Prediction Round 11, 2025: Changes vs Kuwarna

[sharps24]

Hutchinson was drafted 12 months ago (Yes I know he’s 23)

There’s nothing wrong with the age profile of the team or the individual players selected

Won’t stop you bitching about it at every opportunity though

Spare me old man , you can't be seriously running with we're playing Hutchinson so we don't need to play Bo Allan they were drafted 6 months apart so its the same thing.

I love Hutch. And I love Maric. Having both in our 22 is good for the age profile and both should be in our 22, and thank god we had the mid year pick to take them. But thats in a different category of list management and is fixing earlier failed drafts. The primary method, the actual draft, is where you get the majority of your future players. We have smashed the past 2 drafts and yet other than insta Criss Judd Harley Reid we've somehow managed to work out way to playing none of them now outside of in the sub role.

Call it bitching, fine. It actually important though because all of Hawthorn, North and Richmond made tough calls to go backwards in order to go forwards and they've all put serious amounts of games into their draftee's. We've only gone all in on the 2022 crop, and only due to a severe injury crisis. We last on the ladder and it's hurting us because now we're refusing to risk being any worse. It's short sighted weak leadership, and should be more or a concern.

Hawks are already away back up the ladder having done what was necessary. In 2-3 years when all our dead wood has finally been trimmed from the list, our 23 and 2024 draft crop are going to be 15-20 games behind the Richmond and North kids taken from the same darts. And that'll probably come back to bite us. Why wouldn't it?

Take Tyler Brockman as one example of someone we brought in to develop, why did he play more games in his 2 seasons at with the Hawks as an 18-20 yo [when they were doing this] than he has with us as a 21-23 year old? What was the point if not playing him in the 22 when its obvious how much talent he had and how much he needed games and confidence in order to get going.



You can do this all the way down the list, what value did we get out of playing Jack Darling last year instead of Jack Williams and Archer Reid? What is the point of not getting 10-15 games into Bo Allen this year when we are heading for another spoon, instead of delaying it to next year? How much better would Clay Hall be in his second season if we'd of found 5 games for him in the back half of last year? How much better would Tyrell Dewar be this year if he'd had an extra 5 games put into him last year? What was the actual return for us from all the games put into Witherden, Rotham and Edwards- at a guess 30-40 games aggregate? And are we doing the same thing again this year, playing blokes who are going to be delisted or traded instead of getting our next crop of 200 gamers through their first 10 games as quickly as possible.

These early games matter, and we're just not prioritising them enough imo. Week to week, it looks fine on the selection table because you can always make the case that experience matters and that there will be plenty of opportunities for younger players in future years. Of course they will be regularly playing in 2026/27. They'll be a season behind where they could be though which is frustrating. Teams at the bottom need to make selection choices that might make the side objectively worse, sometimes clearly so, in order to be better for it 2-3 seasons from now. This club has so much pride in itself it seems we're just incapable of actually doing that. its an similar [or the exact same] attitude that has bought at least two of the biggest clubs on the land unstuck time and again.

Something to think about anyway. Would be very unlike our club to put a foot wrong at the best of times, but you can never be too cautious about the risks involved with drinking 20 year old bath water. [Just play the kids ffs]

 

[sharps24]

Apologies if I’m getting you confused for another poster, but wasn’t there a discussion earlier in the year as to how Hough and Ginbey didn’t count as kids anymore despite their age because they’ve been in the side for years now and are established.

Obviously if you take away six players from our under 50 games played mark because they ‘should’ have played 50 already…yeah…then the number does go down a bit.

And even if we do that, regardless of games played they’re still the third youngest team selected of the week.

I just don’t understand where the selectors win if young and under 50 games doesn’t count, but young and ticking over 50 is also an established senior player now so not rebuild evidence (e.g. the 20 year old Ginbey).

This 20 year old doesn’t count for one reason, that 20 year old doesn’t count for another, it’s misleading to say Noah Long (20) or Elijah Hewett (20) are kids because they’ve been hurt, Hutch doesn’t count because he’s an upgrade on Luke Edwards who likely would have gone past 50 games already if healthy…

How far do we go with this?

It’s an incredibly young and incredibly inexperienced side. Archer Reid gets named on the extended bench and the place burns, but Gross, Harley and Hutch are named and we don’t have enough of our recent draft classes present.

Dunno what you're going on about, Ginbey has played 50 games so he's not in that 11 under 50 group. And absolutely correct Hough and Ginbey aren't kids anymore.

Point I was making is simply that it's dumb to compare us to Richmond. We have a number of players in the mid 40 games area [one of who'm is closer to 30 years old than 25] and if you make the comparison again in a few weeks it'll be 8 players under 50 not 11, with 6 50-100. Whereas Richmond will be at 14 under 50 still because they are playing guys who have barely played 10 games.

I don't know why everything I say has to be so controversial that a host of you feel the need to try and straw man the hell out of the simplest of observations. Harley Reid has played 30 games, he is currently the youngest player in the side other than Gross who is playing as sub. This week we didn't bring anyone in who changes that. And if Gross is sub again [fair chance] then Harley Reid will be the only draftee taken in the past 2 years who is starting in the side. [Ok sorry Keys, the only player taken in the November draft in the past 2 years].

If you ranked every club in the comp for number of players in the 22 taken in the last 2 drafts, do you think there will be any on 0? If we are on 1, where do you think that would rank us? Has to be last or equal last right? Pretty unusual for a side sitting in 18th who's been sitting down there for at least the last 3 years.

On some boards that would be a good point. On this board its fighting words.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Spare me old man , you can't be seriously running with we're playing Hutchinson so we don't need to play Bo Allan they were drafted 6 months apart so its the same thing.

Totally what he said, well picked up

 

[Bender_]

Totally what he said, well picked up

Sounds like you want to be double blocked.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Sounds like you want to be double blocked.

 

[ZergMinion]

AI says we recruited Jack Collins at Pick 53 in 2023. Why aren't we pumping games into him???

 

[Bender_]

View attachment 2323145

 

[HoneyBadger35]

Dunno what you're going on about, Ginbey has played 50 games so he's not in that 11 under 50 group. And absolutely correct Hough and Ginbey aren't kids anymore.

Point I was making is simply that it's dumb to compare us to Richmond. We have a number of players in the mid 40 games area [one of who'm is closer to 30 years old than 25] and if you make the comparison again in a few weeks it'll be 8 players under 50 not 11, with 6 50-100. Whereas Richmond will be at 14 under 50 still because they are playing guys who have barely played 10 games.

I don't know why everything I say has to be so controversial that a host of you feel the need to try and straw man the hell out of the simplest of observations. Harley Reid has played 30 games, he is currently the youngest player in the side other than Gross who is playing as sub. This week we didn't bring anyone in who changes that. And if Gross is sub again [fair chance] then Harley Reid will be the only draftee taken in the past 2 years who is starting in the side. [Ok sorry Keys, the only player taken in the November draft in the past 2 years].

If you ranked every club in the comp for number of players in the 22 taken in the last 2 drafts, do you think there will be any on 0? If we are on 1, where do you think that would rank us? Has to be last or equal last right? Pretty unusual for a side sitting in 18th who's been sitting down there for at least the last 3 years.

On some boards that would be a good point. On this board its fighting words.

It’s just such a bizarre distinction to make, that a 20 year old isn’t a kid because he’s been involved. Nor are some other ones, even though they haven’t been involved, because if they didn’t miss two years of footy to injury they’d likely have played a few games by now. They’re 20! That’s playing the kids!

George Wardlaw is 20 and has played 28 games. Do we think the North board are flat that his selection is pushing one of the ‘true’ kids out of the side?

The implication is that if we hit R1, 2026 with a midfield of Harley (then 20), Hewett (21) and Hall (20) that would be a ‘senior’ midfield (eg not a midfield full of kids) because they were all drafted multiple years ago.

What’s the end game for this? If Ginbey didn’t play, it’s very likely Allan would come in. Why is that inherently a plus? If Hall plays out the year then hits next year as ‘not a kid’, do we push him out to prioritise a rookie?

There’s loads of kids in this side, how would we be the third youngest team, or spent weeks as the youngest, if that weren’t the case? The aim isn’t to play the most rookies on a given season, it’s to build the side over a period of years.

 

[bzparkes]

If you're not playing all your draftees from last year, you're not playing the kids.

If you disagree with me then well, you can go block yourself.

 

[Bender_]

If you're not playing all your draftees from last year, you're not playing the kids.

If you disagree with me then well, you can go block yourself.

The hilarious thing is he's basically only engaging with the mods who can't be put on ignore.

The board to him is him and the 4 mods.

 

[Ochre]

Glad that we have a home game in round 24 so that Hough, Ginbey and Hewett can play their final game in front of the fans before they retire

 

[Keys]

I think we should play this team

Will get spanked but at least we’re getting games into draftees

FB: Maric Bazzo Hough
HB: Allan Brock Ginbey
C: Hutchinson Hall Dewar
HF: Davis A Reid Gross
FF: Long Shanahan Brockman
R: J Williams H Reid Hewett
INT: Grego, Champion, Livingstone, Johnston
SUB: Rawlinson

 

[HoneyBadger35]

I think we should play this team

Will get spanked but at least we’re getting games into draftees

FB: Maric Bazzo Hough
HB: Allan Brock Ginbey
C: Hutchinson Hall Dewar
HF: Davis A Reid Gross
FF: Long Shanahan Brockman
R: J Williams H Reid Hewett
INT: Grego, Champion, Livingstone, Johnston
SUB: Rawlinson

I’m seeing a few blokes who have been on the list longer than 18 months there Keys. Return of the bloody credits crew.

 

[chaddy22]

So Crippa and Owies are out and we somehow get shorter?


Riiiiiight...

Hope Hall and Dewar in with Dewar sub

No we got Long(er)

 

[sharps24]

It’s just such a bizarre distinction to make, that a 20 year old isn’t a kid because he’s been involved, nor are some other ones even though they haven’t because if they didn’t miss two years of footy to injury they’d likely have played a few games by now. They’re 20! That’s playing the kids!

George Wardlaw is 20 and has played 28 games. Do we think the North board are flat that his selection is pushing one of the ‘true’ kids out of the side?

The implication is that if we hit R1, 2026 with a midfield of Harley (then 20), Hewett (21) and Hall (20) that would be a ‘senior’ midfield (eg not a midfield full of kids) because they were all drafted multiple years ago.

What’s the end game for this? If Ginbey didn’t play, it’s very likely Allan would come in. Why is that inherently a plus? If Hall plays out the year then hits next year as ‘not a kid’, do we push him out to prioritise a rookie?

There’s loads of kids in this side, how would we be the third youngest team, or spent weeks as the youngest, if that weren’t the case? The aim isn’t to play the most rookies on a given season, it’s to build the side over a period of years.

We are the third youngest side because we have a huge gap in the list between the ages of 22-28 where in most sides thats probably a majority of the firsts.

You are just ignoring the most substantive point of the post, we aren't playing the kids we took in the last 2 drafts. And in the last 2 weeks would be ranked 18th or equal 18th for players getting games from the 23/24 draft cohort.

I've just watched Adam Yze rattle off a bunch of names in his side who've "only played 10 games." These are kids who aren't yet at the half way point of their first season.

How many of Hall, Gross, Harvey J, Greggo, Allan, Shanahan, A Ried have played 10 games? Harley has played 30.

Now, Ginbey, Hewett, Long, Dewar, Maric are all in the 22 this week and Ginbey has hit 50 games already. These are all draft year 2022. 3rd year players all other than Dewar have played at least 30 games. So clearly in their first 2 years they have the privilege of playing more first grade footy than any of the players from the next 2 drafts- again, other than Harley.

Hough, Jack Williams and Hutchinson are 2021 draft and have also benefitted from a clear priority to get them into the firsts.

So 8 of the current 22 are from the 21/22 drafts. They are the core group of our first 22. It just is what it is. Probably not many sides out there playing 8 players from those 2 drafts. You can call them kids all you want but they are actually the middle of our list. The majority of the players older than them could be considered veterans. Of the 3 or so players older than them but younger than 30, Matt Flynn is one of them is one of these guys being counted as an under 50 gamer.

It's just dicey to try apply a set of standard metrics used to measure list attributes when dealign with a list with as unusual a makeup as this one. The stats are going to be misleading so its best to talk individual players and draft years.

And our best drafts of the rebuild were 23 and 24, and only 1 of those players is currently tracking to have played anywhere close to the amount of games these 8 played in the first and 2nd season.

It would stand to reason then, that we can't really expect to see the same kind of return from the 23/24 cohort in their 3rd and 4th seasons given we haven't exposed them to the same amount of football at the highest level. This is an issue, because quite suddenly a whole heap of these 30 year olds aren't going to be there and these players are going to be it, and they aren't going to have the experience. At least not the way we have been tracking so far this season.

We were forced due to the injury situation in 23 to get the first group where they are now, and we haven't had that situation reoccur so we have elected to be more conservative these past 2 seasons at the selection table. It is only because we were forced to pump games into the likes of Ginbey, Hough etc that they are so reliable for us right now, a lesson I think we are ignoring.

Much of the reason for this seems to be that because we gutted the list of players taken earlier than 2021 we rationalise that we have to play anyone on the list who is older than 25 except for Petch, or else we'll "be the youngest team out there every week."

I would say it doesn't ****ing matter if your the youngest side out there, every side the the competition including us has proven that first and second year players can play AFL football and its very necessary to get games into these first and second year players. It has to come at the expense of experienced players because that's just who we have, so make the hard calls. You can't bring Bo Allen in for Alex Witherden because you cut 10 players in 2023. So it has to be for Tom Cole, thats just the problem they created for themselves. Tom Cole is a good player, or serviceable at least. But you can't just put 1 game into your first round pick in half a season when we need to be climbing out of this situation as soon as possible. Especially when Richmond have put 10 into all theirs.

 

[DorothyG]

 

[HoneyBadger35]

We are the third youngest side because we have a huge gap in the list between the ages of 22-28 where in most sides thats probably a majority of the firsts.

You are just ignoring the most substantive point of the post, we aren't playing the kids we took in the last 2 drafts. And in the last 2 weeks would be ranked 18th or equal 18th for players getting games from the 23/24 draft cohort.

I've just watched Adam Yze rattle off a bunch of names in his side who've "only played 10 games." These are kids who aren't yet at the half way point of their first season.

How many of Hall, Gross, Harvey J, Greggo, Allan, Shanahan, A Ried have played 10 games? Harley has played 30.

Now, Ginbey, Hewett, Long, Dewar, Maric are all in the 22 this week and Ginbey has hit 50 games already. These are all draft year 2022. 3rd year players all other than Dewar have played at least 30 games. So clearly in their first 2 years they have the privilege of playing more first grade footy than any of the players from the next 2 drafts- again, other than Harley.

Hough, Jack Williams and Hutchinson are 2021 draft and have also benefitted from a clear priority to get them into the firsts.

So 8 of the current 22 are from the 21/22 drafts. They are the core group of our first 22. It just is what it is. Probably not many sides out there playing 8 players from those 2 drafts. You can call them kids all you want but they are actually the middle of our list. The majority of the players older than them could be considered veterans. Of the 3 or so players older than them but younger than 30, Matt Flynn is one of them is one of these guys being counted as an under 50 gamer.

It's just dicey to try apply a set of standard metrics used to measure list attributes when dealign with a list with as unusual a makeup as this one. The stats are going to be misleading so its best to talk individual players and draft years.

And our best drafts of the rebuild were 23 and 24, and only 1 of those players is currently tracking to have played anywhere close to the amount of games these 8 played in the first and 2nd season.

It would stand to reason then, that we can't really expect to see the same kind of return from the 23/24 cohort in their 3rd and 4th seasons given we haven't exposed them to the same amount of football at the highest level. This is an issue, because quite suddenly a whole heap of these 30 year olds aren't going to be there and these players are going to be it, and they aren't going to have the experience. At least not the way we have been tracking so far this season.

We were forced due to the injury situation in 23 to get the first group where they are now, and we haven't had that situation reoccur so we have elected to be more conservative these past 2 seasons at the selection table. It is only because we were forced to pump games into the likes of Ginbey, Hough etc that they are so reliable for us right now, a lesson I think we are ignoring.

Much of the reason for this seems to be that because we gutted the list of players taken earlier than 2021 we rationalise that we have to play anyone on the list who is older than 25 except for Petch, or else we'll "be the youngest team out there every week."

I would say it doesn't ****ing matter if your the youngest side out there, every side the the competition including us has proven that first and second year players can play AFL football and its very necessary to get games into these first and second year players. It has to come at the expense of experienced players because that's just who we have, so make the hard calls. You can't bring Bo Allen in for Alex Witherden because you cut 10 players in 2023. So it has to be for Tom Cole, thats just the problem they created for themselves. Tom Cole is a good player, or serviceable at least. But you can't just put 1 game into your first round pick in half a season when we need to be climbing out of this situation as soon as possible. Especially when Richmond have put 10 into all theirs.

If Harley, Hall and Hewett play every game this season from here on in, they hit Round 1 next year at:

Harley (20 years old, 44 games)
Hewett (21, 36 games)
Hall (20 years old, 20 games)

That’s not a senior midfield. That’s a midfield full of kids. Draft year falling whenever it does.

I just don’t understand the arbitrary cut off, and even if I do play along with the ‘most recent two drafts’ rule: look at the difference in our drafts.

Richmond load up on their super draft of first rounders - that’s playing the kids. That’s good. Two years from now when those guys are 20 and have played 40 odd games…they’re no longer part of the rebuild?

West Coast have one pick per round, rather than the mass exodus army of first rounders, but need to produce day one ready to go B22 players at the same rate? It’s just not possible. So they’re bringing them along where they can.

Why is the cut off players from the two drafts selected over the last two weeks? Harley speaks for himself but AReid has been a perma lock in this side this year, we’ve put games into Gross and Davis, we’ve debuted Allan, Hall has had a crack, Maric was drafted four months before Harley but doesn’t count.

We’re an incredibly young side, exposing loads of young kids to their first extended stint of AFL footy. That’s playing the kids. That’s embracing the rebuild. You don’t win a prize for playing the most draftees from this class over a two week window in 2025. Nor do you help your 20 year olds go on with it when you say “you’ve done two offseasons, you’re plenty ready, go do the heavy lifting for our new teenagers now that you’re established”.

 

[Godfather32]

This is the worst changes thread of all time

 

[twce13]

This is the worst changes thread of all time

Don't like wall of texts backing up a distinction only one dude comprehends ?

 

[squashface]

This is the worst changes thread of all time

Especially when this weeks changes have probably been the least controversial

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

The best bit about this argument is Hutchinson counting as “playing the kids” because he was taken in last year’s midseason draft, but the younger and less experienced Brock doesn’t because he spent three years not getting a game at Gold Coast.

 

[Bender_]

I think we should play this team

Will get spanked but at least we’re getting games into draftees

FB: Maric Bazzo Hough
HB: Allan Brock Ginbey
C: Hutchinson Hall Dewar
HF: Davis A Reid Gross
FF: Long Shanahan Brockman
R: J Williams H Reid Hewett
INT: Grego, Champion, Livingstone, Johnston
SUB: Rawlinson

 

[sharps24]

If Harley, Hall and Hewett play every game this season from here on in, they hit Round 1 next year at:

Harley (20 years old, 44 games)
Hewett (21, 36 games)
Hall (20 years old, 20 games)

That’s not a senior midfield. That’s a midfield full of kids. Draft year falling whenever it does.

I just don’t understand the arbitrary cut off, and even if I do play along with the ‘most recent two drafts’ rule: look at the difference in our drafts.

Richmond load up on their super draft of first rounders - that’s playing the kids. That’s good. Two years from now when those guys are 20 and have played 40 odd games…they’re no longer part of the rebuild?

West Coast have one pick per round, rather than the mass exodus army of first rounders, but need to produce day one ready to go B22 players at the same rate? It’s just not possible. So they’re bringing them along where they can.

Why is the cut off players from the two drafts selected over the last two weeks? Harley speaks for himself but AReid has been a perma lock in this side this year, we’ve put games into Gross and Davis, we’ve debuted Allan, Hall has had a crack, Maric was drafted four months before Harley but doesn’t count.

We’re an incredibly young side, exposing loads of young kids to their first extended stint of AFL footy. That’s playing the kids. That’s embracing the rebuild. You don’t win a prize for playing the most draftees from this class over a two week window in 2025. Nor do you help your 20 year olds go on with it when you say “you’ve done two offseasons, you’re plenty ready, go do the heavy lifting for our new teenagers now that you’re established”.

Why are you talking about a 'senior midfield?' It's not all that relevant to the 1st/2nd year players and I don't recall bringing it up. Your just steering the argument into you own frame to avoid conceding a factual point I was making about Harley being the only one currently getting full games. There are less full on positions on the field than starting midfield.

To respond to it though. A round 1 2026 midfield is made up of more than 3 players. So a midfield including Hall, Hewett and Reid would also include Yeo and Graham at minimum. No reason the starting midfield wouldn't be Yeo, Reid, Graham with Hewett and Hall on the bench. And that would be a pretty well balanced midfield actually, a veteran over 30 who's formerly one of the best players in the league. The fittest bloke on the list who's actually probably the weakest link in that mix but at least he's a senior player. Then you'd have a 4th year player and 2 3rd year players. Perfectly fine. Yeah ideally they'd all be on 150 games and around 25 but we simply don't have those players on our list. Btw we have no choice but to make Reid and Hewett part of our starting midfield whether you like it or not. Hall can be swapped out of there for Hough or Ginbey though, then it'd be 2 vets a 5th yr a 4th year and a 3rd [who's Harley ****ign Reid]. But Hall would still need games in his 3rd year in order to become someone who can go through in his 4th forward when we lose Yeo.

I don't even know how we make a midfield without using at least 3 players under 22 because outside of Graham and Yeo we actually have no pure mids. Kelly is moving to half forward, so he's not in the mix. Baker is a half back or half forward or pocket. Who am I forgetting about, Hutchinson? Also wouldn't meet your criteria since you count him as a 2nd year player. So you don't really have a very strong straw man there by pointing to the ages of Hewett, Reid and Hall and saying thats not a senior midfield.

If you look at the drafts of 23/24 only Gross can play midfield and Mini has already said he wants him to come in and play half forward, which I agree with. I'm saying yes, play Gross at half forward. Play Allen at half back. Play Archer Reid forward. Give Harvey J or Davis a run on a wing. Debut Shanahan even. Do all of it, do some of it, whatever. But none of it runs afoul of your "senior midfield" point.

Nor do you help your 20 year olds go on with it when you say “you’ve done two offseasons, you’re plenty ready, go do the heavy lifting for our new teenagers now that you’re established”.

What are you saying here? You think we should of dropped Ruben to WAFL last year? Shouldn't have put games into Hough in 23? It's not even a matter of relying on them we literally couldn't field a side right now if we aren't asking 21/22 year olds to play AFL football, and the fact is we can rely on them- because they are now 50 game players despite being relatively young. We'd be ****ed defensively if these 2 weren't playing like men already.

The point would be if you want players to start winning their positions as 21 year olds [and we do want that, actually] then you need to put games into them as 20 year olds. And you needed to put games into them as 18 year olds and 19 year olds if you want the games as 20 year olds to transition them into winning their positions at 21.

It's not a matter of expecting them to dominate its a matter of there being a process along the way through which they become established. A process of playing AFL games. And It'll take even longer for Archer Ried so yes, we need to give him these games and if he keeps getting them it doesn't have to come with an expectation that he win his position every week. He is beating his opponent more often than not now just to make the discussion more void, and on form alone should of been in the side ahead of Oscar, or at least in that position ahead of Oscar. Waterman was injured for some of this to remember, and Reid is out of the side now so I don't particularly buy into an argument he was being carried just to get games into him, though that would of been fine.

We can agree to disagree on whether it is or isn't important to get games into first and second year players. Can you not just agree that we aren't putting the same volume of games into them as we did in 23 and 24. Because we absolutely are not. 1 game Allan. 2 full games Gross 1 full game Davis. Nothing for Greggo or Shannahan of HJ. 2 games for Hall? Sure it's not nothing but it certainly could be more, and those games wouldn't be wasted.

How many less games would be have won in the first 10 rounds I wonder if each of those guys player an extra 2 games each?

 

[HoneyBadger35]

The point would be if you want players to start winning their positions as 21 year olds [and we do want that, actually] then you need to put games into them as 20 year olds. It's not a matter of expecting them to dominate its a matter of there being a process along the way through which they become established. A process of playing AFL games.

Yes, which is what we’re doing. Maric is 20. Ginbey is 20. Hewett is 20. Reid is 20. Gross is 18. Archer is 19 and has been getting games pumped into him. The ins this week are Long (20) and Dewar (21).

That’s everyone’s point, you’re the one saying they’re not kids so it doesn’t count.

Nobody in here would care if Allan played over Cole (even if I do think he’s probably not a HBF but worth it to pump games in). Everybody in here wants Gross full games over sub games.

But beyond that, we have so many kids in the side that to get others in you have to push out some of the allegedly ‘established’ ones to do so.

The KPFs are stuck behind a reigning AA and our captain, and even still JWill and Archer have played plenty. The only midfield spot up for grabs is the one Gross already can’t get, so where do Hall or Grego fit in? Bench Hewett to get games in? Bench Graham for the sake of it? End the Hough midfield minutes, closing the door for Allan again?

All of this before you wade into whether third and fourth round picks should be as AFL ready at 18 as an army of first rounders like the Tigers have.

Anyway, the locals are sick of this. We’re an incredibly young team, half of our team are 22 or under, and several times this year we’ve named the youngest team in footy. This is an observable demonstrable fact. There simply is no gripe to be had here.

 

[PremiershipNo4]

I think we should name more older players, Worsfold to the HBF