VFL Round 9 - Collingwood vs Werribee at Victoria Park (Pies WON 121-79, replay links on pages 12 & 14)

[Buckley is my hero]

The player who comes to mind in drawing comparison to Abbott to me is Stuart Dew. Both very strong in the body and booming kicks. Would be very surprised if the club played Abbott down back as Knightmare suggests. I would have thought that wing or half forward is where I would be playing Abbott. Also with regards to comments about Armstrong, his major problem is lack of upper body strength to survive AFL footy. Doesn't matter how good a kick you are if you can't shrug off a tackle or go into a pack. Only versatile players survive AFL footy these days and Armstrong isn't one of them. Waste of a rookie spot for me that should go to more useful players such as Pendlebury.

 

[jackcass]

Knightmare Moore played Forward because Gault did not play.

Though I hope to see Moore Stay Forward but I won't hold my breath on it though

Exactly, with Gault and Still out and 4 (Reid, Marsh, Moore, Pendlebury) tall defender options, one of them had to play forward.

 

[TradeDraft]

Exactly, with Gault and Still out and 4 (Reid, Marsh, Moore, Pendlebury) tall defender options, one of them had to play forward.

Though it did Show they do see a Future Forward for Moore

 

[Knightmare]

The player who comes to mind in drawing comparison to Abbott to me is Stuart Dew. Both very strong in the body and booming kicks. Would be very surprised if the club played Abbott down back as Knightmare suggests. I would have thought that wing or half forward is where I would be playing Abbott. Also with regards to comments about Armstrong, his major problem is lack of upper body strength to survive AFL footy. Doesn't matter how good a kick you are if you can't shrug off a tackle or go into a pack. Only versatile players survive AFL footy these days and Armstrong isn't one of them. Waste of a rookie spot for me that should go to more useful players such as Pendlebury.

From an attribute standpoint Abbott as mentioned in the previous post is best suited to playing back pocket.

Versatility isn't an issue for Armstrong. He can play back, on a wing. And I speculate that his best position would be on a forward flank, and he could probably if required push deeper into the front half. In terms of shruggling tackles, Armstrong can to an extent shrug a tackle, but in his case it is not so relevant to his game because he has some evasiveness but critically will also use the ball cleanly to a target before getting tackled. So that for me isn't an issue either to his game.
I agree with the consensus that he will be delisted at seasons end due to age and then not being a best 22 player. But I'm not agreeing with anyone's assessment of his game and I get the sense people aren't watching him so closely. He is better in some areas of his game than people will give him credit for.

On Abbott the forward flank or winger. That's outside his limitations, or will be for some time still.

Are you aware with Abbott at the 2013 state combine Abbott scored a lousy 8,11 beep test score? I don't have Abbott's 2014 results as he didn't appear to get tested. But I'm guessing his endurance will not allow him to push up the field for quite some time. He is very much an explosive athlete over short distances rather than someone who can cover ground. And as a result one end or another, he will remain deep forward or back.

 

[MagpieBat]

Exactly, with Gault and Still out and 4 (Reid, Marsh, Moore, Pendlebury) tall defender options, one of them had to play forward.

Yes, but hopefully that's where Moore stays even when those two come back.

 

[Kappa]

Lockyer's review of the players:

http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2015-06-17/vfl-round-9-player-statistics-and-comment

Doesn't really put much time into the review does tarks

 

[MagpieBat]

Doesn't really put much time into the review does tarks

Eh, there have been worse. I remember a couple of years ago when Rocca did the reviews, his comments on one player were "Played on a wing." That's it.

 

[Gone Critical]

Scharenberg played an AFL standard game and should after the bye be playing in the 1s. His quality of performance is completely beyond doubt now. He was also in the first half by far and away our best when everyone others around him didn't show up.

.

Scharenberg intrigues me. I go to the VFL a fair bit and he isthe one I watch the most. I watched the replay today just because of comments like the one you have made above to see what I am missing. First I am not trying to knock Shaz because I see him as someone who should be allowed time to develop without pressure of expectation. At the same time when you see AFL standard where I see VFL average performance I wonder where we differ

On Sunday for mine he played a tidy safe game on the HBF with a little time up forward where he didn't threaten at all. He got some stats, mainly from chains of play or uncontested ball. Made a couple of strong spoils but was also at times lead to the contest by his opponent who gained possies without huge pressure being applied by Shaz. That has been a characteristic of his play this year is he is often being dictated to by e opponent. Heis playing reactive footy and appears reluctant to back himself in a contest. Probably the best he has been in contested situations is coming off his man for some intercept work although he didn't do that this week. He has yet to show any tendency to set up play or take the game on which an elite HBF in e mould of a Shaw or Malcevski does as a matter ofcourse

I am not knocking him at all but just see him as a slow build who is still well off the pace to be considered for AFL. It's a major contrast to what you have seen and would be interested in a bit more detail re your views.

Thanks KM

 

[TradeDraft]

How can you tell a Player is Being Lad Around?

 

[TradeDraft]

Scharenberg intrigues me. I go to the VFL a fair bit and he isthe one I watch the most. I watched the replay today just because of comments like the one you have made above to see what I am missing. First I am not trying to knock Shaz because I see him as someone who should be allowed time to develop without pressure of expectation. At the same time when you see AFL standard where I see VFL average performance I wonder where we differ

On Sunday for mine he played a tidy safe game on the HBF with a little time up forward where he didn't threaten at all. He got some stats, mainly from chains of play or uncontested ball. Made a couple of strong spoils but was also at times lead to the contest by his opponent who gained possies without huge pressure being applied by Shaz. That has been a characteristic of his play this year is he is often being dictated to by e opponent. Heis playing reactive footy and appears reluctant to back himself in a contest. Probably the best he has been in contested situations is coming off his man for some intercept work although he didn't do that this week. He has yet to show any tendency to set up play or take the game on which an elite HBF in e mould of a Shaw or Malcevski does as a matter ofcourse

I am not knocking him at all but just see him as a slow build who is still well off the pace to be considered for AFL. It's a major contrast to what you have seen and would be interested in a bit more detail re your views.

Thanks KM

He plays like he does not trust his body 100%

 

[TradeDraft]

Full Replay

 

[Snag Breac]

How can you tell a Player is Being Lad Around?

That's exactly what I want to know. I've heard commentators say things like , "He's being lead to the footy." What exactly does that mean?

And Gone Critical raises another interesting point - the great differences knowledgeable barrackers perceive in a player's performance. We see it all the time in the post-game threads. What is it about footy that creates such widely different opinions?

 

[pieanitis]

Scharenberg intrigues me. I go to the VFL a fair bit and he isthe one I watch the most. I watched the replay today just because of comments like the one you have made above to see what I am missing. First I am not trying to knock Shaz because I see him as someone who should be allowed time to develop without pressure of expectation. At the same time when you see AFL standard where I see VFL average performance I wonder where we differ

On Sunday for mine he played a tidy safe game on the HBF with a little time up forward where he didn't threaten at all. He got some stats, mainly from chains of play or uncontested ball. Made a couple of strong spoils but was also at times lead to the contest by his opponent who gained possies without huge pressure being applied by Shaz. That has been a characteristic of his play this year is he is often being dictated to by e opponent. Heis playing reactive footy and appears reluctant to back himself in a contest. Probably the best he has been in contested situations is coming off his man for some intercept work although he didn't do that this week. He has yet to show any tendency to set up play or take the game on which an elite HBF in e mould of a Shaw or Malcevski does as a matter ofcourse

I am not knocking him at all but just see him as a slow build who is still well off the pace to be considered for AFL. It's a major contrast to what you have seen and would be interested in a bit more detail re your views.

Thanks KM

Fantastic post GC. I'm with you on this one! Sometimes I believe its a case of supporters so desperate for a kid to be a superstar that it clouds their ability to review objectively and without any sense of impartiality. Same can be said with certain reviews of Moore's game on the weekend, which i thought was just ok. I genuinely believe both kids are going to be very good players long term, but are not ready for AFL footy just yet IMO.

 

[Knightmare]

Scharenberg intrigues me. I go to the VFL a fair bit and he isthe one I watch the most. I watched the replay today just because of comments like the one you have made above to see what I am missing. First I am not trying to knock Shaz because I see him as someone who should be allowed time to develop without pressure of expectation. At the same time when you see AFL standard where I see VFL average performance I wonder where we differ

On Sunday for mine he played a tidy safe game on the HBF with a little time up forward where he didn't threaten at all. He got some stats, mainly from chains of play or uncontested ball. Made a couple of strong spoils but was also at times lead to the contest by his opponent who gained possies without huge pressure being applied by Shaz. That has been a characteristic of his play this year is he is often being dictated to by e opponent. Heis playing reactive footy and appears reluctant to back himself in a contest. Probably the best he has been in contested situations is coming off his man for some intercept work although he didn't do that this week. He has yet to show any tendency to set up play or take the game on which an elite HBF in e mould of a Shaw or Malcevski does as a matter ofcourse

I am not knocking him at all but just see him as a slow build who is still well off the pace to be considered for AFL. It's a major contrast to what you have seen and would be interested in a bit more detail re your views.

Thanks KM

You're factually accurate in your analysis of Scharenberg and you're not wrong to make the observations you have made.

And the question being "what is his point of difference?" is a valid one.

Scharenberg isn't someone who will frequently offer run and carry and it's not really a part of his game at this point. In terms of setting up offense by foot he has the ability to do more than he certainly did in this game and more than he has offered in the VFL to this point. By foot he is fairly penetrating with a 55m kick, he has vision and can find targets up the field. On occasion (as a junior, particularly in his underage year) he showed he will at times shank one but generally he should do a good job setting up play and that's something he can and I'm expecting will begin to do more of.

With those general offensive areas understood with Scharenberg and what he offers. His relative strength is in his intercept marking. He reads it probably as well as anyone on our list and is an Oxley level intercept mark and reader of the play. Every bit as strong overhead and reads it every bit as well. He picks and chooses the right times to peel off his man and generally will take those intercept marks uncontested.

1v1 being the other critical area with defenders. He can do his part. He will mostly get the spoil in the 1v1 contest, but has the strength to go with guys, he can play taller if required (or has shown at state level he can, particularly in the SANFL) and he can also play against medium sizers well and generally stop them in the contest. He will sometimes take some 1v1 marks, not dominant in this area, and it's an area he can grow further in his game.

Athletically Scharenberg is sufficient. Not super quick (not sub 3 seconds over 20m) and not freakishly agile so I wouldn't have him playing on freakish small forwards and I'll never be expecting incredible linebreaking from him. Endurance probably above average. But he is just your average athlete by AFL standards for someone his height and athletically probably not unlike Oxley, though probably ever so slightly quicker, but anyone else, he'll be fine and able to go with them whether it's up the ground with his endurance seeming fine and deeper also fine against certainly medium size or taller types.

With Scharenberg in terms of how he compares to our other backs. Our back group is unique in that we have so many numbers (both tall and non-tall). But at the same time, we have no stars down back of either type.

Scharenberg I look at and I see his game stacking up favourably to our other options. He is in the same conversation as that whole backline group, but in saying that, I can't name a general defender who is better than (a healthy and fully fit) Scharenberg.

In terms of our regular general defenders. Oxley is the player I would propose Scharenberg replaces. And Oxley has been good in some games, other games not so good. But generally most would agree he has gone well so far this season.

In an assessment of Scharenberg v Oxley.
By foot, intercept marking (both reading the flight and marking ability). It's a dead heat. Both are good kicks and can set up some play, but both can have some slight inconsistencies and at times even feel rushed under pressure into mistakes. Reading the flight, strength overhead both are exceptional by position and just as great.
Neither are super athletic. Scharenberg slightly better with Oxley, though neither really are athletes.
Where Scharenberg gets the points over Oxley is he is much stronger 1v1 and can beat his guy more consistently in the contest. And as a result you're getting a better two way game from Scharenberg, without losing any offense either.
I also look at Scharenberg as a more consistent player, who won't have as bad down games relative to Oxley who isn't that same consistent performer, with consistently not an issue for Scharenberg.

And Langdon is another where Scharenberg has roughly the same game. There are differences. Scharenberg can probably play taller and is a little better again in the 1v1 contest. Probably doesn't at this point anyway find as much ball. But that general level of performance, is roughly this year what I'd expect from Scharenberg.

--
In terms of how Scharenberg compares to the premier players by position. I don't see him as a Heath Shaw or Nick Malceski level talent or rebounder. He doesn't run and carry anything like Shaw. He doesn't kick to the level of Malceski. He doesn't have that kind of offensive point of difference to do those things those guys do.

Lots of work until he can have even close to those kinds of guys. Maybe he can be our Andrew Mackie equivalent and I think that's probably a pretty realistic projection of the player he is likely to be pretty similar to in the pros.

Scharenberg has some different things going for him on top of all these things I've mentioned. He can push forward, take a mark and have an impact situationally which is something I'd look into with him in coming seasons. The club want him to also be able at least to rotate through the midfield, though that he has never really shown he can do that quite to this point, so that's a down the track thing, but along with Langdon it's something he has the ability to develop.

 

[Gone Critical]

How can you tell a Player is Being Lad Around?

That's exactly what I want to know. I've heard commentators say things like , "He's being lead to the footy." What exactly does that mean?

And Gone Critical raises another interesting point - the great differences knowledgeable barrackers perceive in a player's performance. We see it all the time in the post-game threads. What is it about footy that creates such widely different opinions?

I am sure it's a term that can mean different things but here is my take

It's something that may be applied to a tagged or a HBF or Back Pocket type.

In a tagger who is is purely in shut down mode it is a stock in trade tool. Let the superior player lead you to where the play is but sit on them so tight that when you arrive there you have an ability to negate their role completely without any regard to having a positive impact yourself. A superior tagger like Ling would rather sit right on their opponent so they can negate them if needed but also be in a position to take on the play and create as a two way contestant. Negate your opponent while adding to the game yourself. This means you have to take initiative in the play and risk that you can take on and beat your quarry.

On say a HBF like Shaz being lead to the ball means you are in react to what your opponent does mode. You will take your prompts from what they do. You hope to stick close enough that when the ball comes in you can kill their move and with luck repel it at the same time. A HBF in the Shaw mould will cut an angle, anticipate what their opponent may do and parry it with their own move designed not only to negate them but also to create rebound and an attacking move. They are not simply stopping their opponent but are making a move where they envisage prior to doing it their team will end up on a counter attack. Such a player is thinking for themselves and countering their opponents play with a play of their own. A player being lead to the ball is just reacting to what their opponent is doing without any initiative themselves in the hope of mainly killing the contest. Anything else is a bonus.

 

[Gone Critical]

You're factually accurate in your analysis of Scharenberg and you're not wrong to make the observations you have made.

And the question being "what is his point of difference?" is a valid one.

Scharenberg isn't someone who will frequently offer run and carry and it's not really a part of his game at this point. In terms of setting up offense by foot he has the ability to do more than he certainly did in this game and more than he has offered in the VFL to this point. By foot he is fairly penetrating with a 55m kick, he has vision and can find targets up the field. On occasion (as a junior, particularly in his underage year) he showed he will at times shank one but generally he should do a good job setting up play and that's something he can and I'm expecting will begin to do more of.

With those general offensive areas understood with Scharenberg and what he offers. His relative strength is in his intercept marking. He reads it probably as well as anyone on our list and is an Oxley level intercept mark and reader of the play. Every bit as strong overhead and reads it every bit as well. He picks and chooses the right times to peel off his man and generally will take those intercept marks uncontested.

1v1 being the other critical area with defenders. He can do his part. He will mostly get the spoil in the 1v1 contest, but has the strength to go with guys, he can play taller if required (or has shown at state level he can, particularly in the SANFL) and he can also play against medium sizers well and generally stop them in the contest. He will sometimes take some 1v1 marks, not dominant in this area, and it's an area he can grow further in his game.

Athletically Scharenberg is sufficient. Not super quick (not sub 3 seconds over 20m) and not freakishly agile so I wouldn't have him playing on freakish small forwards and I'll never be expecting incredible linebreaking from him. Endurance probably above average. But he is just your average athlete by AFL standards for someone his height and athletically probably not unlike Oxley, though probably ever so slightly quicker, but anyone else, he'll be fine and able to go with them whether it's up the ground with his endurance seeming fine and deeper also fine against certainly medium size or taller types.

With Scharenberg in terms of how he compares to our other backs. Our back group is unique in that we have so many numbers (both tall and non-tall). But at the same time, we have no stars down back of either type.

Scharenberg I look at and I see his game stacking up favourably to our other options. He is in the same conversation as that whole backline group, but in saying that, I can't name a general defender who is better than (a healthy and fully fit) Scharenberg.

In terms of our regular general defenders. Oxley is the player I would propose Scharenberg replaces. And Oxley has been good in some games, other games not so good. But generally most would agree he has gone well so far this season.

In an assessment of Scharenberg v Oxley.
By foot, intercept marking (both reading the flight and marking ability). It's a dead heat. Both are good kicks and can set up some play, but both can have some slight inconsistencies and at times even feel rushed under pressure into mistakes. Reading the flight, strength overhead both are exceptional by position and just as great.
Neither are super athletic. Scharenberg slightly better with Oxley, though neither really are athletes.
Where Scharenberg gets the points over Oxley is he is much stronger 1v1 and can beat his guy more consistently in the contest. And as a result you're getting a better two way game from Scharenberg, without losing any offense either.
I also look at Scharenberg as a more consistent player, who won't have as bad down games relative to Oxley who isn't that same consistent performer, with consistently not an issue for Scharenberg.

And Langdon is another where Scharenberg has roughly the same game. There are differences. Scharenberg can probably play taller and is a little better again in the 1v1 contest. Probably doesn't at this point anyway find as much ball. But that general level of performance, is roughly this year what I'd expect from Scharenberg.

--
In terms of how Scharenberg compares to the premier players by position. I don't see him as a Heath Shaw or Nick Malceski level talent or rebounder. He doesn't run and carry anything like Shaw. He doesn't kick to the level of Malceski. He doesn't have that kind of offensive point of difference to do those things those guys do.

Lots of work until he can have even close to those kinds of guys. Maybe he can be our Andrew Mackie equivalent and I think that's probably a pretty realistic projection of the player he is likely to be pretty similar to in the pros.

Scharenberg has some different things going for him on top of all these things I've mentioned. He can push forward, take a mark and have an impact situationally which is something I'd look into with him in coming seasons. The club want him to also be able at least to rotate through the midfield, though that he has never really shown he can do that quite to this point, so that's a down the track thing, but along with Langdon it's something he has the ability to develop.

Thanks KM

From what you have said I take it you are basing your hope that Shaz gets promoted shortly on the attributes he displayed prior to drafting rather than what he is doing now.the picture you have painted of him isn't as good. As I had hoped. He sounds like a solid citizen HBF without great attacking attributes. Not really what you would prize in a no 6 draft pick. He is going to be interesting to watch the next year or two.

 

[Knightmare]

Thanks KM

From what you have said I take it you are basing your hope that Shaz gets promoted shortly on the attributes he displayed prior to drafting rather than what he is doing now.the picture you have painted of him isn't as good. As I had hoped. He sounds like a solid citizen HBF without great attacking attributes. Not really what you would prize in a no 6 draft pick. He is going to be interesting to watch the next year or two.

I'm expecting Scharenberg to a good B-grader and a best 10 player on the list in time, without ever becoming a franchise player. With good health he has the opportunity to be a 200 gamer. But the reality with the draft is you're not getting Pendlebury every time you have a top 10 pick, and getting a Scharenberg is still pretty good and likely better than a number of guys who went inside the top 10.

His play in the SANFL at League level prior to getting drafted was relatively stronger than what he is offering at the moment, and you'd expect that as he missed all of last season. So he'll continue to get better with every game. And he is a hard worker, so that improvement I don't doubt with Scharenberg.

On his current form/what he is offering today though I still feel he is best 22. He isn't a gamechanger and as you've rightly observed, it's not his game and people who are expecting that level of impact will based on what we're seeing current likely be disappointed. But I'm seeing a really good piece who can play a really good two way game, and probably a better two way game than anyone else in the back half.
But as per my previous post, that back half is just so extremely even. 12 guys down back could have a case for being best 22 players. I just can't help but like the completeness Scharenberg like Langdon offers down back. And it's a fascinating dynamic.

We could trade Toovey, Goldsack, Brown, Frost and delist Keeffe in he offseason and we'd still have much the same quality back half. Such is our depth of similar quality options down back.

 

[Gone Critical]

I'm expecting Scharenberg to a good B-grader and a best 10 player on the list in time, without ever becoming a franchise player. With good health he has the opportunity to be a 200 gamer. But the reality with the draft is you're not getting Pendlebury every time you have a top 10 pick, and getting a Scharenberg is still pretty good and likely better than a number of guys who went inside the top 10.

His play in the SANFL at League level prior to getting drafted was relatively stronger than what he is offering at the moment, and you'd expect that as he missed all of last season. So he'll continue to get better with every game. And he is a hard worker, so that improvement I don't doubt with Scharenberg.

On his current form/what he is offering today though I still feel he is best 22. He isn't a gamechanger and as you've rightly observed, it's not his game and people who are expecting that level of impact will based on what we're seeing current likely be disappointed. But I'm seeing a really good piece who can play a really good two way game, and probably a better two way game than anyone else in the back half.
But as per my previous post, that back half is just so extremely even. 12 guys down back could have a case for being best 22 players. I just can't help but like the completeness Scharenberg like Langdon offers down back. And it's a fascinating dynamic.

We could trade Toovey, Goldsack, Brown, Frost and delist Keeffe in he offseason and we'd still have much the same quality back half. Such is our depth of similar quality options down back.

Thanks KM a sobering assessment. It does align with what I am seeing in Scharenberg currently. I understand you don't get a Pendlebury every time but with a top 10 pick you are aiming at an A grader when you choose. As a comparison DeGoey and Moore would look to have a much higher ceiling from what we have seen do far.

However if Scharenbergs upper limit is likely to be a solid citizen HBFer I would argue that it confirms he is a way off senior selection. As players he may replace in the 22 Oxley and Langdon currently have better output in the AFL than Shaz has in the VFL and are more creative and attacking. Scharenberg would have to up his VFL output considerably to be in a position where he displaces either of them.

Your last sentence is an interesting one. Get rid of our 2 KPBs, our best stopper and all our experience and you think we would have the same quality backline. We would be decimated. We would have a pack of kids running around and no experienced KPB unless Reid is back. Good forward lines would feast on that combination.

 

[SchuPie]

And Langdon is another where Scharenberg has roughly the same game. There are differences. Scharenberg can probably play taller and is a little better again in the 1v1 contest. Probably doesn't at this point anyway find as much ball. But that general level of performance, is roughly this year what I'd expect from Scharenberg.

I think this is the important part.
Langdon is great and gets so much of the ball. My knock on him is what he does post gaining possession. In past games he tends to either be hit/miss with his choice of option or put the ball straight on his boot and, more out of hope, sends it down the field, often to, at best, 50/50 contests - this is 1980's football.
Am hoping that eventually Shaz will take Langdon's spot in the team: take intercept marks / cut a player out of the game / get plenty of his own ball...i think the difference will lie in that Shaz appears to make much better decisions after he collects that ball.
If Langdon can refine his decision making, then we'll have two excellent HBFers.

 

[Snag Breac]

I am sure it's a term that can mean different things but here is my take

It's something that may be applied to a tagged or a HBF or Back Pocket type.

In a tagger who is is purely in shut down mode it is a stock in trade tool. Let the superior player lead you to where the play is but sit on them so tight that when you arrive there you have an ability to negate their role completely without any regard to having a positive impact yourself. A superior tagger like Ling would rather sit right on their opponent so they can negate them if needed but also be in a position to take on the play and create as a two way contestant. Negate your opponent while adding to the game yourself. This means you have to take initiative in the play and risk that you can take on and beat your quarry.

On say a HBF like Shaz being lead to the ball means you are in react to what your opponent does mode. You will take your prompts from what they do. You hope to stick close enough that when the ball comes in you can kill their move and with luck repel it at the same time. A HBF in the Shaw mould will cut an angle, anticipate what their opponent may do and parry it with their own move designed not only to negate them but also to create rebound and an attacking move. They are not simply stopping their opponent but are making a move where they envisage prior to doing it their team will end up on a counter attack. Such a player is thinking for themselves and countering their opponents play with a play of their own. A player being lead to the ball is just reacting to what their opponent is doing without any initiative themselves in the hope of mainly killing the contest. Anything else is a bonus.

This is great. Of for an "Footy for Dummie" thread!

 

[loki04]

The player who comes to mind in drawing comparison to Abbott to me is Stuart Dew. Both very strong in the body and booming kicks. Would be very surprised if the club played Abbott down back as Knightmare suggests. I would have thought that wing or half forward is where I would be playing Abbott. Also with regards to comments about Armstrong, his major problem is lack of upper body strength to survive AFL footy. Doesn't matter how good a kick you are if you can't shrug off a tackle or go into a pack. Only versatile players survive AFL footy these days and Armstrong isn't one of them. Waste of a rookie spot for me that should go to more useful players such as Pendlebury.

I'd prefer they kept him forward but developing both parts of his game is best allowing him more diversity, if we can get his endurance up and ball finding ability raised he would make one hell of a mid that when fwd would be equally dangerous.

 

[loki04]

Eh, there have been worst. I remember a couple of years ago when Rocca did the reviews, his comments on one player were "Played on a wing." That's it.

Maybe he was told : "If you don't have something positive to say better to say nothing at all".

 

[loki04]

Yes, but hopefully that's where Moore stays even when those two come back.

Yeah I hope so too, not sure what the clubs doing here. Going off Hines comments they seem to really be backing Gault in talk of moving him to senior list next year in Hines last interview. In mean time our talented FS is being played out of position imo.

 

[loki04]

With his size would he be compared to Fas? Maybe a cross between Fas and Elliott? Will be interested to hear from those more familiar with his work.

Abbott is 186cm @ 92kg, Faz only 181 @ 84kg and Elliott 178 @ 79kg.

Closer to a Hodge and Buckley build is Abbott.

L.Hodge 186 @ 89kg
N.Buckley 186 @ 92kg

Unfortunately he doesn't have their natural ball finding ability or endurance...YET

 

[MagpieBat]

Maybe he was told : "If you don't have something positive to say better to say nothing at all".

Considering the fortunes of the VFL team of the time, if they had applied that policy across the board, it would have made for a very short write-up...