The Banfield Conundrum

[crispy creme]

Just because he has good pace shouldn't be a reason to persist if he is underperforming.Brad Harvey is close to, if not the quickest play on our combined list - yet he appears condemn for delisting. Using the logic of some, why shouldn't he be given further opportunities? Todd may be a ripper bloke, I can't comment because I don't know the bloke but from what I've seen, his game is extremely limited and definitely not suited to the high pressure of an AFL midfield. We may have very well already seen the best he has to offer - hopefully I'm wrong. Cast your minds back a few years back to Bradd Dalziell for a case in point.

IMO we still have a fair share of players that would not get a sniff at the top 5 or 6 clubs - the question to be asked is whether or not these players will help us contend for a flag in 3-5 years? If not, move them on and develop others. Harsh I know, but this is the system and clubs need to be ruthless in order to succeed - whether we like it or not.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

Just because he has good pace shouldn't be a reason to persist if he is underperforming.Brad Harvey is close to, if not the quickest play on our combined list - yet he appears condemn for delisting. Using the logic of some, why shouldn't he be given further opportunities? Todd may be a ripper bloke, I can't comment because I don't know the bloke but from what I've seen, his game is extremely limited and definitely not suited to the high pressure of an AFL midfield. We may have very well already seen the best he has to offer - hopefully I'm wrong. Cast your minds back a few years back to Bradd Dalziell for a case in point.

IMO we still have a fair share of players that would not get a sniff at the top 5 or 6 clubs - the question to be asked is whether or not these players will help us contend for a flag in 3-5 years? If not, move them on and develop others. Harsh I know, but this is the system and clubs need to be ruthless in order to succeed - whether we like it or not.

The difference is we never have really seen Harvey use his pace in game situations, whereas we have with Banfield. We've also seen that his best (at an early age) has been good enough to hold an AFL spot.

I've got no strong feelings either way. I will understand if he's kept, or if he's traded.

 

[crispy creme]

TFB, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating we keep Brad Harvey- just trying to make a point about how some perceived strengths can be overstated at times.

 

[Eons]

We've also seen that his best (at an early age) has been good enough to hold an AFL spot.

I've got no strong feelings either way. I will understand if he's kept, or if he's traded.

His best was good enough to hold an AFL spot, this is true. This was also before Green stepped up and we had Zorko on the list. Now, I don't think his best is good enough to command a spot in our team. I really can't see where else we can play him? It wouldn't bother me if we traded him, others have gone past him IMO.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

TFB, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating we keep Brad Harvey- just trying to make a point about how some perceived strengths can be overstated at times.

Didn't think you were CC! But although he tests quick, Harvey isn't what you could call "game quick", Banfield, on the other hand is. Given as we have few of these guys, I would support him kept on, if the club went that way

His best was good enough to hold an AFL spot, this is true. This was also before Green stepped up and we had Zorko on the list. Now, I don't think his best is good enough to command a spot in our team. I really can't see where else we can play him? It wouldn't bother me if we traded him, others have gone past him IMO.

Others have cited Akermanis' move to the back pocket that saved his career. It would be a ballsy move to try something like that with Banfield.

I agree that others have gone past him, but remember that Green has yet to sustain his form over a long period. Certainly, in his last 5 games he looked like he'd found his feet, but Banfield looked similar a few years back.

Like I said, I've go no strong leaning either way, but I feel that people are far too black/white on these kinds of things. In this case there's definite pros and cons.

 

[Balony_pony16]

How does he fix his ball handling though? There's certain things in footy that I believe can be worked on - goal and field kicking, roving, shepherding etc - but I've always thought ball handling came down to natural footy skills. It just doesn't seem to be something he has.

The way I see it, we could trade him for a decent prospect this season, or probably cut him for nothing next. Yes, there's a chance he could turn it around, but I'm thinking that's diminishing with each game that he plays.

You might want to go and watch some under 18 game tapes...and compare the skill of hand balling of the draftees and that of AFL players...AFL training improves hand balling a lot, and is why their are so many training drills for it

 

[PattyKwasagun]

You might want to go and watch some under 18 game tapes...and compare the skill of hand balling of the draftees and that of AFL players...AFL training improves hand balling a lot, and is why their are so many training drills for it

Yes, but that's in development years. I'm talking about once they've played at a professional level for a year or two.

 

[Balony_pony16]

Yes, but that's in development years. I'm talking about once they've played at a professional level for a year or two.

I see ur point...but in bandfield I think improving his composure will fix a lot of his issues. He just rushes too much, and playing him down back would be smart as he will have more options to dispose to and thus build confidance with more run and carry into space

 

[3KZ is Football]

If we keep Banfield and I think we should, I'd start him on the bench and play him through the midfield as part of the normal rotation. Banfield's pace and penetration make him a great outside mid prospect.