Injury Birchall 4 - 6 weeks with a PCL

[savagelunchbox]

He hasn't named anyone outside the team from last week and he repeatedly uses the phrase 'best 22'. Surely he can put up one name at least for us to debate instead of suggesting that birchall carrying a PCL would be a better choice than Ellis. Surely he needs to put up some reason to displace an incumbent player to demonstrate he has actually considered the alternatives to Ellis instead of just jumping to a conclusion that Ellis isn't in our 'best 22' and challenging anyone who suggest Ellis might get a game this week to provide a reason why he should get a game ahead of players already in the side?

Yeah I get that, but if you're going to debate him on whether or not Ellis should be in the side, your side needs reasons too. Rather than the "coaching staff know best" reasons vs. "He's injury prone and done nothing in 5 yrs" argument, someone from one side of the discussion needs to provide actual reasons why he should/shouldn't be in the side.

I personally think he should be left at BHH for another month to prove he can play competitive football for a prolonged period of time and not get injured because the last 5 years has shown he cannot meanwhile there are players like Langford who have performed well for the majority of the season, seemingly got over their injury problems and don't seem to get a look in while Ellis, who can't go a month of football without getting injured, jumps the queue to get in the side.

I've made it clear in the past that I've lost patience with Ellis and his fragility plus we've shown that we can play well without him in the side whilst also blooding youngsters/newbies in big games and still win. Why not give them a game? How long do these players need to perform for before they get a game for Hawthorn?

 

[Brishawk]

Yeah I get that, but if you're going to debate him on whether or not Ellis should be in the side, your side needs reasons too. Rather than the "coaching staff know best" reasons vs. "He's injury prone and done nothing in 5 yrs" argument, someone from one side of the discussion needs to provide actual reasons why he should/shouldn't be in the side.

I personally think he should be left at BHH for another month to prove he can play competitive football for a prolonged period of time and not get injured because the last 5 years has shown he cannot meanwhile there are players like Langford who have performed well for the majority of the season, seemingly got over their injury problems and don't seem to get a look in while Ellis, who can't go a month of football without getting injured, jumps the queue to get in the side.

I've made it clear in the past that I've lost patience with Ellis and his fragility plus we've shown that we can play well without him in the side whilst also blooding youngsters/newbies in big games and still win. Why not give them a game? How long do these players need to perform for before they get a game for Hawthorn?

There have been plenty of reasons provided by myself and other posters. Taskmaster claimed Ellis has not played good footy for Hawthorn. I disputed that. He keeps trying to argue Ellis isn't in the best 22. I dispute any one in this thread says he is. Ellis has more proven ability than anyone playing at box hill. If he is fit and the best available then play him. If he gets injured, drop him. We aren't talking about finals. We are just talking about picking a guy to help get 4 points. On Langford, he may well prove to to be a good player. But apart form this year he has been at least as injury prone as Ellis. This is the first year at the club that he has strung many games together. So tell me why we should expect Ellis to string another month of football together before we pick him when we do not expect the same of an untried youngster who has a lower training age and zero AFL experience?

EDIT: The most games Langford has ever played in a season is 11. He has played 9 this year.

 

[savagelunchbox]

There have been plenty of reasons provided by myself and other posters. Taskmaster claimed Ellis has not played good footy for Hawthorn. I disputed that. He keeps trying to argue Ellis isn't in the best 22. I dispute any one in this thread says he is. Ellis has more proven ability than anyone playing at box hill. If he is fit and the best available then play him. If he gets injured, drop him. We aren't talking about finals. We are just talking about picking a guy to help get 4 points. On Langford, he may well prove to to be a good player. But apart form this year he has been at least as injury prone as Ellis. This is the first year at the club that he has strung many games together. So tell me why we should expect Ellis to string another month of football together before we pick him when we do not expect the same of an untried youngster who has a lower training age and zero AFL experience?

EDIT: The most games Langford has ever played in a season is 11. He has played 9 this year.

Because Ellis has proven that he cannot last a month playing football without getting injured. Langford has shown this year that he can play football for consecutive weeks without getting injured. Could it be an outlier? We don't know, but until he proves otherwise, give him the exposure while we can while Ellis can prove he can play consecutive games. It's clear that the coaches think he can play, but that's not the issue. His longevity is.

Most young players have those periods where they're injury prone. Lowden did, Langford did, Liquorland did, etc, but Ellis is in his 7th year yet still has the physique and longevity of a rookie/2nd year player.

 

[Brishawk]

Because Ellis has proven that he cannot last a month playing football without getting injured. Langford has shown this year that he can play football for consecutive weeks without getting injured. Could it be an outlier? We don't know, but until he proves otherwise, give him the exposure while we can while Ellis can prove he can play consecutive games. It's clear that the coaches think he can play, but that's not the issue. His longevity is.

Most young players have those periods where they're injury prone. Lowden did, Langford did, Liquorland did, etc, but Ellis is in his 7th year yet still has the physique and longevity of a rookie/2nd year player.

Why is longevity relevant as to who will play this week? Ellis played more games of football than Luke Hodge did last year (at any level). Didn't have a baring on whether or not Hodge was picked. Apart from the fact that Langford doesn't play the same role as Birchall (the player Ellis has been suggest as a replacement), Langford doesn't have 85 games of experience at AFL level. Ellis has shown he can play off half back at that level. So on exposed AFL form it is no contest. On exposed form across half back it is no contest. Langford may have shown better overall form this year (in a different role) and may have played more games at box hill this year but he hasn't shown he can replace Birchall. Now if they want to reshuffle the side and play others down back that is possible. And the coaches may go that way. But if we want to retain our structures without having to play a rookie in a role that is suited to a senior player then they will go with Ellis (in my and others opinions).

As for his physical condition, it wouldn't have stopped him doing his PCL just as it didn't stop Birchall and it din't stop Hodge doing the same injury. If you put yourself in danger you are going to get injured. Credit to Ellis, he keeps getting back up and throwing himself back into danger's path.

 

[savagelunchbox]

Why is longevity relevant as to who will play this week? Ellis played more games of football than Luke Hodge did last year (at any level). Didn't have a baring on whether or not Hodge was picked. Apart from the fact that Langford doesn't play the same role as Birchall (the player Ellis has been suggest as a replacement), Langford doesn't have 85 games of experience at AFL level. Ellis has shown he can play off half back at that level. So on exposed AFL form it is no contest. On exposed form across half back it is no contest. Langford may have shown better overall form this year (in a different role) and may have played more games at box hill this year but he hasn't shown he can replace Birchall. Now if they want to reshuffle the side and play others down back that is possible. And the coaches may go that way. But if we want to retain our structures without having to play a rookie in a role that is suited to a senior player then they will go with Ellis (in my and others opinions).

As for his physical condition, it wouldn't have stopped him doing his PCL just as it didn't stop Birchall and it din't stop Hodge doing the same injury. If you put yourself in danger you are going to get injured. Credit to Ellis, he keeps getting back up and throwing himself back into danger's path.

Longevity is relevant because Ellis has shown that over the last 5 years that whenever he plays he's prone to injury and every time he gets injured is messes the team around. Show that you can last consecutive weeks in the 2nds and then put your name up for selection. It's been the same thing over the last 5 years, 3 weeks in before 7 weeks out. And they're not always injuries from throwing his body into contests.

As for Hodge, he had an 18 month period where he kept getting injured, but he seems to have got over that currently. His value to the side when he plays, even if it's only for 9 games a season, is far more valuable than Ellis. Hodge has also shown that he can throw his body around, take hit, make hits and all that stuff and do it continually without getting injured.

You can't pull that 'Ellis has more experience' line when this team is one of the most experienced in the league. We've also shown this year we can have newbies in the side and the inexperience not be an issue. Looking at the starting 18 for this week there are only 2 players (guessing here) that haven't played 50 games. That's a pretty damn experienced side so Ellis's 85 games in 7 seasons (that's only 12 a season btw) experience isn't crucially important. I'd be worried if it was.

But going back to the original post referring to what would Ellis bring to the table that this side needs and/or lacks that warrants him playing at the high risk of getting injured?

 

[Brishawk]

I answered you. If the coaches want to bring in a player that can play in Birchall's role (a senior role) then Ellis is the best qualified. You could maybe make an argument for Cheney maybe but if you want someone to play Birchall's role then who are you going to play instead of Ellis?

So if not Ellis, who? Why can't you put up something that even resembles an alternative? I don't think it would be fair to a first game player to ask him to peal off his man when the time is right and provide a lot of run out of defence with occasional trips up the field. That is why experience counts. If Langford plays, he is going to play as a rotation through the middle, likely as a tagger. Or maybe even on the HFF. Just like we did for Anderson. Just like we did for Hill last year. Just like we did with Smith. We do not bring in first game players to be the architect of our attack out of the back line.

As for you supposition that Ellis has been injury plagued for 5 years, well, lets look at his record.

2006 - played with high school but did break his ankle
2007 rookie season and played 13 senior games
2008 played 23 games including the GF
2009 played 11 games for Hawthorn
2010 played 23 games for Hawthorn
2011 8 games for hawthorn and 6 games for Box Hill (14)
2012 6 games for Hawthorn and 6 games for Box Hill (12)
2013 1 game for Hawthorn and 3 games for box Hill

So basically it is just the last couple of years where he has had ongoing problems. He has played a month of footy this year without injury. I really don't accept that a guy coming in as temporary cover is more disruptive to the side when he exits because of injuries but if he is a rookie and exits because more senior players are recalled then he doesn't mess up the side. From what I can tell your argument is simply Ellis gets injured so don't play him and that you want to blood young players.

 

[Dinner Plate]

This thread is well and truly derailed.

Any further news on Birchall's PCL? Holes are appearing in our back line (hence the discussion of Ellis's merits.)

 

[NICE1]

I answered you. If the coaches want to bring in a player that can play in Birchall's role (a senior role) then Ellis is the best qualified. You could maybe make an argument for Cheney maybe but if you want someone to play Birchall's role then who are you going to play instead of Ellis?

So if not Ellis, who? Why can't you put up something that even resembles an alternative? I don't think it would be fair to a first game player to ask him to peal off his man when the time is right and provide a lot of run out of defence with occasional trips up the field. That is why experience counts. If Langford plays, he is going to play as a rotation through the middle, likely as a tagger. Or maybe even on the HFF. Just like we did for Anderson. Just like we did for Hill last year. Just like we did with Smith. We do not bring in first game players to be the architect of our attack out of the back line.

As for you supposition that Ellis has been injury plagued for 5 years, well, lets look at his record.

2006 - played with high school but did break his ankle
2007 rookie season and played 13 senior games
2008 played 23 games including the GF
2009 played 11 games for Hawthorn
2010 played 23 games for Hawthorn
2011 8 games for hawthorn and 6 games for Box Hill (14)
2012 6 games for Hawthorn and 6 games for Box Hill (12)
2013 1 game for Hawthorn and 3 games for box Hill

So basically it is just the last couple of years where he has had ongoing problems. He has played a month of footy this year without injury. I really don't accept that a guy coming in as temporary cover is more disruptive to the side when he exits because of injuries but if he is a rookie and exits because more senior players are recalled then he doesn't mess up the side. From what I can tell your argument is simply Ellis gets injured so don't play him and that you want to blood young players.

I think Cheney is a far better choice atm to play Birchalls role - physically better conditioned, defensively more capable and still has the composure/foot skills to competently play that role...not to mention, he has actually earned a call up.

Really have nothing against Ellis personally and I think he still has the footy smarts to be a very good and accomplished footballer. The issue is his body and unless he can reinvent himself physically, I think thats always going to hold him back from being the player he should've been.
At this stage, he has not earnt a spot in the team and I wouldnt be playing him ahead of cheney, thats my only issue.

 

[NICE1]

I'd even give Savage a go playing off HB before bringing Ellis in to play that role.

 

[cryptor]

Burgoyne to fill Birchall's position at HB. Out of himself, Ellis, Savage, Cheney and 'which ever 0 gamer' I'd feel the least worried with the ball in Burgoyne's hands as he ran it out of defence. Far too dangerous a spot on the ground to risk a turn over. Burgoyne is the only one of that bunch with the right combination of speed, skills and decision making ability to effectively play that role.

 

[Brishawk]

I'd even give Savage a go playing off HB before bringing Ellis in to play that role.

Yeah not a bad option. He has played their for box Hill and once or twice this year playing as sub. If he can't make it as a midfielder his pace would be an asset coming out of defence.

 

[MinerBoy]

Birch is irreplaceable. Let's just play a man short.

 

[NICE1]

Birch is irreplaceable. Let's just play a man short.

Haha.. if you look at his physical attributes, I dont think there is anyone in the AFL who is better placed to play that position.