Versatility: Are we going overboard?

[jackster83]

Every week, the selection ends up coming down to who's more versatile: ie. who can play more than one spot on the ground. But does anyone else think that we're getting too carried away with this multi-role idea? Stevens is probably the only one who suits the forward one week, back the next.

Take Bock for instance: Best CHB in the land but only a very average 20-30 goal CHF.

Johncock is another. He was staring at AA selection before his form drop off. So we try to play him into form by moving him out of his settled position in the backlines. How the **** is that going to get him into form?

We seem to want players who score a C+ in all areas of the ground rather than specialist forwards, midfielders, etc who score an A or B in 1 area. This is most likely why Walker doesn't get a run, because he's not versatile enough to play in defence if required. IMO we are trying to build a team of handy utility players rather than develop gun players. Your thoughts?

 

[King Elvis]

Agree.

 

[Vader]

Stiffy's form in the backline stank prior to his demotion to the SANFL. He's spent plenty of time in the forward line over the course of his career. He's not been great since returning from the SANFL, but I can't honestly see that playing him back in defence would make any difference at all.

He's out of form pure and simple. The reasons behind his drop in form would be known to the club, but they're not known by me.

There may be an argument that you're better off playing specialists in specialist positions - eg playing 4 bowlers & 6 batsmen in a cricket game, rather than 4 batsmen, 3 bowlers and 3 all rounders. But using Johncock as an illustration just won't work.

 

[ruscy002]

Agree and disagree. We’re not going overboard by any stretch of the imagination. For a start, Vader’s explanation of the Stiffy predicament is pretty well spot on. Our backline is very settled and specialised. I have a problem with what we’re doing up forward, with both Stevens and with our ruckmen.

Stevens—he only gets a spot in the team as a forward because we know if the shit hits the fan, he’s our Plan B for other positions. Walker and Moran are clearly better options as forwards but it just isn’t on the cards. I really don’t see the problem with Moran taking his spot as a forward, he’s more versatile as Stevens, just less experienced.

Rucks—our forward structure ends up all over the place because we try to be too versatile. We don’t swap our rucks directly out of full forward, meaning that if one is resting on the bench while the other is rucking, we’re down a tall. Then if Stevens is filling gaps in defence, we only have one tall forward in Gill, who leading up outside of the 50 half the time. Meaning…no talls in our 50. We won’t win games against quality or even pseudo-quality opposition until this is sorted out.

 

[Jetwa5h]

Agree and disagree. We’re not going overboard by any stretch of the imagination. For a start, Vader’s explanation of the Stiffy predicament is pretty well spot on. Our backline is very settled and specialised. I have a problem with what we’re doing up forward, with both Stevens and with our ruckmen.

Stevens—he only gets a spot in the team as a forward because we know if the shit hits the fan, he’s our Plan B for other positions. Walker and Moran are clearly better options as forwards but it just isn’t on the cards. I really don’t see the problem with Moran taking his spot as a forward, he’s more versatile as Stevens, just less experienced.

Rucks—our forward structure ends up all over the place because we try to be too versatile. We don’t swap our rucks directly out of full forward, meaning that if one is resting on the bench while the other is rucking, we’re down a tall. Then if Stevens is filling gaps in defence, we only have one tall forward in Gill, who leading up outside of the 50 half the time. Meaning…no talls in our 50. We won’t win games against quality or even pseudo-quality opposition until this is sorted out.

this is my thoughts exactly

 

[Stiffy_18]

I disagree with this a bit!

With the game turning more into a running, fast paced game its absolutly important that you have versatility. The game is getting faster and it doesn't look like slowing down. Teams will push the tempo more and more which will lead to more players breaking down.

Now I think our versatility has helped us win some games this year. How many times did we end the game with a very limited interchange bench but still got up and won in the end. Injuries in games happen and will continue to happen at an increasing rate due to the pace of the game. Players will keep breaking down during games and you need to make sure that the players you take into a game each week are versatile enough to play certain positions when called upon.

Thats why players who can play multiple positions are worth their weight in gold and their value will increase as the effects of the fast paced game are felt more and more by the clubs. The only way players do get versatile is if they are played in different positions.

 

[ruscy002]

I disagree with this a bit!

With the game turning more into a running, fast paced game its absolutly important that you have versatility. The game is getting faster and it doesn't look like slowing down. Teams will push the tempo more and more which will lead to more players breaking down.

Now I think our versatility has helped us win some games this year. How many times did we end the game with a very limited interchange bench but still got up and won in the end. Injuries in games happen and will continue to happen at an increasing rate due to the pace of the game. Players will keep breaking down during games and you need to make sure that the players you take into a game each week are versatile enough to play certain positions when called upon.

Thats why players who can play multiple positions are worth their weight in gold and their value will increase as the effects of the fast paced game are felt more and more by the clubs. The only way players do get versatile is if they are played in different positions.

Absolutely

Versatility is a huge asset but the game plan has to be right. Things will fall over when the game plan sucks as any structure will i.e. using Stevens and the rucks in the forward line but allow situations where neither Stevens nor the resting ruckman are actually there.

Look at Adam Hunter for example. Can’t stand the bloke, but at the height of West Coast’s powers he was the best swing man in the AFL, won matches for them. It’s all about personnel and game plan.

 

[Drummond]

I disagree with this a bit!

With the game turning more into a running, fast paced game its absolutly important that you have versatility. The game is getting faster and it doesn't look like slowing down. Teams will push the tempo more and more which will lead to more players breaking down.

Now I think our versatility has helped us win some games this year. How many times did we end the game with a very limited interchange bench but still got up and won in the end. Injuries in games happen and will continue to happen at an increasing rate due to the pace of the game. Players will keep breaking down during games and you need to make sure that the players you take into a game each week are versatile enough to play certain positions when called upon.

Thats why players who can play multiple positions are worth their weight in gold and their value will increase as the effects of the fast paced game are felt more and more by the clubs. The only way players do get versatile is if they are played in different positions.

I agree with the OP. Craigy sure does love his flexibility. I wonder if he feels whether we have enough players with the capacity to show versatility.