Taylor Walker

[macca23]

Wrong on so many levels its actually laughable!

For one, Ladhams was a highly talented player. One that was picked early in the second round as a 17 year old when the club could only pick one per draft. He was also labeled by a few AFC officials as one of the more talented players to walk through the doors at West Lakes. The only thing that seperated Chris Ladhams from 300 AFL games was his attitude and lack of work ethic. Yes he was one sided but so are MANY of the left footers, our current captain and club champion included.

Absolutely spot on Stiffy. Ladhams was a genuine talent that preferred drinking to training and hard work. He could have been a very very good player but just couldn't be bothered doing the hard yards.

He was originally drafted by Essendon in 1998 with pick 23 and spent 2 years developing on their list without playing a game. At the end of 2000 Ladhams wanted to come home to Adelaide and was traded to us.

I don't know whether relapse saw him play in those early days of 2001 and 2002, but like Stiffy, I thought we had a genuine star in the making on our hands. He had heaps of natural talent.

However, had work was not on Ladhams agenda - nor was obeying the curfews on drinking.

He ended up being just another one of the multitude of players who had the ability but not the want.

 

[relapse]

Wrong on so many levels its actually laughable!

For one, Ladhams was a highly talented player. One that was picked early in the second round as a 17 year old when the club could only pick one per draft. He was also labeled by a few AFC officials as one of the more talented players to walk through the doors at West Lakes. The only thing that seperated Chris Ladhams from 300 AFL games was his attitude and lack of work ethic. Yes he was one sided but so are MANY of the left footers, our current captain and club champion included.

You also don't mention that Edwards was also overlooked in his draft and picked up in the PSD. It took him good part of 5 years to cement his spot in the side. He was highly inconsistent and with 50 games was about on similar level as Chris Ladhams was and Richard Douglas currently is.

But the penny dropped with Tyson and he will be the first one to admit it. He decided it was time to knuckle down and work extremely hard on his game and improve on his weaknesses. That my friend is why he is a club legend, 300+ game players and one of the club's favourite sons.

While Tyson can one day tell his kids and grandkids how good he was, Ladhams can say how good he could have been. Many good football judges have rated Ladhams as a real talent. An attacking, goal kicking midfielder / HF who had match winning ability. You will claim to be an expert now and say how he was crap and point to his 50 odd AFL games and say how that supports your argument. You will bring up some washed up saying that many players were lazy but still had great careers and I will say that none of those are in current day and age where the sport has become a full time profession and the players watch what they eat, drink and have just about every minute of their day planned.

There is a great deal of sacrifice that current footballers need to commit to. Very talented players like Chris Ladhams preferred to go out with mates get pissed, chase minny skirts and tell everyone that wanted to listen how good he was while players like Edwards sacrificed a great deal and did everything right to one day be remembered as club and AFL legend.

I suggest you look at history without rose coloured glasses and without the benefit of hindsight. Next thing you will be telling me is that Lawrence Angwin was a talentless dud

So first things first, it didnt go over my head.

Second thing I actually find your post laughable as well, clubs always embellish how talented players are. The club last year were saying what a talent Greg Gallman was and now he is in the gun to be delisted and more than likely wont be on our list at the end of the year. The football world is filled with hypothetical champions, we have even seen more than a few of them come and go on our list.

We all have our differing opinions my opinion of Ladhams, I only considered him to be a reasonable half forward type with a fantastic kick, yeah he only had one leg, but had a booming accurate kick which not many players have. Other than that I saw nothing out of the ordinary as to his ability to read the game etc and IMO there was nothing elite about him.

Edwards was drafted in 1994, played 12 games in 1995, 17 in 1996, 17 in 1997 I dont really think that it is struggling to cement a spot in the side. As for being a pre-season pick, lets not also forget that the draft in the earlier days was more luck than anything and clubs weren't spending anything close to what they spend in today's game regarding scouting players. Lets not forget that James Hird went at 79??, recruiting has never been an exact science, but the margin for error has been greatly reduced now.

I just think you are drawing an incredibly long bow to try and compare someone like Ladhams with Edwards, Edwards hasnt just played 300 games because of his work rate only the elite go on to play 300 games, I just think you are overrating Ladhams and underrating Edwards natural talent and skill.

 

[Stiffy_18]

So first things first, it didnt go over my head.

Second thing I actually find your post laughable as well, clubs always embellish how talented players are. The club last year were saying what a talent Greg Gallman was and now he is in the gun to be delisted and more than likely wont be on our list at the end of the year. The football world is filled with hypothetical champions, we have even seen more than a few of them come and go on our list.

We all have our differing opinions my opinion of Ladhams, I only considered him to be a reasonable half forward type with a fantastic kick, yeah he only had one leg, but had a booming accurate kick which not many players have. Other than that I saw nothing out of the ordinary as to his ability to read the game etc and IMO there was nothing elite about him.

Edwards was drafted in 1994, played 12 games in 1995, 17 in 1996, 17 in 1997 I dont really think that it is struggling to cement a spot in the side. As for being a pre-season pick, lets not also forget that the draft in the earlier days was more luck than anything and clubs weren't spending anything close to what they spend in today's game regarding scouting players. Lets not forget that James Hird went at 79??, recruiting has never been an exact science, but the margin for error has been greatly reduced now.

I just think you are drawing an incredibly long bow to try and compare someone like Ladhams with Edwards, Edwards hasnt just played 300 games because of his work rate only the elite go on to play 300 games, I just think you are overrating Ladhams and underrating Edwards natural talent and skill.

So you are telling me that the draft was wastly different between 1995 and 1998?! Go on pull the other one!

Fact is that all clubs overlooked Edwards more than at least 3 times. Edwards was a very inconsistent player. Showed some glimpses but never actually became a dependable player until about his 5th year.

Clubs talk up a lot of player true. There is a difference between publicly pumping up their tyres and privately telling someone how much they rate the kid.

We got Ladhams for free. He wanted out of Essendon and back home and the Bombers were filthy that they were losing a young talent. We had an early PS pick to get him and offered the Bombers 5th round pick which they were offended about!

As I said in hindsight you can talk all you like but much better football judges have rated Ladhams as a special talent. Kevin Sheedy was pretty public in how disappointed he was to lose a talented youngster.

Its not a very long bow to draw. Both players had talent, one chose to develop it while the other pissed it into the wind. You can come across as an Einstein now and say how you are right and everyone else is wrong but do not mistake the lack of genuine match winning footy talent for lack of work ethic and mental application.

There are many highly talented footballers who amount to nothing because they don't have what it takes. In today's game talent only takes you so far. We can agree to disagree on this but I am pretty sure that many football judges who actually saw Ladhams talent close up would say the kid had the talent to be a match winner and a 300 game player but a stinky attitude and work ethic.

 

[Crow-mo]

Yeah it must of cos I could have sworn you said the following

"The difference between Chris Ladhams and Tyson Edwards is worth ethic. Both special talents, one played 50 games the other going strong well past 300. That my friend is the differences."

Because in the words of Carro that whole statement is a BAD CALL.

Ladhams had no special talent besides being a great kick, yeah I agree that he was lazy and didnt have a good work eithc but so are many other footballers, but their talent got them over the line. Ladhams didnt have enough talent to carry his lazy work ethic, maybe if he had a better work ethic he would have had a longer AFL career, but for someone to think that Ladhams raw talent is/was the equal of Tyson Edwards then I am amazed.

So if I misunderstood that then okay.

this is a fairly random kinda idea.

if you can't see how much talent Ladhams had, then you're just not a very good judge of talent.

more over, Tyson Edwards is not an especially talented player - I'd think of him as someone who got everything out of himself. He has managed his body well, kept himself in good nick, plays within himself, incredibly professional and is an exceptionally smart player.

 

[relapse]

Absolutely spot on Stiffy. Ladhams was a genuine talent that preferred drinking to training and hard work. He could have been a very very good player but just couldn't be bothered doing the hard yards.

He was originally drafted by Essendon in 1998 with pick 23 and spent 2 years developing on their list without playing a game. At the end of 2000 Ladhams wanted to come home to Adelaide and was traded to us.

I don't know whether relapse saw him play in those early days of 2001 and 2002, but like Stiffy, I thought we had a genuine star in the making on our hands. He had heaps of natural talent.

However, had work was not on Ladhams agenda - nor was obeying the curfews on drinking.

He ended up being just another one of the multitude of players who had the ability but not the want.

I've actually been going since 1991, but anyway my opinion is that I think you are drawing an incredibly long long bow if you want to say that his skill level is close to someone like Tyson Edwards.

Tyson is one of our elite players and IMO I would have him in the top five players to ever put on our jumper. I am not saying that Ladhams was a Matthew Smith, but it is a massive massive call to say that Ladhams would have been one of our elite players equal to someone of the calibre of Edwards if he had a better workrate.

 

[Cap]

I'm going to have to go with affirmatives on this one.

Even a North his ability to read the play was 2nd to none. He should probably have been the Steven Milne of the Crows (with potentially more mid field time) but he didn't want it.

 

[Alex99]

Chris Ladhams was in the same boat with Adam Saliba – unbelievably talented but wasted it.

 

[relapse]

this is a fairly random kinda idea.

if you can't see how much talent Ladhams had, then you're just not a very good judge of talent.

more over, Tyson Edwards is not an especially talented player - I'd think of him as someone who got everything out of himself. He has managed his body well, kept himself in good nick, plays within himself, incredibly professional and is an exceptionally smart player.

It's not about whether Ladhams had some talent or not, it's just how much talent was there and what each person deems as talent and whether it was up to the level of one of our elite players being Tyson Edwards.

As for your opinion of Edwards well that is your opinion, my opinion is that he is a very talented player, very smart, rarely burns the ball, is a good kick on the run and always hits a target. I believe that Edwards always got a lower profile because he didnt have the flash of McLeod and or the grunt and strength of Roo, but it didnt make him any less important than them.

IMO there is more to football talent that just being a flashy player who can do freakish things. If that was how you measure talent then players like Daniel Motlop would be classed as one of the more talented players in the league, but IMO while he does have some freakish traits but isnt a complete footballer. Football smarts, knowing what to do with the ball, reading the game, consistently using the ball well IMO are also natural skills that players either have or dont have and Edwards has these in spades and you dont often see players who have those traits to the level that Edwards does.

 

[hugecannon]

A few weeks ago on triple m Simon Goodwin was interviewed (before his 250th, I think) and he labelled Chris Ladhams as the biggest wasted talent in all of his time at the crows.

 

[Damon_3388]

Not knowing at the time about Ladhams' attitude and lack of commitment to AFL footy, I did wonder why the Crows got rid of him, as he seemed promising and was always amongst the best for North Adelaide whenever he played there, even after his delisting by the Crows.

Just out of interest, lets look at Tyson Edwards' first 4 years at the Crows, compared to Ladhams' 4 years with the club:

Tyson Edwards - debuted June 10, 1995 (aged 18 years, 308 days)
178cm, 81kg
Played 61 out of a possible 96 senior games (including finals) (64% of club games played)
25 goals (0.41 goals per game)
9 behinds (0.15 behinds per game)
628 disposals (10.30 disposals per game)
1 game of 20+ disposals (2% of games with 20+ disposals)
377 kicks (6.18 kicks per game)
251 handballs (4.11 handballs per game)
166 marks (2.72 marks per game)
81 tackles (1.33 tackles per game)

Chris Ladhams - debuted April 1, 2001 (aged 20 years, 159 days)
179cm, 78kg
Played 54 out of a possible 94 senior games (including finals) (57% of club games played)
37 goals (0.69 goals per game)
34 behinds (0.63 goals per game)
740 disposals (13.70 disposals)
15 games of 20+ disposals (28% of games with 20+ disposals)
516 kicks (9.56 kicks)
224 handballs (4.15 handballs)
151 marks (2.80 marks)
106 tackles (1.96 tackles)

I know not everything can be measured on stats, and I seem to recall Edwards being more of a tagger-type earlier in his career, but still, his numbers aren't that inspiring and don't exactly scream 'Star!' in comparison to Ladhams. Therefore, Edwards must have done something more to keep his spot - and that was obviously a commitment to fitness and the required attitude and lifestyle choices needed to be a successful AFL player.

 

[macca23]

I've actually been going since 1991, but anyway my opinion is that I think you are drawing an incredibly long long bow if you want to say that his skill level is close to someone like Tyson Edwards.

Tyson is one of our elite players and IMO I would have him in the top five players to ever put on our jumper. I am not saying that Ladhams was a Matthew Smith, but it is a massive massive call to say that Ladhams would have been one of our elite players equal to someone of the calibre of Edwards if he had a better workrate.

Tyson Edwards is the first to admit that he nearly blew his career in the first few years. He couldn't hold down a position permanently because his work ethic wasn't good enough. IMO his skills were no better than Ladhams apart from one - Edwards is a 2 sided player while Ladhams being left-footed , relied on that to get out of trouble and never developed his right foot.

If Ladhams had developed the same work ethic that Edwards finally did, he would have had a significant career with the Crows. He didn't and nobody remembers him as a star, while Edwards did and became a star.

The comparison with Adam Saliba is a good one - both pissed their talents down the drain.

 

[ringo200]

Tyson Edwards is the first to admit that he nearly blew his career in the first few years. He couldn't hold down a position permanently because his work ethic wasn't good enough. IMO his skills were no better than Ladhams apart from one - Edwards is a 2 sided player while Ladhams being left-footed , relied on that to get out of trouble and never developed his right foot.

If Ladhams had developed the same work ethic that Edwards finally did, he would have had a significant career with the Crows. He didn't and nobody remembers him as a star, while Edwards did and became a star.

The comparison with Adam Saliba is a good one - both pissed their talents down the drain.

I remember a story where Edwards was at Malcolm Blights house and he told him that through all of his junior career he never got 3 votes for best on ground. Later on in the year he was named best on ground in the papers and Blight stuck it onto his locker.

I think it was as much his confidence as work rate that held him back as a youngster

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Yeah it must of cos I could have sworn you said the following

"The difference between Chris Ladhams and Tyson Edwards is worth ethic. Both special talents, one played 50 games the other going strong well past 300. That my friend is the differences."

Because in the words of Carro that whole statement is a BAD CALL.

Ladhams had no special talent besides being a great kick, yeah I agree that he was lazy and didnt have a good work eithc but so are many other footballers, but their talent got them over the line. Ladhams didnt have enough talent to carry his lazy work ethic, maybe if he had a better work ethic he would have had a longer AFL career, but for someone to think that Ladhams raw talent is/was the equal of Tyson Edwards then I am amazed.

So if I misunderstood that then okay.

Time to quit while you are behind. We all make mistakes, but no need to keep digging that hole...

 

[crows dude]

What I noticed at the Norwood Game on Saturday is how much space there was in the 50m for Tex to work his magic in.

At Crows Games the forward line is so crowded with Tippett, Porps, Knights, Hentchell or Stevens along with Walker and it doesnt give him much room to move in there.

I say isolate him one on one and get the ball in there quickly so that the defenders cant get back in numbers and back his talent in.

 

[xazos79]

I don’t know what the hell the club is doing with this kid but promoting him one week and then demoting him and the very next is not the answer.

Why not? That's how football usually works. Its only the superstars or 100+ game stalwarts of the club that can have quite a few sub-par games and survive selection. Tex is a young kid, he's learning the game at AFL level. The last thing he and the club needs are supporters building up hysteria about the way the club are handling him. They are handling him fine, and he'll get there eventually.

 

[relapse]

Time to quit while you are behind. We all make mistakes, but no need to keep digging that hole...

So because I didnt rate Ladhams being as good as Tyson Edwards or perhaps I rate Edwards higher than others do that I made a mistake ???

If people want to think that Ladham's could have been in the top five players to ever come through the club that's their choice, I dont give a rats whether anyone agrees with my opinion or not, it all comes down to perception and everyone's opinion, just because others agree with someone's opinion doesnt mean that those that dont agree are wrong or made a mistake.

Thats like this whole thread some people wanted walker to stay in the team while people wanted him dropped, there is no right or wrong answer.

 

[Crow-mo]

So because I didnt rate Ladhams being as good as Tyson Edwards or perhaps I rate Edwards higher than others do that I made a mistake ???

If people want to think that Ladham's could have been in the top five players to ever come through the club that's their choice, I dont give a rats whether anyone agrees with my opinion or not, it all comes down to perception and everyone's opinion, just because others agree with someone's opinion doesnt mean that those that dont agree are wrong or made a mistake.

Thats like this whole thread some people wanted walker to stay in the team while people wanted him dropped, there is no right or wrong answer.

now there's a grade A hissy fit

 

[jenny61_99]

What I noticed at the Norwood Game on Saturday is how much space there was in the 50m for Tex to work his magic in.

At Crows Games the forward line is so crowded with Tippett, Porps, Knights, Hentchell or Stevens along with Walker and it doesnt give him much room to move in there.

I say isolate him one on one and get the ball in there quickly so that the defenders cant get back in numbers and back his talent in.

So what do you propose to do with the other forwards?

 

[crows dude]

So what do you propose to do with the other forwards?

I would push them up across half forward.

 

[cmndstab]

So what do you do when they drop two defenders onto Walker, not bothering about the other forwards because they're out of goalscoring range?

 

[Cap]

So what do you do when they drop two defenders onto Walker, not bothering about the other forwards because they're out of goalscoring range?

get one of us to run on the field with a mallet?

 

[crows dude]

So what do you do when they drop two defenders onto Walker, not bothering about the other forwards because they're out of goalscoring range?

Beautiful

Because it would mean we will have loose players.

I guess I like the old style of play when the Full Forward had plenty of space to lead into. I know its difficult this day of age with teams flooding back but Walker has so much talent that if we can get it into him quickly and I mean QUICKLY none of this slow crap and back him in to beat his opponent he will generally out smart them.

If you move it quickly It wont give the oppositiion time to flood back.

 

[cmndstab]

I guess the problem is, someone like Tippett is totally wasted if we do that. What's the point of having a guy who can crash packs and take big clunker marks unless we have him deep in the forward line.

I think what we need to do is structure our forward line better, so that the players have some idea of where they can lead without getting in each other's way.

 

[marvin]

Beautiful

Because it would mean we will have loose players.

I guess I like the old style of play when the Full Forward had plenty of space to lead into. I know its difficult this day of age with teams flooding back but Walker has so much talent that if we can get it into him quickly and I mean QUICKLY none of this slow crap and back him in to beat his opponent he will generally out smart them.

If you move it quickly It wont give the oppositiion time to flood back.

That's the structure Hawthorn played for large swaths of the 2nd half on Friday night. Buddy trying to take Truck back to the goalsquare, and everyone else pressing out of the 50.

We saw how that worked. Buddy got a few goals, nobody else did, and the Hawks lost comfortably.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I would push them up across half forward.

And the opposition would let you do that of course?!

The days of isolating someone in the AFL age gone with all the more sophisticated defences around.