VFL Game Day VFL Round 4: Essendon vs Port Melbourne (62-89 loss)

[ezard15]

I just don't agree.

I'd take most of those guys ahead of McKernan. You really think McKernan is a better ruckman than Naismith?

Hartley - played as our second key back and got annihilated by Shane Kirsten. Just going off the teams that played the first few games of the round - Saints have Geary, GWS have Haynes (among others), North have Hansen, Adelaide have Lever/Otten.

I just think you're overrating the list. If it was that deep, we'd be winning at either AFL or VFL level.

If depth isn't in reference to talent, then what's it in reference to? Green's okay as a third option as a small forward, Colyer's been playing off a wing and Howlett and Zaharakis are both midfielders who, ideally, shouldn't be in a senior team.

Yeah I'm starting to wonder if the only depth we have is players that aren't AFL standard.

 

[bombreys]

Yeah I'm starting to wonder if the only depth we have is players that aren't AFL standard.

And that's about right - that's what the reserves side is for. Developing youngsters, fringe players and for players that aren't quite up to AFL standard. I'm honestly not sure where the idea we had this never-ending depth came from.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

I just don't agree.

I'd take most of those guys ahead of McKernan. You really think McKernan is a better ruckman than Naismith?

Hartley - played as our second key back and got annihilated by Shane Kirsten. Just going off the teams that played the first few games of the round - Saints have Geary, GWS have Haynes (among others), North have Hansen, Adelaide have Lever/Otten.

I just think you're overrating the list. If it was that deep, we'd be winning at either AFL or VFL level.

If depth isn't in reference to talent, then what's it in reference to? Green's okay as a third option as a small forward, Colyer's been playing off a wing and Howlett and Zaharakis are both midfielders who, ideally, shouldn't be in a senior team.

And I just don't agree with you.

Naismith is crap, he averages 2 more hitouts a game more than Smack, but half the clearances, half the marks and less than half the goals. Smack gives away too many free kicks which angers people but his stats other than hitouts (which are next to useless) are great.

You're completely misrepresenting players, Geary isn't a genuine tall, Haynes is second choice, Hansen is third and only excels as a loose man, Lever is clearly second choice to Talia and Otten isn't genuine key defender, it's Hartigan.

Put any genuine fourth tall on Lynch or Hawkins without support and they kick 10. Hartley with the worst midfield in the world held them to 9 over four games last year.

Like I said in reply to another post, depth is to reference players who can perform a specific role in your structure to a minimum standard when injuries occur to your first choice players.

 

[Lore]

And that's about right - that's what the reserves side is for. Developing youngsters, fringe players and for players that aren't quite up to AFL standard. I'm honestly not sure where the idea we had this never-ending depth came from.

We didn't have any depth at all last year, and I guess we have some fresh options now, having turned over the list a bit in the last couple of years. Also players being able to play in multiple positions gives you a faux sense of depth, in that you could theoretically say Walla and Fantasia are 'midfield depth'. So I guess it's depth compared to recent history, rather than depth by general standards. It's not like we've had players leaving for opportunity in recent times, so it's not exactly at the point of 'too much quality depth'.

 

[ezard15]

And that's about right - that's what the reserves side is for. Developing youngsters, fringe players and for players that aren't quite up to AFL standard. I'm honestly not sure where the idea we had this never-ending depth came from.

Part of it was that last year Kelly, Brown, Hartley and Matty Dea and Leunberger all played good footy and there was no reason to think that would not continue.

There was also massive optimism/excitement that Langford and Laverde would deliver given they were both high draft picks and have been around for a few years now.

We also thought the returning players would come back and most of them would play seniors to about the same standard they used to - some people even thought the year off might have done them some good.

Basically none of the things that we expected to happen have happened.

And a few other players have gone backwards i.e. Gleeson and Zaharakis.

I could rant on but I wont.

 

[bombreys]

And I just don't agree with you.

Naismith is crap, he averages 2 more hitouts a game more than Smack, but half the clearances, half the marks and less than half the goals. Smack gives away too many free kicks which angers people but his stats other than hitouts (which are next to useless) are great.

You're completely misrepresenting players, Geary isn't a genuine tall, Haynes is second choice, Hansen is third and only excels as a loose man, Lever is clearly second choice to Talia and Otten isn't genuine key defender, it's Hartigan.

Put any genuine fourth tall on Lynch or Hawkins without support and they kick 10. Hartley with the worst midfield in the world held them to 9 over four games last year.

Like I said in reply to another post, depth is to reference players who can perform a specific role in your structure to a minimum standard when injuries occur to your first choice players.

And that's fine. I just think the proof is in the pudding in that both sides are losing.

Neither are great, as they're both third choice rucks. If McKernan was that good, he would be on a senior list, wouldn't he?

With those players, you're just describing them in a way to support your argument - if Otten is not a 'genuine key defender', than neither is Ambrose - which would make Hartley our second or third key defender, rendering your argument irrelevant, as there are plenty of teams with better or as good second options.

Also, regarding your own description of depth - we were struck by injuries yesterday (to Ambrose and Brown) and Hartley and Dea quite clearly showed they were not able to come in and fill that role.

Any who, we've probably got bigger problems than depth at the moment.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

And that's fine. I just think the proof is in the pudding in that both sides are losing.

Neither are great, as they're both third choice rucks. If McKernan was that good, he would be on a senior list, wouldn't he?

With those players, you're just describing them in a way to support your argument - if Otten is not a 'genuine key defender', than neither is Ambrose - which would make Hartley our second or third key defender, rendering your argument irrelevant, as there are plenty of teams with better or as good second options.

Also, regarding your own description of depth - we were struck by injuries yesterday (to Ambrose and Brown) and Hartley and Dea quite clearly showed they were not able to come in and fill that role.

Any who, we've probably got bigger problems than depth at the moment.

If you agree that selection balance is wrong like most do, how can you claim that results of the games are an accurate representation of our list?

If we have 7-8 outside midfielders on our list but play nearly all of them in the AFL, do we have depth in their position? Is our VFL team going to be balanced appropriately to function well enough to win games?

Ultimately Stanton and Zaharakis maybe even Watson would dominate at VFL level, where they should be selected, because they need to be starting in the midfield to influence games. Their introduction moves Howlett forward, give us a small forward and structure there. Langford, Begley, Redman have better conduits for ball movement allowing them to play their roles more effectively.

Everything is connected, too many think with the mentality of 90's-2000's football where stars win games. That is no longer the case it's about a creating a cohesive and symbiotic system.

Otten isn't a key defender because he doesn't play one out on key forwards or at least hasn't since his first year or two. Nothing to do with height, Ambrose does and beats them. We had all of our key defenders fit, we choose Ambrose and Brown and played Hurley as a loose man. That is the definition of fourth choice in Woosha's eyes.

Also Kersten kicked 2 goals and took 2 contested marks, same as Conor McKenna. Lets ease up on Hartley getting beaten.

 

[grimlock]

 

[Killer_Mike]

Thanks Grimlock, you're a legend!