Opinion Versatility Vs True Positions

[Vdubs]

Chris Scott on Blicavs today:

View attachment 341553

As suspected, plans for Blic to take over from HT as KB. All makes sense; just need it all to materialise and work. Knowing Blics' attitude, he will give it a real go, wherever they play him, but calls for his demotion out of best 22 are unlikely going ahead. Of course, we all agree he needs to deserve his spot, but we know he values his role in the team second to none, and he will never be complacent.

 

[Vdubs]

I second that, excellent discussion point Willo_.

I'm very comfortably in the 'true position' category. I'd rather a player becomes proficient in one spot first, as opposed to kinda sorta being ok in a few. I'm not so sure many if any of our current team are truly versatile - as in being able to play quality football in multiple roles. I think the focus on it, as you've already stated, has seriously hindered the development of Murdoch, and Smedts, and I can't see it working for Bews. Then when I think of either our best or most important players, the names that come up are Dangerfield, Selwood, and Hawkins. 'Versatile' isn't the word that comes to mind with them.

Good points as always.
But where do you think Murdoch is best suited?
Placing players like him in defence can have merit if it teaches them more tenacity for the contest, more accountability, more liberal display of a natural running, long kicking game.
Players like Varcoe often languished as a small forward, a very limiting role, and he has been a revelation at HB at Collingwood. At Geelong when he was tried there, he was always returning from LT injury.
And Mackie...
Smedts too was often found smothered out of the game in the forward line.
I'm not sure we really know their true positions when they are recruited- saying that because involvement with TAC players finds them all over the park for many weeks for "development". I know they truly are happy to get a game anywhere in an AFL team.

 

[Willo_]

I think it's more a case of needing some who can apply defensive pressure in the forward half (a la, Rooke & L.Picken (W.B)). Outside of McCarthy, we were pretty ordinary in applying forward half defensive pressure last year. Hawkins, Menzel, Motlop, Kersten & Caddy didn't do enough with that aspect of their game last year.

I think we actually looked our best last year when Linc and Cocky were buzzing around the forward 50 together, pressure wise I mean...
I think Cocky will naturally push up the ground more as he develops, and I think that is the right way for him to go....his natural development arc I guess you could call it seems pretty much as expected..

My issue with the Bews thing (and I fully understand and appreciate the point you made) is that he was starting to develop well as a small back, I thought he made some real strides the 2nd half of the season... so leave him there, let him continue to grow.
Smedts/Murda had shown positive signs as forwards, so we play them in the backline and they go backwards.
Mitch Duncan was improving as a mid, and they moved him back... fortunately that seems to have been corrected and he is being given the chance to play where it suits him best.

And really that is what I was wanting to discuss when I raised this topic (apologies terry as this isn't really directed at you or your post)

I guess I feel we have tried to manufacture players in positions rather than develop them naturally. I'm interested to see how we line up this weekend and how it all works out really.

 

[you pick one]

I guess I feel we have tried to manufacture players in positions rather than develop them naturally. I'm interested to see how we line up this weekend and how it all works out really.

Me too. I just have this gut feeling with Taylor they will put the preseason into him as a forward and come rd1 shit the bed and play him back which would be fine, but we'd have wasted precious game time again trying to consolidate at CHF.

 

[Bobby_]

I think this versatility tag has really hurt us in crucial games under Chris Scott's reign.

James Kelly has hurt us playing on the oppositions best small forwards (Lindsay Thomas).

Jimmy Bartel was bombing the football in hope in the 2013 preliminary final playing deep in the back line.

Josh Walker helping out Vardy in ruck in the 2013 finals was also a shocking coaching decision when we had a ruckman in Trent West waiting on the sidelines.

Blicavs playing on the wing against a bloke named Bradley Hill cost us on the scoreboard. Sure he battled valiantly but seriously! A bloke 198cm tall against a guy 184cm who can literally run like the wind.

I reckon Mathew Stokes to midfield was a wonderful call by the coach. Not many would have believed Stokes could become a solid midfielder averaging 26-27 touches for a couple of years in a row.
It makes you wonder what Stokes may have been had he played that position his entire career.

All in all, versatility is only good if you have a couple of players who are already elite footballers. It's no point trying to play a C grader in an assortment of positions because ultimately, they hurt the club because they are somewhat inept to begin with.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I agree with this. The concept of "positions" as we have traditionally known them is an antiquated concept that has little relevance to today's footy. It still makes me laugh when clubs go through the charade of selecting players in positions such as "Forward Pocket" or "Half Back Flank", etc and then the talking heads get all bent out of shape analysing the implications of said selections when in reality these positions don't even exist anymore.

In 90% of the team, players aren't selected on the basis of whether they can play a specific position, they are selected based on what skills they bring to the team, regardless of where on the ground this happens to be. Put simply, the basic skills you need to have in your team are:
- guys who are good at winning the contest (either ground level or marking),
- guys who are good at using the ball (which helps you keep the ball once you have it), and
- guys who are good at defending once the other team has it.
The very good players can do all 3, if you specialise in 1 you need to be elite at that one skill, and the rest of the team need to be able to do 2 out of 3. The position on the ground that these skills are exhibited is almost irrelevant because the running power of the modern player means that apart from 2 or 3 players on each team, all players are expected to contribute across the entire field. Positions are almost meaningless.

It is why I don't take much notice when a player like Bews is seen spending more time in the forward half during meaningless preseason matches. We are trying all sorts of things in the preseason - that is specifically what preseason is for. Maybe we want him to work on his ball usage or winning contested footy and decided that the best way for him to do that is to spend more time in the forward half of the ground in the preseason. This doesn't mean that we want him to be a specialist "forward pocket" (whatever that means in today's footy) when the season proper starts.

Very good post Hinkley. Should post more

 

[Matthew Jelley]

Reading this thread has just created so much uncertainty for me for this years lineup. Hope to see some decisive performances from HT forward and possibly blicavs back and Bews at whatever end he plays tomorrow.
Either way cant wait for another chance to see the guys in action

 

[dazbroncos]

I was chatting earlier with an old friend whom later sent me this regarding some thoughts on this particular thread...

Hi guys, been a while.
I pop in for a look occasionally and just take off.
But this topic hit a nerve for me. I listen to the specialists talk about Geelong and I just don't think they get it.

I think willo does.

We aren't missing a tall back, a mid, a ruck, or a forward. (Ok you can argue a CHF)
What we are missing is chemistry.

It's almost as if selection works like this. "Right guys, as per usual we are playing three rucks. Blicavs, Smith, and Stanley are in"
And immediately we are locked. We have to also choose Taylor, Henderson, and Kolo (for development). And we have to pick Hawkins.

That's 7 talls immediately. Mackie gets a game. But now has to get pushed up the ground to a 1/2 back towards wing type area that just doesn't suit him.

And from there we just start shuffling deck chairs.

They should work out how many rucks and tall backs they need and pick the best they can.
It seems they use some kind of auto pick system as I initially suggested.

Let's put it this way.
We all know how important the top 6 of the Aussie cricket team is.
We all have views on 4,5,6. But I like composure in that area. A hussy type. A Martin, a Waugh.

If the Geelong MC was choosing our cricket team. 4,5,6 would all be all-rounders.
And not only that, they'd drop Wade and make Handscomb keep so we could fit in another all-rounder.

I'm fine with them trialling Harry forward. But we all know they won't stick to their guns.
If he fails up forward do they drop him? Of course not. He goes down back and we shuffle deck chairs again.

I'll say it again. We need chemistry.

Oh, and before I go. I have read other threads recently. Cockatoo won't make it as a mid. He struggles to win a clearance and panics with it when he does. In the spirit of the ' versatility' thread, they should try and make him into a wojo type player.

Nice thread parko.

Byyeeeeee.


Ghosty


Some interesting points.

Anyway, I thought it was relevant to this discussion.

Go Catters

 

[Matthew Jelley]

I was chatting earlier with an old friend whom later sent me this regarding some thoughts on this particular thread...

Hi guys, been a while.
I pop in for a look occasionally and just take off.
But this topic hit a nerve for me. I listen to the specialists talk about Geelong and I just don't think they get it.

I think willo does.

We aren't missing a tall back, a mid, a ruck, or a forward. (Ok you can argue a CHF)
What we are missing is chemistry.

It's almost as if selection works like this. "Right guys, as per usual we are playing three rucks. Blicavs, Smith, and Stanley are in"
And immediately we are locked. We have to also choose Taylor, Henderson, and Kolo (for development). And we have to pick Hawkins.

That's 7 talls immediately. Mackie gets a game. But now has to get pushed up the ground to a 1/2 back towards wing type area that just doesn't suit him.

And from there we just start shuffling deck chairs.

They should work out how many rucks and tall backs they need and pick the best they can.
It seems they use some kind of auto pick system as I initially suggested.

Let's put it this way.
We all know how important the top 6 of the Aussie cricket team is.
We all have views on 4,5,6. But I like composure in that area. A hussy type. A Martin, a Waugh.

If the Geelong MC was choosing our cricket team. 4,5,6 would all be all-rounders.
And not only that, they'd drop Wade and make Handscomb keep so we could fit in another all-rounder.

I'm fine with them trialling Harry forward. But we all know they won't stick to their guns.
If he fails up forward do they drop him? Of course not. He goes down back and we shuffle deck chairs again.

I'll say it again. We need chemistry.

Oh, and before I go. I have read other threads recently. Cockatoo won't make it as a mid. He struggles to win a clearance and panics with it when he does. In the spirit of the ' versatility' thread, they should try and make him into a wojo type player.

Nice thread parko.

Byyeeeeee.


Ghosty


Some interesting points.

Anyway, I thought it was relevant to this discussion.

Go Catters

Great view, love the cricket analogy

 

[dazbroncos]

Great view, love the cricket analogy

Thanks.. not my post... just adding it for a friend but I thought it was worthy of addition.

GO Catters

 

[Cataholic]

I was chatting earlier with an old friend whom later sent me this regarding some thoughts on this particular thread...

Hi guys, been a while.
I pop in for a look occasionally and just take off.
But this topic hit a nerve for me. I listen to the specialists talk about Geelong and I just don't think they get it.

I think willo does.

We aren't missing a tall back, a mid, a ruck, or a forward. (Ok you can argue a CHF)
What we are missing is chemistry.

It's almost as if selection works like this. "Right guys, as per usual we are playing three rucks. Blicavs, Smith, and Stanley are in"
And immediately we are locked. We have to also choose Taylor, Henderson, and Kolo (for development). And we have to pick Hawkins.

That's 7 talls immediately. Mackie gets a game. But now has to get pushed up the ground to a 1/2 back towards wing type area that just doesn't suit him.

And from there we just start shuffling deck chairs.

They should work out how many rucks and tall backs they need and pick the best they can.
It seems they use some kind of auto pick system as I initially suggested.

Let's put it this way.
We all know how important the top 6 of the Aussie cricket team is.
We all have views on 4,5,6. But I like composure in that area. A hussy type. A Martin, a Waugh.

If the Geelong MC was choosing our cricket team. 4,5,6 would all be all-rounders.
And not only that, they'd drop Wade and make Handscomb keep so we could fit in another all-rounder.

I'm fine with them trialling Harry forward. But we all know they won't stick to their guns.
If he fails up forward do they drop him? Of course not. He goes down back and we shuffle deck chairs again.

I'll say it again. We need chemistry.

Oh, and before I go. I have read other threads recently. Cockatoo won't make it as a mid. He struggles to win a clearance and panics with it when he does. In the spirit of the ' versatility' thread, they should try and make him into a wojo type player.

Nice thread parko.

Byyeeeeee.


Ghosty


Some interesting points.

Anyway, I thought it was relevant to this discussion.

Go Catters

Excellent post, and one with which I broadly agree.

Chemistry is an under-rated ingredient in team sports.

Interesting assessment of Cocky too........

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I think the answer is a little of both, players that are flexible to play in multiple positions are an asset as it can give the team tactical flexibility to be able to switch the method when needed, think Guthrie in the QF. He's good enough to play in two positions at AFL standards.

But the default cannot be to want players that come into the team to be flexible, it has to be learned over time. Chapman and Johnson (and Guthrie aforementioned) became proficient in a position THEN branched out into other disciplines.

So rather than trying to use Lang as a bit part player in the midfield and also forward, why not make him proficient in a position, I favour wing (with sparing inside time) but then once he establishes himself at that then maybe chuck him forward or back for flexibility, it may take 12 months or 2 years but it's more likely to succeed than haphazardly trying to do both at once right off the bat. He's just one example too.

Now this is all on the assumption our development is good enough, but I've for quite some time harboured doubts over our assistants abilities in that regard.

 

[Bobby_]

Now this is all on the assumption our development is good enough, but I've for quite some time harboured doubts over our assistants abilities in that regard.

No you haven't, you have stated in the past that you felt our development is good.
Unless you have changed your tune in recent years, why would you now be making reservations after the club recently made it to a preliminary final.

 

[Willo_]

I was chatting earlier with an old friend whom later sent me this regarding some thoughts on this particular thread...

Hi guys, been a while.
I pop in for a look occasionally and just take off.
But this topic hit a nerve for me. I listen to the specialists talk about Geelong and I just don't think they get it.

I think willo does.

We aren't missing a tall back, a mid, a ruck, or a forward. (Ok you can argue a CHF)
What we are missing is chemistry.

It's almost as if selection works like this. "Right guys, as per usual we are playing three rucks. Blicavs, Smith, and Stanley are in"
And immediately we are locked. We have to also choose Taylor, Henderson, and Kolo (for development). And we have to pick Hawkins.

That's 7 talls immediately. Mackie gets a game. But now has to get pushed up the ground to a 1/2 back towards wing type area that just doesn't suit him.

And from there we just start shuffling deck chairs.

They should work out how many rucks and tall backs they need and pick the best they can.
It seems they use some kind of auto pick system as I initially suggested.

Let's put it this way.
We all know how important the top 6 of the Aussie cricket team is.
We all have views on 4,5,6. But I like composure in that area. A hussy type. A Martin, a Waugh.

If the Geelong MC was choosing our cricket team. 4,5,6 would all be all-rounders.
And not only that, they'd drop Wade and make Handscomb keep so we could fit in another all-rounder.

I'm fine with them trialling Harry forward. But we all know they won't stick to their guns.
If he fails up forward do they drop him? Of course not. He goes down back and we shuffle deck chairs again.

I'll say it again. We need chemistry.

Oh, and before I go. I have read other threads recently. Cockatoo won't make it as a mid. He struggles to win a clearance and panics with it when he does. In the spirit of the ' versatility' thread, they should try and make him into a wojo type player.

Nice thread parko.

Byyeeeeee.


Ghosty


Some interesting points.

Anyway, I thought it was relevant to this discussion.

Go Catters

Lol whoever could that have been

 

[catempire]

Lol whoever could that have been

 

[David the Cat]

Excellent post, and one with which I broadly agree.

Chemistry is an under-rated ingredient in team sports.

Interesting assessment of Cocky too........

It was an interesting post which in general I wouldn't argue with. But I would question the Cockatoo assessment. I can see development in Cockatoo even in the practice games we have seen so far. He is bigger and stronger, his tackling hurts to the point people will be keeping an eye out for him when contesting, and his foot skills look better to me. His decision making will improve with further exposure.

OK...perhaps not ready for a full time centre square role right now, but he can make a good contribution in there now and again. In 12 months or so I think he'll be considered for a more central role to assist our midfield. His hardness will be an asset.

 

[Ricketz]

I was chatting earlier with an old friend whom later sent me this regarding some thoughts on this particular thread...

Hi guys, been a while.
I pop in for a look occasionally and just take off.
But this topic hit a nerve for me. I listen to the specialists talk about Geelong and I just don't think they get it.

I think willo does.

We aren't missing a tall back, a mid, a ruck, or a forward. (Ok you can argue a CHF)
What we are missing is chemistry.

It's almost as if selection works like this. "Right guys, as per usual we are playing three rucks. Blicavs, Smith, and Stanley are in"
And immediately we are locked. We have to also choose Taylor, Henderson, and Kolo (for development). And we have to pick Hawkins.

That's 7 talls immediately. Mackie gets a game. But now has to get pushed up the ground to a 1/2 back towards wing type area that just doesn't suit him.

And from there we just start shuffling deck chairs.

They should work out how many rucks and tall backs they need and pick the best they can.
It seems they use some kind of auto pick system as I initially suggested.

Let's put it this way.
We all know how important the top 6 of the Aussie cricket team is.
We all have views on 4,5,6. But I like composure in that area. A hussy type. A Martin, a Waugh.

If the Geelong MC was choosing our cricket team. 4,5,6 would all be all-rounders.
And not only that, they'd drop Wade and make Handscomb keep so we could fit in another all-rounder.

I'm fine with them trialling Harry forward. But we all know they won't stick to their guns.
If he fails up forward do they drop him? Of course not. He goes down back and we shuffle deck chairs again.

I'll say it again. We need chemistry.

Oh, and before I go. I have read other threads recently. Cockatoo won't make it as a mid. He struggles to win a clearance and panics with it when he does. In the spirit of the ' versatility' thread, they should try and make him into a wojo type player.

Nice thread parko.

Byyeeeeee.


Ghosty


Some interesting points.

Anyway, I thought it was relevant to this discussion.

Go Catters

Interesting, with some very good points - but undermined by his assessment of Cocky. The guy has shown me enough, two years in. Think he will make some leaps this year, with a good run.

 

[dazbroncos]

Lol whoever could that have been

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

i dunnnnoooooooooo

Go Catters

 

[Vdubs]

The chemistry suggestion makes sense of course.
We have lacked some cohesion/chemistry increasingly since our departed champions have left voids and our MC has taken the route of top up players of a correct age.
I don't disagree with those selections at all, they could work.
But last year, we introduced Danger, who had a remarkable season, but there is no doubt his presence virtually put players like Caddy, Duncan, Guthrie into the background- there was not the need or opportunity for them to grow last season.That can be rectified, and will need to be. Add in Joel and it was almost as if they were competing with each other for MF dominance, even though ostensibly they were the best of teammates onfield.
And we added Smith to the ruck system at the same time, virtually taking over #1, and Stanley had missed a lot of 2015, so Blicavs found himself like some of those mids-effectively looking for a new role again.
And we were not settled with choices for the best ally for Hawkins.
The way I see it is that we should select the very best 22 week after week- the players that despite their height etc. are the most talented performers we have and they have to learn to play in the positions we need them, as we have very few out and out specialists in any position. And it seems that players in today's footy do not assign themselves to a spot on the ground anyway. Some are there to clear the ball from defence, some from centre breaks, some to keep the ball forward, some to score. Listed positions are more nominal than practical. That seems so obvious to me now when at times last week we saw Taylor at both ends and even Hawkins getting a kick at HB.

The one thing I do believe is MENZEL is a champion on the forward line, and if we could keep him fit and well, his presence there MAKES us potent.