I think Varcoe is going forward as of his recent comments. For mine if Murray gets a good body of training in the next 2 months he is in for mine as the club are desperate for that speed and spent big to get him. I saw him a couple of times when he transitioned to the back half and he was super impressive. His junior days were as a small forward and thats where he started for them in the NEAFL but when Rhyce switched him back it worked well. I am confident but that could be optimistic. For mine Langdon spot is taken by Goldsack and Scharenberg but I have them ahead.

 

[Darkyprotector]

Yeah I see the back half at present as;

B Scharenberg - Dunn - Goldsack
HB Crisp - Moore - Howe

I think Varcoe is going forward as of his recent comments. For mine if Murray gets a good body of training in the next 2 months he is in for mine as the club are desperate for that speed and spent big to get him. I saw him a couple of times when he transitioned to the back half and he was super impressive. His junior days were as a small forward and thats where he started for them in the NEAFL but when Rhyce switched him back it worked well. I am confident but that could be optimistic. For mine Langdon spot is taken by Goldsack and Scharenberg but I have them ahead.

Correction his junior days were spent as a midfielder as was his first year of senior footy
3rd in morish medal ( o&m seniors b/f)
Spent big , hmm won't know cost till next years draft , could be same as tyler