Has anyone run a rule over this "talent is stretched too thin" claim? I mean it just seems like some throwaway bullshit, but for example, how do the average bottom-six players per side compare impact or output-wise with those before the 18 side league? Either the 16,15,14 or 12 team comps? Surely a typical Kyle Hartiganis not atrociously worse than a Graeme Hatcher type for example?PLAYERCARDSTART28Kyle Hartigan
- Age
- 32
- Ht
- 194cm
- Wt
- 101kg
- Pos.
- Def
CareerSeasonLast 5
- D
- 11.8
- 3star
- K
- 6.8
- 3star
- HB
- 5.0
- 4star
- M
- 4.6
- 4star
- T
- 1.3
- 3star
- MG
- 111.0
- 2star
- D
- 9.3
- 2star
- K
- 5.0
- 2star
- HB
- 4.3
- 3star
- M
- 4.0
- 4star
- T
- 1.3
- 2star
- MG
- 111.0
- 2star
- D
- 18.2
- 5star
- K
- 9.6
- 4star
- HB
- 8.6
- 5star
- M
- 7.4
- 5star
- T
- 0.6
- 3star
PLAYERCARDEND
It gets bandied about so often but rarely challenged... but I suppose perhaps many of those who hold the view hold it pretty tightly
Yeah it’s absolute bollocks.
A guy like Noah Balta is a great example of someone who steps up to elite AFL level but who probably wouldn’t have gotten a gig unless Rance unexpectedly retired. Marc Pittonet another one who looks completely at home at another club.
The level of talent is fine, especially if you strip out this bullish!t NGA nonsense.