Mega Thread 2012 List Management: Part II

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe. I think it is relevant (whether or not a guy can get a game), in terms of judging his effectiveness.

I don’t think Bellchambers was every really in and out of the side was he? If so, I see it more as a function of his age and our list. He’s now well and truly overtaken Hille and won’t be dropped again, barring a huge dip in form. He’s solid best 22 at Essendon, and would be at Hawthorn as well.

Pears, on his 2012 form, isn’t best 22 at Hawthorn or Essendon. He’s in truly horrible knick. Hopefully he recovers.

I think the thing with either of them is there’s extenuating situations for both – Pears may get a game at Hawthorn (on 2012 form), but only because they lacked key defenders, not based on his performances. His performances were terrible. For TBC, we simply had a relatively strong ruck division (Ryder and Hille), which is all that ever really stopped him getting games.

You could extend the same outlook to Young at Hawthorn, if say they had a very weak midfield, therefore he’s getting games on the back of that. But it’s not the case – if anything they have a strong midfield.

Conversely, ours is weak, and Dyson still can’t get a game.


This is the thing. Their midfield is not as good as it is given credit for. I'd go as far as saying that their midfield core is hardly better than ours. They are just as one paced as we are without the young ball carriers, have more proven inside players but, and it is a key but, their defensive structure and ability to retain the ball is what protects them and enables them to dictate the pace of a game.

Hawthorn's ball carriers are average at best, especially when the ball isn't frequently in Cyril's hands. It is in exploiting this weakness that Adelaide and Sydney bridged the supposedly insurmountable gap. It wasn't about being the Bloods, or courageous or unselfish, harder at the contest or any other ill considered cliche, the reality is that if you can keep the contest on the outside Hawthorn struggle to keep up.

In this respect Clinton Young is a vital player to the proper balance of their team (just as Zaharakis is to ours) because he is one of their few good ball carriers.
 
7-3 with Dyson, 4-8 without him.

U1TcW.gif
The kryptonite to The Henry Slattery Effect?
 
I agree with you.

The question is relatively simple for me.

1. Would Young be Best 22?
2. Can we afford him?
3. Do we need to clear anything out to get him?
4. Do we have anything to clear out?
5. Are we losing much by getting such players out?
6. Are we improving our list?
7. Why are we hesitating?



Answers to the above:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Maybe
4. Yes
5. No
6. Yes
7. NFI

To sum up the position of a lot of people that post on here........

He is a Hawthorn player (team "we" hate) who is no good (cos he is a Hawthorn player) and Dyson amongst many others (cos they are Essendon players) are way better than him.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kepler Bradley effect for freo - big deal

I think Young cost too much for what he is and the gains we get by having him. I would have much preferred we spent the money on Moloney. Now id prefer we save the coin on Sylvia or someone else for next year - its always good to have moving room with the modern trading game.

The only positive i take out of reading that we are keen on Young is that we probably arnt keen on Stevens.
 
Kepler Bradley effect for freo - big deal

I think Young cost too much for what he is and the gains we get by having him. I would have much preferred we spent the money on Moloney. Now id prefer we save the coin on Sylvia or someone else for next year - its always good to have moving room with the modern trading game.

The only positive i take out of reading that we are keen on Young is that we probably arnt keen on Stevens.

Why not give a kid like Ross or Merret the game time from the bench next year?
 
Ross and Merrett are not close...there are other kids.

on our list? with the penchant for not picking Colyer, i wouldnt be so sure that they will miss because "they are kids" next year. I think, with this being their third/second seasons on the list respectively, they could start pushing for games. Ross in perticular may surprise.

What's not to say we will pick a kid at 69 who absolutely dominates pre season and gets games straight away either?
 
Is there a reason Shane Nelson wasnt taken as a rookie pick last year? Gets lots of the ball and from the tests he has conducted is an excellent kick?
 
I'd take Ray and Young for sure. They would both add the outside polish we are lacking. Ray in particular is a lot better than most on Bigfooty give him credit for.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Clubs have gone a bit cold on Tylen. Five clubs have shown interest in Panozza. Anyone know much about him?
 
I'd take Ray and Young for sure. They would both add the outside polish we are lacking. Ray in particular is a lot better than most on Bigfooty give him credit for.

Yeah they'd both be very handy because we are way too reliant on Stanton and Zaharakis for run and carry. Ray has shown he can do a decent defensive job too which could free up Hocking a bit.
 
Yeah they'd both be very handy because we are way too reliant on Stanton and Zaharakis for run and carry. Ray has shown he can do a decent defensive job too which could free up Hocking a bit.

Yes and I would like to see Zaka develop his inside game to the point where he is 50/50. Bit hard to do if you have a lack of outside polish. Goddard certainly helps a lot.
 
the most interesting thing about this dyson-young chat are all the posts saying dyson is better defensively/as good. for better or worse, ant's post made in june or w/ever about dyson still not quite getting the zone is ringing in my ears.

of course, young might too. but are people saying he's better defensively because he's better offensively
 
the most interesting thing about this dyson-young chat are all the posts saying dyson is better defensively/as good. for better or worse, ant's post made in june or w/ever about dyson still not quite getting the zone is ringing in my ears.

of course, young might too. but are people saying he's better defensively because he's better offensively

I'm more referring to Dyson's occasional propensity to be able to win a contest.
 
I think young is a slight upgrade on dyson despite his lack of work the other way...however I still think we would be better off keeping dyson and trying to land stevens or jacobs..more potential upside for me
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top