Who's likely to be our best small forward?

[Jimmae]

Jimmae l was hoping that you booked in for some therapy after Carlton took Fisher at 25. By the sounds of it you didn't.

I think your being a bit rigid in your assessment of Fisher. I don't think pace will make or break Fisher and l get the impression that is one of your major problems with him. That he needs to be very quick because of his size.

He has plenty to prove and there are no guarantees but he is more advanced than most 18 year olds as he showed in the champs.

I think you do have legitimate concerns but from my perspective you aren't giving Fisher enough credit for his strengths. I feel like you are looking at discrete components of his makeup, for example Height weight speed, and writing him off. The total package l see is similar to Daniels and Gresham. Smart rounded footballers who are relatively short. No individual characteristic standing out.

Anyway, not sure l've accurately represented your thoughts but that's the impression lm left with.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think you're either undervaluing Daniel and Gresham or overvaluing Fisher with your assessment. He's not of their calibre in terms of running power on what I have seen of all three (pre-draft). Daniel definitely suffered from a perceived bias in drafting circles, but I was keen on him at the time and didn't think he'd last to the Doggies pick. That we had chucked it to them for Liam Jones still makes my ears burn a little bit.

To be clear, I think blokes who are on the smaller side need a strong combination of physicality, smarts and speed to survive around the contests, particularly in midfield, and I think Fisher is very middle of the road (arguably below average) for speed. Not just for his size, but for the competition as a whole.

He packs a punch for his weight class, and he's a smart footballer if lacking a slight bit of polish in comparison to his vision, but he'll be conceding 15-20 kilos on most midfielders at the clearances in his first year, and I don't see how he's going to close that gap much as his career goes on. If his speed doesn't go up a notch when his core strength improves, he might never have the level of athleticism required to realise his footballing talents.

And to be clear on Daniel, Gresham and Lovell (as another example, one perhaps more suitable to Fisher's attributes):

At combine (cms/kgs):
Daniel - 168/68
Gresham - 177/76
Lovell - 174/80

Inside Footy 2016 pre-season figures (cms/kgs):
Daniel - 168/71
Gresham 177/76
Lovell - 173/81

So these guys were elite in their preparation for juniors, and continued to excel in a professional environment. Just not seeing that from Fisher who was supposedly 61 kgs at the combine (though I have seen him quoted at 70 kgs in a couple of articles), which I find relatively believable despite some people with Carlton connections rubbishing it (I know it's probably a WAFL pre-season figure, but there's no way he was 70kgs). He's now listed on the club site @ 68kgs, but I think the truth is still somewhere between the two numbers.

He needs to go about his preparation the right way first and foremost, but if he's at 65 kilos now, he probably needs to put on roughly another 10, and unlike those other 3 names who had BMIs in excess of 24 at the combine, he hasn't shown he has the genetics for it just yet. I think we've gone too far the other way and failed to recognise that there are unavoidable physical challenges he might struggle to meet at AFL level.

Historically we're usually the last club to think in these terms, with the only exceptional circumstances being state league form, and that rare situation where we think someone's a 'smokey'. All of that being said, the rest of our new draft contingent seem much more physically prepared for AFL, so if they really think his output can be greater than Bolton, Drew or Atley, overall we don't seem to be at much of a risk.

Would prefer they had left that kind of speculation until the 40s or 50s though, as I strongly suspect he would have lasted, and we could have simply held onto one of the picks we gave up to GWS to make it happen, or received another back in the trade.

 

[Soapy V]

Best Small Forward

as we stand today it's Wright & Armfield. Sumner coming up fast and it will be Lebois in 12 months

 

[Soapy V]

What I think I'll like about Fisher is just how his mind ticks over.
He's working things out on the run and seems to have/make time, to arrive to the the right decision.
In stoppages, no sooner has he touched the ball before giving it off to advantage.


............and remember........He's aiming to be very, very dangerous around goals. He said so.

Just seems to be one of those players that finds the ball and has time. Outwardly doesn't look anything special then you watch him play. Can't teach that stuff

 

[passmark]

not sure we have a Cyril or Puopolo on the list so I figure they'll want at least one or two of the smalls to be able to hold their own through the midfield or develop into a midfielder.

With that thinking I reckon Fisher and SPS will be our most dangerous in 2017 but maybe not beyond.

 

[bmaurizio]

What I think I'll like about Fisher is just how his mind ticks over.
He's working things out on the run and seems to have/make time, to arrive to the the right decision.
In stoppages, no sooner has he touched the ball before giving it off to advantage.


............and remember........He's aiming to be very, very dangerous around goals. He said so.

Agree Harker, footy IQ is a gift and essential trait of a good team player and Fisher has that, very good awareness , crisp action. Courageous and hunts the ball. Can't ask for more from a young lad, he'll need time to intergrate into Bolton's , CFC & AFL ethos and momentum. I see good potential , reckon we have a good one on our hands.

 

[Soapy V]

not sure we have a Cyril or Puopolo on the list so I figure they'll want at least one or two of the smalls to be able to hold their own through the midfield or develop into a midfielder.

You will like LeBois. When I watched him I saw some special talents ala Rioli & Garlett. Key is to now translate that to AFL level. As for mids pushing through the forward line I see that happening a lot and what is exciting about this list.

 

[Jimmae]

Sorry to stomp on the parade, but 'you can't teach awareness' has to be the most ridiculous assertion to be made in every at-length football discussion I've ever been in. Why employ coaches if they can't be taught how to be tactically aware?

The elite guys just think about it more than the average player, and start developing plans for how to react to certain situations, then maintain their composure long enough, to execute well enough, often enough. That's it.

Experience + composure + intelligence + work ethic = Footy IQ

Plenty of ways to improve that without waving your hands in the air and saying 'can't be taught.'

 

[Soapy V]

Sorry to stomp on the parade, but 'you can't teach awareness' has to be the most ridiculous assertion to be made in every at-length football discussion I've ever been in. Why employ coaches if they can't be taught how to be tactically aware?

I heard Clarkson one night talk about there are things that can be taught and things that can't. He said you can't teach desire and you can't teach awareness (time & space). It's a talent you have or you don't. Can you improve? yes, but the ability is natural. I trust his judgement on the subject.

I remember Parko saying something similar years ago about Greg Williams. Desire plus ability to find the ball and see things others can't was something that couldn't be taught. It was innate. That's why he succeeded when so many thought he was too slow or small

 

[Jimmae]

If it can be identified, it can be taught. If you're passionate about improving your skill, many things can become seemingly innate.

Everything in footy is teachable, it's just a matter of the resources to do so.

 

[thylacine60]

no

 

[Soapy V]

If it can be identified, it can be taught. If you're passionate about improving your skill, many things can become seemingly innate.

Everything in footy is teachable, it's just a matter of the resources to do so.

Totally disagree. Otherwise we would all be doing it

 

[ray8182]

If it can be identified, it can be taught. If you're passionate about improving your skill, many things can become seemingly innate.

Everything in footy is teachable, it's just a matter of the resources to do so.

There are always limits as to what can be taught or atleast there is in this day and age. Maybe in the distant future we will have new tools\resources to work

Identifying the problem and trying really hard won't work for lots of people. A lot of smart passionate people have failed to make the grade at there chosen sport.

We aren't just a blank canvas that can be made into a masterpiece if we try really hard. Everybody works with limitations.

People are complicated and your comments come across as incredibly simplistic. There are an incredible number of variables when it comes to people.

That footy iq formula looks lovely but once again you think you can boil everything down to a simplistic formula. It might be useful as a rough guide as what to work on but nothing more. An accurate formula might be infinitely long.

I feel like this is along the same lines as the Fisher discussion. Your are reducing something complex down to just a few components and drawing a conclusion.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmae]

If it can be identified, it can be taught. If you're passionate about improving your skill, many things can become seemingly innate.

Everything in footy is teachable, it's just a matter of the resources to do so.

 

[Metalcrusher]

If it can be identified, it can be taught. If you're passionate about improving your skill, many things can become seemingly innate.

Everything in footy is teachable, it's just a matter of the resources to do so.

Nope ... couldn't disagree more,

That's why you have star players and plodders/list cloggers.

 

[Love the Drake]

If it can be identified, it can be taught. If you're passionate about improving your skill, many things can become seemingly innate.

Everything in footy is teachable, it's just a matter of the resources to do so.

Totally disagree. Skills/game sense/feel for the game cannot be taught. You've either got them or you don't. The hawks CHF of the 90's Nick Holland is a case in point. Was a hard worker and passionate about improving, but was robotic and never in the league of a Carey or Dunstall.

 

[thylacine60]

think jim is suggesting it depends on the resources the player has which I read as the resources the club has - at hand to do the training

 

[Michael Jezz]

2017 Dylan Buckley
2019. Le Bois

 

[kingkingston]

Larry Bird

 

[ianh]

Larry Bird

Disagree

 

[Jimmae]

think jim is suggesting it depends on the resources the player has which I read as the resources the club has - at hand to do the training

Yup, subject to raw athletic and cognitive ability, one's potential is only limited by wholly controllable factors.

In practical terms, if you could give every player their own coaching panel, they could readily become a superstar if they have the physical template. But it's a total waste of time and effort to do so, so you do what you can and hope they find the rest within.

But it's silly to say there's absolute intangibles, it's just something that we today don't think of or fully understand.

 

[Soapy V]

Yup, subject to raw athletic and cognitive ability, one's potential is only limited by wholly controllable factors.

In practical terms, if you could give every player their own coaching panel, they could readily become a superstar if they have the physical template. But it's a total waste of time and effort to do so, so you do what you can and hope they find the rest within.

But it's silly to say there's absolute intangibles, it's just something that we today don't think of or fully understand.

I reckon sometimes you just say things to confuse the issue. Reads like you are contradicting your original statement. Then again I have no bloody idea what your talking about

 

[Jimmae]

I reckon sometimes you just say things to confuse the issue. Reads like you are contradicting your original statement. Then again I have no bloody idea what your talking about

I'm just saying that if they really wanted to teach things like how to time a run to a pack to crumb, they probably could.

It's usually easier to just run match sim and let the players figure it out where they can, but it can be taught, hell even drilled for. That's just one example of things commentators regularly say 'can't be taught'.

 

[ray8182]

I'm just saying that if they really wanted to teach things like how to time a run to a pack to crumb, they probably could.

It's usually easier to just run match sim and let the players figure it out where they can, but it can be taught, hell even drilled for. That's just one example of things commentators regularly say 'can't be taught'.

I know what you are getting at by saying intangibles is a silly word to use. It's like saying it's some form of magic and we can't possibly work it out. Maybe intangibles isn't just about knowing what to do but also being able to do it instinctively.

A lot of variables\decisions could be identified in how to crum a pack etc and even if we knew all of them you would still need to process them instantaneously, in a split second. Practice helps with this but just because you know what to do doesn't mean you will ever be able to do it in the given time frame.

Also l think you seriously underestimating the number of variables at play and what needs to be processed by the human mind.

There is much more as well in terms of the way each individual person moves and the way they naturally engage there muscles to carry out tasks. Some people are suited to certain tasks purely because of the way they engage there muscles/body in everyday life. You can't just reprogram this completely to suit the task at hand.

I could go on and on and l know you would like me too but l am fatigued because lm thinking about something that doesn't come naturally, which is another factor.








Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[BlueRenaissance]

If it can be identified, it can be taught. If you're passionate about improving your skill, many things can become seemingly innate.

Everything in footy is teachable, it's just a matter of the resources to do so.

Jimmae for president!

My pappy used to say the exact same thing; he started life at the bottom of the tree as a refuse collector but didn't let that stop him. By the time he retired twenty years later, he had upskilled to team leader - a prouder day neverer had!

Personally, I havent been able to live up to his standards and only recently gave up the battle to learn how to play Fifa 17 on the playstation. That bloody stupid control...i keep doing a long ball instead of shooting. Too many buttons, too many options. I tellz ya, if you are 46 and over, you cant be taught new thingz!

 

[Soapy V]

There are things you can be taught and their are things that simply can't be. That's how I see it. The original comment was about Fisher just finds the ball and has time. I believe you either have it or you don't, especially at that level. He's a natural