List Mgmt. Our Midfield

[PrinceCharles]

Where in my post did i mention he wont be a midfielder? You making things up. I suggested versatility and flexibility thats about all. Stop talking shit and standing on a pedastal nothing is more annoying.

Go back to the main board.

 

[MITSUHIRATO]

I still think it’s too one paced.

I see lots of people on here advocating for going after Cerra in 2019 and while I rate his midfield capabilities, he would only add to the problem.

 

[Faz 2000]

Looks to be lots of talent and depth there now - albeit it young and not developed yet.

I think the next things we would try to add will be either a) a bonafide A-grader, bought for tons of money and two first-rounders or b) x-factor mid/fwd options with some genuine pace or tricks.

It's looking really good for the future. Let's hope we see real development this year.

 

[thylacine60]

I still think it’s too one paced.

I see lots of people on here advocating for going after Cerra in 2019 and while I rate his midfield capabilities, he would only add to the problem.

I would love the problems cerra would bring the carlton football club.........

 

[Gethelred]

I still think it’s too one paced.

I see lots of people on here advocating for going after Cerra in 2019 and while I rate his midfield capabilities, he would only add to the problem.

So was Geelongs, between 2006-2013, and Hawthorn's outside of a winger in Hill and a HBF in Smith was not pacy either.

Contrast that to us in 2011, when we had genuine pace to burn through the middle of the ground.

Pace of foot alone is not worth it, otherwise AFL teams would be stacked with Picketts and Hills rather than Cerras and Cripps'. It's in the pace of ball movement - because, as fast as some blokes are, you can't outrun a 60m bullet pass - and the accuracy of the kick that can truly make a difference. SOS has picked for quality of disposal first, in the majority of the players he's picked up, then has gone for other traits in combination to give us a number of different types between inside players, outside players, and combinations. We now just have to tweak the mixture over and over to find the best combination in different scenarios, to find what works when we're on the back or front foot, and to find what makes us the most effective in attack and defense.

Also, there were posts a little earlier, positing that SPS may need a backup position. That bloke is a midfielder, as true a mid as I've ever seen. He is effort and touch, and that he has played as many games as he has without a preseason at AFL level is a testament to his determination and his grit. His disposal is the best in the team, by a significant margin, but this is where his best attribute resurfaces; he's not an outside mid, or even an in/out mid. He's a true inside midfielder, who can and will pull off the impossible clearance through a gap too small to see. In three years time, him, Stocker, Dow/Fisher/Walsh/O'brien as the centre clearance set, and all of a sudden you're looking at multiple players who can dispose of the ball to advantage better than their opposition whilst still having sufficient grit to beat up on pretty much anyone around the ball. Throw Cripps in there for SPS - when the bloke is tired of making whoever's on him look stupid - and off we go.

It is here that we need to take care in how we choose to use Cripps. We play him in the middle, we could indeed be a bit one paced at times, but right now we cannot rest him forward for very long due to the degree to which we need him around a stoppage. If we can win the clearances in his absence, then all of a sudden he's free to become a 4th aerial threat ahead of the ball. Imagine, trying to choose who to send your KPD to between McGovern, Cripps, Charlie, Harry? Then, you've got the luxury of playing Kruez as a kick behind rather than needing him to run up and back over and over again, to be a threat ahead of the ball as well as minding his man.

All in all, I cannot wait for next season. I'm so far ahead of myself I'm absolutely certain I'm going to be a bit let down, and at this point I don't care.

 

[Masqualero]

I think people are discrediting what Shiel would have added to our midfield, I don't think it was good we didn't get him.
If Murphy breaks down again, Kennedy does an ankle or Ed cops another freak throat accident we'll cope.
If two of these happen we're stuffed, if one of those names is Cripps....
He hasn't ever GWS best mid but he is a very good player and Ess are lucky to have him, long term it may turn out that Setters ends up better but I'd put money that Shiel has the most impact next 2 years.
Don't get me wrong though, love all our selections because they can all play football and haven't just been names on a list that have come and gone.
Theres a reason we targeted mature mids.

 

[Gethelred]

I think people are discrediting what Shiel would have added to our midfield, I don't think it was good we didn't get him.
If Murphy breaks down again, Kennedy does an ankle or Ed cops another freak throat accident we'll cope.
If two of these happen we're stuffed, if one of those names is Cripps....
He hasn't ever GWS best mid but he is a very good player and Ess are lucky to have him, long term it may turn out that Setters ends up better but I'd put money that Shiel has the most impact next 2 years.
Don't get me wrong though, love all our selections because they can all play football and haven't just been names on a list that have come and gone.
Theres a reason we targeted mature mids.

I've said this before and I'll undoubtedly say it again, but one person - regardless of how good/bad - does not make a football team. Should Cripps get injured, in the immediate short term - the next 2-3 weeks - we'll suffer for his absence, but from that point the coaches will have had an adequate amount of time to adjust their plans, to try to innovate our clearance setup, to maneuver things around to cater for his absence until he returns.

This is not something that is just a hypothetical, either. In 2017, Cripps and Ed both got injured going into the end of the season, and within 2 weeks we were winning roughly the same number of clearances and contested ball.

Obviously, you want your best 22 on the park, but there's far more to gain from the rest of the team being forced to step up and become real players than from us just growing. It is through adversity that humans are made into giants, and into leaders.

 

[The Bighouse]

It is through adversity that humans are made into giants, and into leaders.

And through trades that Giants are made into Blues.

 

[Blue__Balls]

why? you wouldn't waste cripps there........

But we do send Crippa forward, where he's kicked a few handy goals.

Don't think there's a suggestion that Walsh should be played as a HBF, just that if we want to rotate other players through the middle, that could be a position he could rotate through.

It's really only for centre bounces anyway - once the play begins 10+ players from each side will end up within a short kick of the footy.

 

[jpfalvo]

I've said this before and I'll undoubtedly say it again, but one person - regardless of how good/bad - does not make a football team. Should Cripps get injured, in the immediate short term - the next 2-3 weeks - we'll suffer for his absence, but from that point the coaches will have had an adequate amount of time to adjust their plans, to try to innovate our clearance setup, to maneuver things around to cater for his absence until he returns.

This is not something that is just a hypothetical, either. In 2017, Cripps and Ed both got injured going into the end of the season, and within 2 weeks we were winning roughly the same number of clearances and contested ball.

Obviously, you want your best 22 on the park, but there's far more to gain from the rest of the team being forced to step up and become real players than from us just growing. It is through adversity that humans are made into giants, and into leaders.

So how did that logic work in 2018 when we lost Docherty.

Yet the club rolled out the line of how much the loss impacted the team and results?

Or the trading of Gibbs, how that impacted our midfield and its seniority. I tend to agree the poster. Loss of key parts of the team in particular experienced players in key roles will see dramatic effects on performance

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

 

[Gethelred]

So how did that logic work in 2018 when we lost Docherty.

Yet the club rolled out the line of how much the loss impacted the team and results?

Or the trading of Gibbs, how that impacted our midfield and its seniority. I tend to agree the poster. Loss of key parts of the team in particular experienced players in key roles will see dramatic effects on performance

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

... You mean, when we traded Gibbs, a year after trading Tuohy, with Byrne suffering yet another injury setback, after our no. 1 kick in person in Williamson going down for an entire season, in addition to Docherty's injury?

It is always in the combination of things which lead to a single player's loss looking particularly bad. The logic works fine, in that it wasn't just Doc's absence which led to our backline looking shithouse; it was in midfield weakness, a surfeit of players turning over the course of 1.5 years into a lack of them, and the entire rest of the backline - from talls to smalls - being injured to the point that we were rotating Murphy and SPS through there to compensate.

And the club has to interact with the lowest common denominator, and the HS crowd still believe individuals and matchups are the deepest in footy coaching and maneuverability. It's a genuine half truth to say that our backline was so bad because Docherty was out, because while it's certainly true that his absence caused a lot to fall off that might've held together with him there to paper over the cracks it took a lot more going wrong for what was a genuine strength going forward in our backline/zone to capitulate in the way it did.

I'll be honest, I don't entirely disagree with the OP here either, but I do strenuously object to the frequently expressed line "Without Cripps, we're ****ed". Were WC ****ed without Mitchell/Priddis? Were Hawthorn ****ed without Franklin, Hodge, Mitchell, Lewis? Were we ****ed without Fev? In 2009, were St Kilda ****ed without Koschitzke or Riewoldt, when they lost both of them inside the first 5 rounds, or did I just imagine them doubling down on their defensive game and coming top 4 anyway? I can keep going. What I'm getting at should be so obvious as to be redundant; AFL is a team sport, ergo it is on the team to compensate for the absence/shortcomings of individuals within.

 

[Blue__Balls]

So how did that logic work in 2018 when we lost Docherty.

Yet the club rolled out the line of how much the loss impacted the team and results?

Or the trading of Gibbs, how that impacted our midfield and its seniority. I tend to agree the poster. Loss of key parts of the team in particular experienced players in key roles will see dramatic effects on performance

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

You know what had a more significant impact on 2018 than the loss of Docherty?

The loss of 10-12 other players most weeks as well.

It was a compounding effect. Yes, Docherty in the backline would have helped to steady things. But we were never going to be competitive when a third of the list was injured.

 

[Kramer1]

I would love the problems cerra would bring the carlton football club.........

Like Daniel Andrew pissed off about having to buy more mugs for the tea room...

 

[Nori]

I still think it’s too one paced.

I see lots of people on here advocating for going after Cerra in 2019 and while I rate his midfield capabilities, he would only add to the problem.

It’s funny how people fixate on players from other teams.

I’ll know our gun mids have come of age when this constant chatter disappears.

 

[HARKER]

I still think it’s too one paced.
I see lots of people on here advocating for going after Cerra in 2019 and while I rate his midfield capabilities, he would only add to the problem.

That may seem a little harsh on face value, but again we seem to be obsessed about adding talent without considering what that right talent may be.
Which of our mids currently have positions they can take up when not required in the midfield? I think we'll just have to find that out, now.

Subjective analysis of our younger mids:
Cripps is one out of the box and doesn't have to be able to play anywhere else should it not be required.
Fisher is also one that has the ability to be able to play in a variety of roles. (mid, wing, forward)
Dow is a gun and something we just don't have in any other mid - genuine acceleration and burst-power. Likely to become a centre square starter.
Walsh is all class and can make time stand still. Having a strong endurance base and work ethic will hold him in very good stead.
Setterfield is to us at least, a little bit of an unknown but his height, power and clean hands make him a strong point of difference.

Petrevski-Seton. If he doesn't become an important part of centre square engagement, what do we do with him?
Kennedy: Midfield or bust to me.
Stocker may be competing for the one spot along with Kennedy.

You always need depth in the midfield but the question is and will be, have we the right types to be able to mix and match to suit and how many of these younger guys, can we genuinely carry in the one team at any one time?
I won't include all those other guys we like to mention as I don't see them as genuine stoppage players. (Lang, O'Brien, Wiliamson, Pickett etc)
Remember also, that ECurnow and Murphy will be around for a couple of years yet and once the NB's becomes a staple diet for one....one can easily get lost.

For every time we take one player for this spot, we're denying another for what may possibly be a more required hole to fill......even if that individual isn't as gifted or talented.
It's a sum of the parts game and I just don't see all those parts being in place yet. That may not matter, but if we're still kicking 60 - 80 points a game next year, we may wish that we approached our intake just a little differently. I'm not saying that it's wrong but just seems to me that we may be doubling up just a little here and there and ignored (forced to ignore) other areas of the ground that may yet come back to bite. We'll see.

 

[Stamos]

Dow is a gun and something we just don't have in any other mid - genuine acceleration and burst-power. Likely to become a centre square starter.

Can't agree with this Harks. Dow is already a centre square starter.

 

[Mr_Plow]

That may seem a little harsh on face value, but again we seem to be obsessed about adding talent without considering what that right talent may be.
Which of our mids currently have positions they can take up when not required in the midfield? I think we'll just have to find that out, now.

Subjective analysis of our younger mids:
Cripps is one out of the box and doesn't have to be able to play anywhere else should it not be required.
Fisher is also one that has the ability to be able to play in a variety of roles. (mid, wing, forward)
Dow is a gun and something we just don't have in any other mid - genuine acceleration and burst-power. Likely to become a centre square starter.
Walsh is all class and can make time stand still. Having a strong endurance base and work ethic will hold him in very good stead.
Setterfield is to us at least, a little bit of an unknown but his height, power and clean hands make him a strong point of difference.

Petrevski-Seton. If he doesn't become an important part of centre square engagement, what do we do with him?
Kennedy: Midfield or bust to me.
Stocker may be competing for the one spot along with Kennedy.

You always need depth in the midfield but the question is and will be, have we the right types to be able to mix and match to suit and how many of these younger guys, can we genuinely carry in the one team at any one time?
I won't include all those other guys we like to mention as I don't see them as genuine stoppage players. (Lang, O'Brien, Wiliamson, Pickett etc)
Remember also, that ECurnow and Murphy will be around for a couple of years yet and once the NB's becomes a staple diet for one....one can easily get lost.

For every time we take one player for this spot, we're denying another for what may possibly be a more required hole to fill......even if that individual isn't as gifted or talented.
It's a sum of the parts game and I just don't see all those parts being in place yet. That may not matter, but if we're still kicking 60 - 80 points a game next year, we may wish that we approached our intake just a little differently. I'm not saying that it's wrong but just seems to me that we may be doubling up just a little here and there and ignored (forced to ignore) other areas of the ground that may yet come back to bite. We'll see.

I think you're underselling Stocker's attributes somewhat. Yes, his talents are maximised playing as an inside midfielder, but his physical attributes in terms of acceleration, agility and quality dual-sided disposal can be used anywhere.

To be able to complain that we are drafting too many extremely talented strong contested mids is unusually satisfying.

 

[HARKER]

Can't agree with this Harks. Dow is already a centre square starter.

That is correct, but that may have also been forced upon him, given the lack of depth we had this year.
No Kennedy really, Fisher not developed yet and now we have the arrival of Walsh, Setterfield & Stocker.....but I think all that wouldn't have mattered had have they all been there this year, as Dow is exactly what we needed.

This is part of what I'm getting at. Another Dow-type (Shiel would have been ideal) looks a better proposition than another say another Kennedy-type.
Our midfield looks mostly solid without exactly being dynamic. Reckon we could do with another strong dynamic type, just to round things off.

 

[HARKER]

I think you're underselling Stocker's attributes somewhat. Yes, his talents are maximised playing as an inside midfielder, but his physical attributes in terms of acceleration, agility and quality dual-sided disposal can be used anywhere.

To be able to complain that we are drafting too many extremely talented strong contested mids is unusually satisfying.

It's great right?

But how may it be if we still can't make good of any players to play that dynamic small forward we need....and I do think we need it?
From what I see, we could have a couple of those mids playing NB's most of the year, yet still be bemoaning our lack of the small forwards making good of what the tall forwards may be doing.

Maybe Pickett comes to the party, Garlett puts in a magical pre-season, Fasolo gets back to his absolute best, LeBois finally gets his injuries behind him and starts to kick 2 a game and SPS's role changes and he becomes seriously dangerous playing in our forward-line.
That makes for a lot of ifs and possibilities, but which of them would you bank on?

 

[Doro]

Potentially(hate using that word) added the depth and class through the middle this draft/ trade period, that means the future acquisitions can be more strategic. Do we still chase a Kelly, considering our cap will begin to be an issue in a few years if we do? Setterfield , Walsh and Stocker could be be a huge haul for the club, I guess we await the season for clarification of what we need to add.

 

[HARKER]

Potentially(hate using that word) added the depth and class through the middle this draft/ trade period, that means the future acquisitions can be more strategic. Do we still chase a Kelly, considering our cap will begin to be an issue in a few years if we do? Setterfield , Walsh and Stocker could be be a huge haul for the club, I guess we await the season for clarification of what we need to add.

These are good questions.

I feel that Kelly has left the equation. We have Walsh and even though he'll take time to develop, I wouldn't trade for Kelly the way he'd need to be traded for.
Coniglio as F.A. though? Yes please.....please.

Do that and we still have currency available to trade for the gaps, even if it does take moving on one or two of our young guys who may now be not as required as they were when we drafted them. It's brutal but it has to be.

 

[Doro]

These are good questions.

I feel that Kelly has left the equation. We have Walsh and even though he'll take time to develop, I wouldn't trade for Kelly the way he'd need to be traded for.
Coniglio as F.A. though? Yes please.....please.

Do that and we still have currency available to trade for the gaps, even if it does take moving on one or two of our young guys who may now be not as required as they were when we drafted them. It's brutal but it has to be.

Cogs seems to be the Hawks number one target, so we'd need considerable improvement onfield to win his signature (along with raising a middle digit to the Crows). Still murmurs we have made significant movement with someone (as happened with Shiel), so Kelly would be my bet. Will cost a bomb though.

 

[Blue__Balls]

These are good questions.

I feel that Kelly has left the equation. We have Walsh and even though he'll take time to develop, I wouldn't trade for Kelly the way he'd need to be traded for.
Coniglio as F.A. though? Yes please.....please.

Do that and we still have currency available to trade for the gaps, even if it does take moving on one or two of our young guys who may now be not as required as they were when we drafted them. It's brutal but it has to be.

Gun ruckman.
Solid, proven, role players - outside pace, small defender, small forward.

We have so many talented kids coming through, all we need is to remain thereabouts for two years until the first wave peak and we surge up the ladder.

If we're going to splurge on a player, I'd like it to be a Brodie Grundy type. Otherwise, target good players from clubs on the slide who are happy to jump ship to a club coming into their prime.

Caddy. Melksham. Hill. Cameron. Those sorts.

We have enough gems, we just need time to polish them, which means gradually improving the supporting cast without overpaying.

 

[HARKER]

Cogs seems to be the Hawks number one target, so we'd need considerable improvement onfield to win his signature (along with raising a middle digit to the Crows). Still murmurs we have made significant movement with someone (as happened with Shiel), so Kelly would be my bet. Will cost a bomb though.

Funny how last year I was thinking please get Kelly, yet would now be disappointed should we acquire him for what we'd have to pay next year.
It's easy to say he's a great player so just get him, but how much impact and improvement would he alone add to our midfield, for the price by way of trade picks and contract, against other areas of the group we require input into?

Obviously somewhat different but it's arguable whether Ablett made Geelong better this year, or made them worse for the way they had to juggle things around to accomodate him.

The overall dynamic of the team/squad changes and even though the numbers may sometimes point to a win, you may just be inviting a loss. Leave Kelly....we have other rabbits to fry.

 

[ajb72]

What I am find interesting is thinking about what we do with Murphy. Probably a good problem to have.