Player Watch #15: Jayden Short

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

When a player is this far down on expected output there's obviously something other than 'he can't play football and never could' wrong with him.

My guess has been that Short's managing an injury (or more than one) which in an ordinary season he no doubt would have had time off to get right.

With the year we've had, he's played hurting because he's had too. Seen plenty of that from Rioli and glimpses from Vlas too.

Let's face it, the senior blokes who have managed to stay on the park are all in the same program as the injured hordes.
 
When a player is this far down on expected output there's obviously something other than 'he can't play football and never could' wrong with him.

My guess has been that Short's managing an injury (or more than one) which in an ordinary season he no doubt would have had time off to get right.

With the year we've had, he's played hurting because he's had too. Seen plenty of that from Rioli and glimpses from Vlas too.

Let's face it, the senior blokes who have managed to stay on the park are all in the same program as the injured hordes.
We have Smith ready to take his place. If he is injured he needs to be dropped until he is fixed because he is not playing well enough at the moment. He’s a small defender and has the lowest average tackle count of any of our defenders.
 
We have Smith ready to take his place. If he is injured he needs to be dropped until he is fixed because he is not playing well enough at the moment. He’s a small defender and has the lowest average tackle count of any of our defenders.


With more list available we'd have been able to rest him. My guess is that the match committee have been weighing up the difference between managing his injury and getting 2/3rds of a decent game out of him now and again, versus playing our truly greenest kids with all the risks and pitfalls which go with that.

Not to mention every senior body and brain helps from a mindset of the 22 playing that day perspective.
 
With more list available we'd have been able to rest him. My guess is that the match committee have been weighing up the difference between managing his injury and getting 2/3rds of a decent game out of him now and again, versus playing our truly greenest kids with all the risks and pitfalls which go with that.

Not to mention every senior body and brain helps from a mindset of the 22 playing that day perspective.
There were about 14 pretty experienced players out there on Sunday. We could easily have replaced him with a young bloke if he was carrying something or even if it is just poor form. And the year is cooked. Just looks like club feeling obliged to persevere with a vc because they are rewarding the old guard and worried how it looks if they drop him since they have signed him for another 3.
 
When a player is this far down on expected output there's obviously something other than 'he can't play football and never could' wrong with him.

My guess has been that Short's managing an injury (or more than one) which in an ordinary season he no doubt would have had time off to get right.

With the year we've had, he's played hurting because he's had too. Seen plenty of that from Rioli and glimpses from Vlas too.

Let's face it, the senior blokes who have managed to stay on the park are all in the same program as the injured hordes.
Interesting take. I think playing in an elite team for a long time covered up his weaknesses (Lack of toughness, defensive liability, suspect under pressure). Now our backline is under siege constantly and Rance, Astbury, Grimes aren’t there to mop up the mess, all of these weaknesses rise to the surface.
To say he is bad defensively is an understatement, and he struggles offensively with the pressure and lack of options coming his way when he looks up.
 
There were about 14 pretty experienced players out there on Sunday. We could easily have replaced him with a young bloke if he was carrying something or even if it is just poor form. And the year is cooked. Just looks like club feeling obliged to persevere with a vc because they are rewarding the old guard and worried how it looks if they drop him since they have signed him for another 3.
Injured Short IN = honorable 61 point loss.

The same argument in the Graham thread.. Graham IN = better results. Maybe the loss to Brisbane wouldn't have been 119 pts.

Net result for the club is 17th heading to 18th.

Yze's started the year with teams that were capable of finals. Injury has now ruined a 2nd season.


St Brendan ~ your halo is losing its shine
 
With more list available we'd have been able to rest him. My guess is that the match committee have been weighing up the difference between managing his injury and getting 2/3rds of a decent game out of him now and again, versus playing our truly greenest kids with all the risks and pitfalls which go with that.

Not to mention every senior body and brain helps from a mindset of the 22 playing that day perspective.
When the kids cannot play attacking football because even senior players like Short are miskicking straight to the opposition how much leadership does, he even bring. When defenders like Miller and Brown get caught on the rebound when Short tries to kick into the corridor and misses how much leadership does that bring. All the footballer/commentators say the same, if you choose to play then injuries are not an excuse. Smith may make the same mistakes but he will learn and get better.
 
There were about 14 pretty experienced players out there on Sunday. We could easily have replaced him with a young bloke if he was carrying something or even if it is just poor form. And the year is cooked. Just looks like club feeling obliged to persevere with a vc because they are rewarding the old guard and worried how it looks if they drop him since they have signed him for another 3.


I'm not really getting any sense of that, more that they went with a 'managed' version of him out there in preference to the alternatives.

Reckon it was telling that he was named on the bench last week. :thumbsu:


Interesting take. I think playing in an elite team for a long time covered up his weaknesses (Lack of toughness, defensive liability, suspect under pressure). Now our backline is under siege constantly and Rance, Astbury, Grimes aren’t there to mop up the mess, all of these weaknesses rise to the surface.
To say he is bad defensively is an understatement, and he struggles offensively with the pressure and lack of options coming his way when he looks up.


Don't entirely disagree with the looking better in a better team aspect, but thing is, Short's best footy of the latter part of his career has brought more than enough defensive pressure. Sure, it was a glaring weakness initially, but he'd gone as far to fix that as any naturally outside player does, even to the point Dimma wasn't shy to start him on the ball for a while when there were other options and he acquitted himself quite well.

He can't even play rack 'em up kick and collect constructively ATM, that's his bread and butter, so all I can conclude is there's an issue being managed.


When the kids cannot play attacking football because even senior players like Short are miskicking straight to the opposition how much leadership does, he even bring. When defenders like Miller and Brown get caught on the rebound when Short tries to kick into the corridor and misses how much leadership does that bring.


Not a lot, it certainly wouldn't have been what we would have been hoping he could execute.

But like I said above, the fact a bloke renowned as a gun kick can't hit a target for love or money most of the year and has also missed games, to me that seems a pretty straightforward Occam's razor occurrence for supporters to get their head around. :thumbsu:
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top