Essendon Premiers 2013-15?

[OB1]

Rubbish. I have provided many examples that contradict your belief that "a cardboard cutout could get the job done". Lack of a quality tall forward cost the cats in 08. If they had an Alistair Lynch or a Johnno Brown we'd be talking about one of the greatest eras of all time. As it was they couldn't even go back to back.

Examples, you're kiding yourself. You have not been able to provide a single example of any side that has won a premiership without a strong midfield. Would Geelong have won 08 with Lynch? He only kicked 2 in 2001 which is the same as what Mooney & Lonergan both produced. As for Brown he managed a grand total of 5 goals from 3 GF appearances. His GF return is no more than what Lonergan produced. How then can you assume he would have produced his best when so many other key forwards fail on the biggest stage. What Geelong missed the most & ultimately probably cost them was another small defender, some leg speed & a small forward who coudl make Hodge accountable. As I have pointed out several times it was Hawthorns run from guys like Osbourne, Ellis & Young that cut Geelong up through the middle just like Collingwood did with thier run.

You discount Sydney as an argument because you claim they had "superstars" in Goodes (yes) and Kirk (err no) and that Bolton is in your opinion underrated. Its not a very compelling case you put forward.

Not very compelling to a fool who has no idea about football. Kirk was an AA midfielder, Thats something we have had only once in the entire history of the AA team (since 1991) (possibly add Mercs who was mostly a forward & Hird who again was a forward who drifted in & out of the midfield, unlike Kirk who was a fulltime defensive midfielder) & yet Sydney's midfield had 2 players who were chosen as among the best. That means that Sydney did have 2 stars. If you don't believe that Kirk was a top mid then you are an ignorant fool. As for Bolton, again, any person with any football knowledge would know he has been a very good player & would even now be our second best mid.

Hawthorn won a premiership due to rebound from the backline, they were smashed out of the center of the ground and lost the inside 50 count 43 to 62

.

Where did the backline rebound to? They certainly can't have gone to Buddy as he was just a playing decoy so what did they do......thats right they rebounded to guys like Osbourne, Ellis, Young & Crawford (midfielders) who ran Geelong's slow midfield raged. Hawthorn set up their zone & forced Geelong to try to kick over it. This played right into Hawthorns plans & they murdered them of the turnover through run through the midfield. Maybe if you understood that a midfield is more than just packs you could see that.

The Carey/North example is because you make the argument that North won the flag because of a gun midfield. Yet it is obvious that the guy responsible for North Melbourne's dominance was Wayne Carey, otherwise you'd pick a Bell or a King first.

Are you really this ignorant about what you have posted previously? YOU brought up North out of desperation trying to find a club with a weak midfield. I never said they won because of any single player & they didn't. North won premierships because they had a good team. You obviously didn't know anything about North or how good their team was. You tried to say it was all Carey & it wasn;t, particulalry in the GF's. When faced with this reality you try to divert away from your embarrasing mistake by trying to say I'd pick player A over B.

You claim Collingwood to be a team built around a midfield which didn't even exist at the time. Luke Ball played for St Kilda, Sharrod Wellingham was taken in the rookie draft (yes thats right, after Reid, Brown and Dawes), and Sidebottom, Blair and Beams were children. Alan Didak is a Half forward flanker.

Oh so now Didak isn't a midfielder but Beams is? Your ignorance knows no boundaries. I guess you think the only midfielders are the guys who are named as rover, ruck rover & centre just like when you last played footy in under 10's.
Collingwood did build their midfield first. Thats not opinion thats facts, so again your example is defunct. You keep trying to avoid that or twist it somehow but you fail terribly because unless you are challenged its plain to see that Collingwood's midfield is more experienced than their KP's hence they go completely against your position.

My argument is that you need good keys just as much as you need a good midfield to build a decent side that can plan on long term success. Like the Brisbane Lions. I also completely disagree with the "we need a x type of player with our first pick, it'll give him a better chance of being a gun..." argument, as it assumes guns must simply exist and its a matter of picking them.

When have you said anything of the sort. All along you have been saying that key position players are more important. I've been saying mids are more important ( and providing clear examples of why) & also clearly pointing out that we don't have anywhere near a good mix of both because we have used our best picks on talls. This is why we need to find a player type X (x being a midfielder). Using pick 8 this year doesn't guarantee a gun midfielder or a gun tall but what it does guarantee us is the best chance to get access to the best rated players in the draft. There may not even be a star in this draft or there may only be a few & they are all gone by 8, only time will tell. Therefore its all mathematics. Pick 8 gives us the choice of all bar 7 players in the draft. That means our chance of getting a good player is higher.
We have used our best picks to get the talls we wanted so it stands to reason that now we need to use our best picks to get the mids we need.

As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, our most promising young midfielder was taken with a second round pick. And we managed to secure a gun key position player with our first pick. Take a look at the OP's side, and take Hurley out and throw Sidebottom (or whatever other mid tickles your fancy) in... Its pretty light on. Now, if for some reason one of those talls that is in the side doesn't make it.

Jake Melksham showed more in his 1st year than Zaka & for mine is clearly our most promising young mid. Besides it can't be Zaka because he plays on the half forward line like Didak so according to your logic he's not a mid.

BTW, not that I want to get rid of Hurley but realistically Pears & Hooker have shown more at the same age than Reid & Brown did so Hurley isn't as vital structually (assuming he stays as a defender). For 2011 we probably don't need all 3 plus Fletch down back most weeks so it will be interesting to see how its handled.

Yet again you didn't answer the question: Do you truely believe that the midfield isn't the most important part of the ground (if so then provides examples of why its not) or are you blindy backing the clubs position despite the obvious examples?

At this point you blindly backing the clubs position is the only logical conclusion. Nothing you have writen has any substance & you seem to lack any conviction about your reasoning - hence the diversion attempts.

Hey I can understand you blindly defending whats happened in the past thinking its some misplaced duty but this is meant to be about where we are hopefully heading in the future. I believe we have drafted poorly over the last decade & our results over the last 6 or so years attest to that. So what do we need to do to get to that premiership in 2013? Any unbiased analysis of our list woudl clearly see that our midfield is the most obvious weakness & again any unbiased look at how our competitors have built succesful sides would reveal they have all had strong midfields. If you can't at least see that then you have problems.

 

[Oh Tayteridge]

Either go down in fisticuffs or move on.

 

[yodellinhank]

Examples, you're kiding yourself. You have not been able to provide a single example of any side that has won a premiership without a strong midfield.

You don't get it. I'm not the one arguing for a cardboard cutout midfield; its you arguing the point for cardboard cutout forwards.

Not very compelling to a fool who has no idea about football. Kirk was an AA midfielder, Thats something we have had only once in the entire history of the AA team (since 1991) (possibly add Mercs who was mostly a forward & Hird who again was a forward who drifted in & out of the midfield, unlike Kirk who was a fulltime defensive midfielder) & yet Sydney's midfield had 2 players who were chosen as among the best. That means that Sydney did have 2 stars. If you don't believe that Kirk was a top mid then you are an ignorant fool. As for Bolton, again, any person with any football knowledge would know he has been a very good player & would even now be our second best mid.

So the midfield ran 3 deep and thats a good argument? Hell we can and have managed 3 midfielders in the past. Watson has the potential to be an all australian, Welsh/McVeigh was a good defensive mid at some stage, Winderlich is underrated...

[/QUOTE]
Where did the backline rebound to? They certainly can't have gone to Buddy as he was just a playing decoy so what did they do......thats right they rebounded to guys like Osbourne, Ellis, Young & Crawford (midfielders) who ran Geelong's slow midfield raged. Hawthorn set up their zone & forced Geelong to try to kick over it. This played right into Hawthorns plans & they murdered them of the turnover through run through the midfield. Maybe if you understood that a midfield is more than just packs you could see that.
[/QUOTE]

And the midfield managed to rebound the ball into their forward 50 at approximately 60% of the rate of Geelong... Geelong had first use of the ball, they took the ball forward more often but an impotent forward line cost them the game.

Are you really this ignorant about what you have posted previously? YOU brought up North out of desperation trying to find a club with a weak midfield. I never said they won because of any single player & they didn't. North won premierships because they had a good team. You obviously didn't know anything about North or how good their team was. You tried to say it was all Carey & it wasn;t, particulalry in the GF's. When faced with this reality you try to divert away from your embarrasing mistake by trying to say I'd pick player A over B.

Its an analogous argument. If you want to have 1 pick out of that side to put into our team you take the match winning forward because that's a far better outcome than taking the midfielder of great talent. Yet if there is a guy the recruiters think is a match winning forward or ruckman or defender in the draft you want them to fix in on taking the midfielder because you don't see any elite champion midfielders in our team.

Oh so now Didak isn't a midfielder but Beams is? Your ignorance knows no boundaries. I guess you think the only midfielders are the guys who are named as rover, ruck rover & centre just like when you last played footy in under 10's.
Collingwood did build their midfield first. Thats not opinion thats facts, so again your example is defunct. You keep trying to avoid that or twist it somehow but you fail terribly because unless you are challenged its plain to see that Collingwood's midfield is more experienced than their KP's hence they go completely against your position.

And its not fact. Name them. You named 3 and a half forward flanker. Didak once was more of a mid. He isn't anymore, his most effective work is as a half forward flanker. Beams plays through the middle with some effect. Didak doesn't; Prismall, Winderlich, Stanton are better midfielders than Didak. They're just not better footballers.

3 players in the midfield is not building a team around. Especially when rotations have been underlined as a major part of the Collingwood midfield and the majority of Collingwood's midfield was drafted after Brown, Reid and Dawes. And many of them with late or rookie picks.

When have you said anything of the sort. All along you have been saying that key position players are more important. I've been saying mids are more important ( and providing clear examples of why) & also clearly pointing out that we don't have anywhere near a good mix of both because we have used our best picks on talls.

I'd love you to drag up a quote in which i've said that. All along the way my argument is that you need keys in order to be a dominant side. Its never been my argument that they are more important. To the contrary it is you whose argument is that you can exclude a type of player so long as you have a midfield.

This is why we need to find a player type X (x being a midfielder). Using pick 8 this year doesn't guarantee a gun midfielder or a gun tall but what it does guarantee us is the best chance to get access to the best rated players in the draft. There may not even be a star in this draft or there may only be a few & they are all gone by 8, only time will tell. Therefore its all mathematics. Pick 8 gives us the choice of all bar 7 players in the draft. That means our chance of getting a good player is higher.
We have used our best picks to get the talls we wanted so it stands to reason that now we need to use our best picks to get the mids we need.

And thats the argument which I completely disagree with. The recruiters have a very sound idea about the talent pool. If they rate a midfielder 15-20, picking him up at pick 8 is not going to increase his chances of being a better player.

Jake Melksham showed more in his 1st year than Zaka & for mine is clearly our most promising young mid. Besides it can't be Zaka because he plays on the half forward line like Didak so according to your logic he's not a mid.

Its a matter of opinion, but Zaka's big games have been big. Melksham probably more consistent. Going back to your Sydney example of a champion midfield, maybe ours is already on the list? Watson, Melksham, Zaka... Heck isn't that similar to what was in the OP?

BTW, not that I want to get rid of Hurley but realistically Pears & Hooker have shown more at the same age than Reid & Brown did so Hurley isn't as vital structually (assuming he stays as a defender). For 2011 we probably don't need all 3 plus Fletch down back most weeks so it will be interesting to see how its handled.

But given the choice of Hurley/Zak, or Rich/Zak (and thats assuming picking Rich wouldn't have created a scenario whereby Zak was gone by our pick) in hindsight how would you have drafted? (Feel free to throw up any other combo)

Yet again you didn't answer the question: Do you truely believe that the midfield isn't the most important part of the ground (if so then provides examples of why its not) or are you blindy backing the clubs position despite the obvious examples?

At this point you blindly backing the clubs position is the only logical conclusion. Nothing you have writen has any substance & you seem to lack any conviction about your reasoning - hence the diversion attempts.

Hey I can understand you blindly defending whats happened in the past thinking its some misplaced duty but this is meant to be about where we are hopefully heading in the future. I believe we have drafted poorly over the last decade & our results over the last 6 or so years attest to that. So what do we need to do to get to that premiership in 2013? Any unbiased analysis of our list woudl clearly see that our midfield is the most obvious weakness & again any unbiased look at how our competitors have built succesful sides would reveal they have all had strong midfields. If you can't at least see that then you have problems.

I have never once argued the midfield not to be the most important part. Feel free to put words in my mouth if it's the only thing helping you out. My argument is against your belief having not needing key position players. Midfield is still only a part of the whole picture. Having a weak midfield doesn't necessitate the strict rule of ignoring all non midfield talent in the draft.

I don't believe we have drafted poorly. It takes time for results to be indicative of drafting. Looking at the 2013-15 team provided I think we have set ourselves up fairly well for the future. Taking Gumby and Hurley out of the team leaves it pretty light on. Until a Pendlebury or a Bartel or a Hayes is available to us with our first pick, I'm happy to pick the best player available and fill our midfield with the likes of Zaharakis, Colyer, Jetta etc.

Either go down in fisticuffs or move on.

Yeah.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

Yodellinhank you have been destroyed in this argument, enough said. Cut your losses, your embarrassing yourself.

I dont want to see you two argue for the rest of the pre season, its the same shit being posted every time.

 

[yodellinhank]

Yodellinhank you have been destroyed in this argument, enough said. Cut your losses, your embarrassing yourself.

I dont want to see you two argue for the rest of the pre season, its the same shit being posted every time.

Howeso dunn? If building a premiership team was as simple as taking midfielders with your first round selection, surely Carlton would be premiers by now?

 

[Smyth94]

Yodellinhank you have been destroyed in this argument, enough said. Cut your losses, your embarrassing yourself.

I dont want to see you two argue for the rest of the pre season, its the same shit being posted every time.

LOL who made you the grand poo bah of all debates? What arrogance.

 

[Yoda_]

Jake Melksham showed more in his 1st year than Zaka & for mine is clearly our most promising young mid. Besides it can't be Zaka because he plays on the half forward line like Didak so according to your logic he's not a mid.

I find this very interesting. Melksham was a midfielder and had the tank built already, in which is only going to get bigger one would imagine. I can actually see Zaka turn into a Didak type player, a smart half forward that rotates through the midfield.

BTW, not that I want to get rid of Hurley but realistically Pears & Hooker have shown more at the same age than Reid & Brown did so Hurley isn't as vital structually (assuming he stays as a defender). For 2011 we probably don't need all 3 plus Fletch down back most weeks so it will be interesting to see how its handled.

With Fletcher going around again, I think this is going to be the most interesting thing.

What are they going to do with the big 4? You really can't play Pears, Hooker, Hurley and Fletcher all down back, but we are at the stage now where we need to pump games into the promising youngsters. As good as Fletcher has been, would it be better for the long term if he retired? It wouldn't be such a bad thing, would it?

 

[yodellinhank]

I find this very interesting. Melksham was a midfielder and had the tank built already, in which is only going to get bigger one would imagine. I can actually see Zaka turn into a Didak type player, a smart half forward that rotates through the midfield.

I don't get out and watch TAC cup or the teal cup games. What was Zaka like before he got drafted? I thought he was a gut running midfielder? Is it OP thats held him back or was he always a half forward type who simply pushed into the middle?

As good as he's been up forward (goal in every game up until round 14), I'm hoping he can become a full time goal kicking mid. When he's played in the middle, he's usually found a bit of the ball.

 

[DaSawx]

Fletcher can play on smalls
Hooker and Pears can play on 3rd talls

Some of the really good sides have had tallish backlines:

Fletcher, Wallis, Wellman, Hardwick
Michael, C.Johnson, Leppitsch, D.White
Taylor, Scarlett, Mackie, Milburn, Harley

Being athletic and taller is a big advantage for backmen, if we can get favourable match-ups for Pears and Hooker we'll be golden.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Yodellinhank you have been destroyed in this argument, enough said. Cut your losses, your embarrassing yourself.

I dont want to see you two argue for the rest of the pre season, its the same shit being posted every time.

Extreme ironing there, RT.

 

[DVD Player]

Extreme ironing there, RT.

Hahaha, I get it. They're ironing whilst riding bikes.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

. As good as Fletcher has been, would it be better for the long term if he retired? It wouldn't be such a bad thing, would it?

wash your mouth out!!!!

 

[rusman]

Legends can keep on playing as long as they want if they can keep preforming

Fletch isnt taking anyones spots IMO, he fills in rolls when needed and helps out with 3rd man up. Gotta love the man

 

[OB1]

You don't get it. I'm not the one arguing for a cardboard cutout midfield; its you arguing the point for cardboard cutout forwards.

So you can't name one. Thats all you needed to say.

So the midfield ran 3 deep and thats a good argument? Hell we can and have managed 3 midfielders in the past. Watson has the potential to be an all australian, Welsh/McVeigh was a good defensive mid at some stage, Winderlich is underrated...

Kirk didn't just have the potential he was an AA. Goodes was a 2 time brownlow medalist. For you to even mention guys like Welsh, McVeigh & Winderlich to compare to Sydney's midfield just further highlights your ignorance.

And the midfield managed to rebound the ball into their forward 50 at approximately 60% of the rate of Geelong... Geelong had first use of the ball, they took the ball forward more often but an impotent forward line cost them the game.

Maybe if you watched the game with a grown up they could explain to you about tactics. Hawthorn zoned the Geelong midfield which forced them to kick quick & long into their forward line. This is exactly what Hawthorn wanted & hence why Hodge was able to cut off so many forward entries. Jrn was the only Geelong midfielder who was able to effectively work through Hawthorn's zone regulalry whereas Corey on the other hand struggled for efficiency & Selwood was only so so. No doubt Geelong's strength has never been gun forwards (there's that examples you ignore again) but ultimately what let them down wasn't so much Lonergan & Mooney but the return they got from Stokes, Varcoe & even Chapman & Johnson.

Its an analogous argument. If you want to have 1 pick out of that side to put into our team you take the match winning forward because that's a far better outcome than taking the midfielder of great talent. Yet if there is a guy the recruiters think is a match winning forward or ruckman or defender in the draft you want them to fix in on taking the midfielder because you don't see any elite champion midfielders in our team.

Its an arguement you seem to want to have with yourself because its not something I've weighed in to. You were the one who threw North up as an example of a premiership side without a strong midfield & when I pointed out your mistake you tried to turn it into a Carey v Bell arguement. How about you look at it from Geelong's side. Are you saying you would take Mooney over Ablett? I'm saying I want us to take a midfielder because all of the examples have shown the importance of the midfield in making & winning premierships. We have a weak midfield & a good reason for that is that we have already drafted numerous talls who the recruiters thought would be match winners.

And its not fact. Name them. You named 3 and a half forward flanker. Didak once was more of a mid. He isn't anymore, his most effective work is as a half forward flanker. Beams plays through the middle with some effect. Didak doesn't; Prismall, Winderlich, Stanton are better midfielders than Didak. They're just not better footballers.

Are you actually trying to suggest that Collingwoods starting midfield of Swan, Pendelbury & Ball are not older than Ried & Brown. Add Thomas & Didak & thats the foundation for their strength. Collingwood remember didn't just come from nowhere when they added kids like Sidebottom & Beams. They are very good young editions which make Collingwoods midfield strong (ya know like I've been saying) but Collingwoods beast players are their older mids of which Didak most certainly is one. If you think he's flanker then 2006 called & wants its idiot back. He didn't play as much midfield after getting injured late in the year but like Thomas he was very much a part of the midfield rotations. BTW Stanton must surely be only a back pocket & Winders spent plenty of time as a half forward

3 players in the midfield is not building a team around. Especially when rotations have been underlined as a major part of the Collingwood midfield and

the majority of Collingwood's midfield was drafted after Brown, Reid and Dawes. And many of them with late or rookie picks

.

So you think the majority of Collingwoods midfield is Wellingham, Blair (thats 2 rookies), Sidebottom & Beams (1st & 2nd round picks). Would you like a chance to edit your post before bringing further shame on yourself?

I'd love you to drag up a quote in which i've said that. All along the way my argument is that you need keys in order to be a dominant side. Its never been my argument that they are more important. To the contrary it is you whose argument is that you can exclude a type of player so long as you have a midfield.

Well I've given numerous examples of why I believe you have to have a strong midfield to be a succesful side so why don't you provide some examples of why you believe you need talls more. Ultimately thats what this debate is about.

And thats the argument which I completely disagree with. The recruiters have a very sound idea about the talent pool. If they rate a midfielder 15-20, picking him up at pick 8 is not going to increase his chances of being a better player.

This shows your ignorance of recruiting. What on earth do you think the recruiters rate between 8-15? Lets just say for example they rate Gorringe as 8 then its more than likely going to be a midfielder who's rated at 9 or 10 at worst. Its completely stupid to believe that somehow Gorringe may be an a grader but every other player who might be available will be a dud.

Its a matter of opinion, but Zaka's big games have been big. Melksham probably more consistent. Going back to your Sydney example of a champion midfield, maybe ours is already on the list? Watson, Melksham, Zaka... Heck isn't that similar to what was in the OP?

Bit unfair on Jake to compare Zaka's 2nd year to his 1st. What I will do is compare Zaka to his contempories. Would you say he's shown a likelyhood to be a better mid than guys like Sidebotton, Hill, Rich, Ziebel & Shuey? Bias aside you'd have to say no. Therefore what are the chances that he will be an AA against that group......minimal. Therefore him being as valuable as say a Kirk was is minimal. We can hope but its unlikely.

But given the choice of Hurley/Zak, or Rich/Zak (and thats assuming picking Rich wouldn't have created a scenario whereby Zak was gone by our pick) in hindsight how would you have drafted? (Feel free to throw up any other combo)

If we want to use Hindsight then I would have drafted Selwood & Palmer (assuming he didn't do his knee) & we would now have 2 rising star midfielders as well as the same KP stocks bar Gumby. Thats not to say I don't rate Gumby or hope he comes good but in terms of balance we suddenly look to have a strong base.

I have never once argued the midfield not to be the most important part. Feel free to put words in my mouth if it's the only thing helping you out. My argument is against your belief having not needing key position players. Midfield is still only a part of the whole picture. Having a weak midfield doesn't necessitate the strict rule of ignoring all non midfield talent in the draft.

You have never once argued succesfully you mean. When you keep trying to bring up examples of sides you believe who have won with weak midfields & trying to laud the exploits of Carey its pretty obvious what you were trying to do. What was also obvious was your motive for doing so. Despite your refusal to answer the question: are you blindy backing the clubs position

I don't believe we have drafted poorly. It takes time for results to be indicative of drafting. Looking at the 2013-15 team provided I think we have set ourselves up fairly well for the future. Taking Gumby and Hurley out of the team leaves it pretty light on. Until a Pendlebury or a Bartel or a Hayes is available to us with our first pick, I'm happy to pick the best player available and fill our midfield with the likes of Zaharakis, Colyer, Jetta etc.

Obviously our recent drafting needs time to judge BUT as you may have noticed I have been refering to the period directly after 2000 to now & the reasons why we fell & have remained poor. Since that time there can be no doubt we have drafted poorly. Since that time we have had 7 top 10 picks & drafted tall with 5 of them. 2 are already off the list. Thats poor drafting by any standard with our top picks. When you add to that our overall poor strikerate with late & rookie picks our drafting has been a significant reason for our problems.

 

[OB1]

I find this very interesting. Melksham was a midfielder and had the tank built already, in which is only going to get bigger one would imagine. I can actually see Zaka turn into a Didak type player, a smart half forward that rotates through the midfield.

Agree with Zaka being more a half forward who may rotate through the midfield & Melksham looks more like a starting mid. Can't have the Didak comparrison as I can't say I've seen Zaka pull out any real tricks. Didak have super skills whereas Zaka seems solid at most aspects but not outstanding.

With Fletcher going around again, I think this is going to be the most interesting thing.

What are they going to do with the big 4? You really can't play Pears, Hooker, Hurley and Fletcher all down back, but we are at the stage now where we need to pump games into the promising youngsters. As good as Fletcher has been, would it be better for the long term if he retired? It wouldn't be such a bad thing, would it

I think we may be exposed as too tall by some teams. Not many sides have more than 1 decent tall forward so assuming all are fit I think we have to play 1 forward. Fletch can play smaller but I don't know if the others could.
As for Fletch retiring well I reckon thats how Knights thought with Lloyd & we missed his experience badly. Every second we can get with Pears, Hooker & Hurley to spend with Fletch the better. He is a champion & you should never write champions off. Even once he's gone our backline may be too tall. I personally would have liked to see Pears & Hooker given some time forward. Gumby is still very much a project player & Neagle must be on his last chance. Carlisle is the wildcard but may still be another 24 months away from regular games.

 

[yodellinhank]

Kirk didn't just have the potential he was an AA. Goodes was a 2 time brownlow medalist. For you to even mention guys like Welsh, McVeigh & Winderlich to compare to Sydney's midfield just further highlights your ignorance.

You'd choose Goodes, Kirk and Bolton over Cousins, Judd and Kerr? Goodes won his first brownlow as a ruck. Kirk and Bolton the only other 2 you name both averaging under 20 disposals a game for their career. Yet because Bolton is "underrated" it somehow makes it a strong midfield and evidence of your argument?

Maybe if you watched the game with a grown up they could explain to you about tactics. Hawthorn zoned the Geelong midfield which forced them to kick quick & long into their forward line. This is exactly what Hawthorn wanted & hence why Hodge was able to cut off so many forward entries. Jrn was the only Geelong midfielder who was able to effectively work through Hawthorn's zone regulalry whereas Corey on the other hand struggled for efficiency & Selwood was only so so. No doubt Geelong's strength has never been gun forwards (there's that examples you ignore again) but ultimately what let them down wasn't so much Lonergan & Mooney but the return they got from Stokes, Varcoe & even Chapman & Johnson.

Ablett the solo act running fearlessly through the entire Hawthorn Cluster.

Would you take Mitchell, Sewell, Crawford, Ellis over Ablett, Bartel, Sellwood, Corey?

Its an arguement you seem to want to have with yourself because its not something I've weighed in to.

Oh really:

it doesn't matter how good Gorringe may be he is not needed more than the player we hope our pick 8 will be.

You were the one who threw North up as an example of a premiership side without a strong midfield & when I pointed out your mistake you tried to turn it into a Carey v Bell arguement.

I can see now how you read it that way. I threw up north not as an argument of a poor midfield, but in reference to the fact you claim I never provided counter arguments to your specious reasoning for taking mids at all cost first. North were brought up because I claimed if the Saints won the flag they would be remembered for Riewoldt the same way North are remembered for Carey.

The fact is you believe a cardboard cutout can get the job done because Geelong have won 2 flags this decade. Its specious reasoning. If the Saints had won everybody would say how you need power forwards like the Saints and the Hawks, as it would be the current trend. Geelong would be the only team in the whole decade to have won a flag without a gun CHF.

Are you actually trying to suggest that Collingwoods starting midfield of Swan, Pendelbury & Ball are not older than Ried & Brown. Add Thomas & Didak & thats the foundation for their strength. Collingwood remember didn't just come from nowhere when they added kids like Sidebottom & Beams. They are very good young editions which make Collingwoods midfield strong (ya know like I've been saying) but Collingwoods beast players are their older mids of which Didak most certainly is one. If you think he's flanker then 2006 called & wants its idiot back. He didn't play as much midfield after getting injured late in the year but like Thomas he was very much a part of the midfield rotations. BTW Stanton must surely be only a back pocket & Winders spent plenty of time as a half forward

No, I'm refuting the fact you claim they built a midfield first and added keys later. Luke Ball wasn't part of their plans in 06. And it is a matter of opinion what worth Didak is as a midfielder. I'd rather have Stanton or Winderlich than Didak in our midfield.

What is stopping us from having Watson as our Swan, Melksham as our Pendlebury and Zaka as our Thomas? In case you plan to go off half cocked on the abilities of Watson versus Swan, maybe you could consider Swan's ability in 06 versus Jobe of the same age? That puts better perspective on where Collingwood/Swan was at before they drafted Reid, Brown and Dawes.

So you think the majority of Collingwoods midfield is Wellingham, Blair (thats 2 rookies), Sidebottom & Beams (1st & 2nd round picks). Would you like a chance to edit your post before bringing further shame on yourself?

No need to edit. Luke Ball was acquired well after the KPPs. 5 players acquired post 2006, 4 players acquired pre 2006. 5 is the majority. You seem to struggle with the math as well as the written word.

Well I've given numerous examples of why I believe you have to have a strong midfield to be a succesful side so why don't you provide some examples of why you believe you need talls more. Ultimately thats what this debate is about.

I won't provide examples because its not what i believe. The whole way along I've argued you need an entire package. Which is why i believe its just as important to draft talls.

Bit unfair on Jake to compare Zaka's 2nd year to his 1st. What I will do is compare Zaka to his contempories. Would you say he's shown a likelyhood to be a better mid than guys like Sidebotton, Hill, Rich, Ziebel & Shuey? Bias aside you'd have to say no. Therefore what are the chances that he will be an AA against that group......minimal. Therefore him being as valuable as say a Kirk was is minimal. We can hope but its unlikely.

I was comparing their debut seasons. Maybe if Melksham had 33 touches and 7 goals in a vfl praccy match I would've been more biased towards him. But as it stands I'm more certain Zaka will make it.

You have never once argued succesfully you mean. When you keep trying to bring up examples of sides you believe who have won with weak midfields & trying to laud the exploits of Carey its pretty obvious what you were trying to do. What was also obvious was your motive for doing so. Despite your refusal to answer the question: are you blindy backing the clubs position

It has never been my argument that a midfield is unimportant in winning the flag. I bring up Carey because you claim Riewoldt wouldn't be lauded if the Saints had won the flag.

I have brought up examples in which the best midfield didn't win the flag. It happens. Geelong 08> Hawthorn 08, West Coast 05 > Sydney 05, Brisbane 04 > Port 04. Many factors including how a team functions and luck with injuries decide a premiership, its not just who has the best midfield.


In answer to your question: I don't feel that its blind devotion. I do believe like the OP that we have set ourselves up well for the future. With talls developing already in our side we can afford to take more midfielders in the draft to address your concerns. But it doesn't necessarily have to be with our first pick. I believe in organising the spine first they will have the physical development required and then we can sort the midfield out.

Obviously our recent drafting needs time to judge BUT as you may have noticed I have been refering to the period directly after 2000 to now & the reasons why we fell & have remained poor. Since that time there can be no doubt we have drafted poorly. Since that time we have had 7 top 10 picks & drafted tall with 5 of them. 2 are already off the list. Thats poor drafting by any standard with our top picks. When you add to that our overall poor strikerate with late & rookie picks our drafting has been a significant reason for our problems.

Keplar Bradley played AFL football last season. Kane Tenace played SANFL. Using your hindsight again pick a mid from pick 10 until the end of the first round of the 2002 draft. Faced with the real (and not imaginary) options, the club took Laycock. I don't agree that its poor drafting.

The trouble is you seem to equate high picks with expected success no matter of the talent pool and the perceptions of the players at that time. For that reason you are desperate for a mid with pick 8, because you automatically assume it gives us a chance of uncovering some sort of panacea. If the recruiters don't believe the panacea exists, they might go a different way and you'll criticize them. Whether they are right or wrong.

 

[OB1]

You'd choose Goodes, Kirk and Bolton over Cousins, Judd and Kerr? Goodes won his first brownlow as a ruck. Kirk and Bolton the only other 2 you name both averaging under 20 disposals a game for their career. Yet because Bolton is "underrated" it somehow makes it a strong midfield and evidence of your argument?


Ablett the solo act running fearlessly through the entire Hawthorn Cluster.

Would you take Mitchell, Sewell, Crawford, Ellis over Ablett, Bartel, Sellwood, Corey?

.

At this point I think its only fair to ask if you are suffering some form of incapacity? Despite never at any stage saying I would take player A over B you keep trying to draw me on that in the feint hope that it will deflect away from the embarrasing ignorance you have displayed. You tried to say Sydney didn't have a strong midfield & got owned, you've tried to downplay Hawthorn's midfield & been exposed & then you tried to pot North's midfield obviously not realising the wealth of talent they had. Maybe you should try going back to the 60's or something because your knowledge of recent football teams is laughable.

I can see now how you read it that way. I threw up north not as an argument of a poor midfield, but in reference to the fact you claim I never provided counter arguments to your specious reasoning for taking mids at all cost first. North were brought up because I claimed if the Saints won the flag they would be remembered for Riewoldt the same way North are remembered for Carey.

Again we have an example of you not even remembering what you've writen. My question was: give us some examples of sides who have not had a strong midfield yet won a flag Your response to that was to mention Sydney, Hawthorn & then finish with Then of course there was North Melbourne... You did throw up North as an arguement of a side with a poor midfield because you are ignorant. You had no idea about North & the players in their midfield & just hoped you could pass off the urban legend about them being a 1 man side.

The fact is you believe a cardboard cutout can get the job done because Geelong have won 2 flags this decade. Its specious reasoning. If the Saints had won everybody would say how you need power forwards like the Saints and the Hawks, as it would be the current trend. Geelong would be the only team in the whole decade to have won a flag without a gun CHF.

You seem to want to hang on to a few throw away lines & your overuse of the word specious screams of desperation (was that the word of the week in class?). Let me see if I understand your logic here. Are you saying that if the team that made 3GF's in a row, won 2 & also made it to the prelim this year never existed then that would be a great example for your position....WOW thats really messed up. BTW the lack of love for the great Ashley Hanson in your postings is worrying. (yep you stuffed up again)

Does this mean now that your arguement is shifting again to just CHF's? Why didn't you include all KP's? Also why all of a sudden is the Stkilda trend only about Riewoldt (who are their other power forwards you speak of). Clearly Stkilda are a classic example of a team who has invested heavily into their midfield & its a clear strength. Obvioulsy you don't rate players like Goddard, Hayes & Dal Santo but most people who watch footy know how good they are & could see that they are the players that carried the Saints into teh finals when Riewoldt missed most of the season. THats not to say I don't rate Riewoldt but he has failed 3 times to perform in the GF & its been their midfield that has seen then agonisignly close, not their power forward.

No, I'm refuting the fact you claim they built a midfield first and added keys later. Luke Ball wasn't part of their plans in 06. And it is a matter of opinion what worth Didak is as a midfielder. I'd rather have Stanton or Winderlich than Didak in our midfield.

Swan & Pendelbury are CLEARLY their best 2 mids & definately among the best mids in the league. If you can't at least acknowledge that then you are an imbicile. Add to that Didak & Thomas are their most skillful mids & there is the base. Hell you can even throw in Ben Johnson who of course you probably forgot about. Collingwood clearly targeted the midfield afetr 2003 when it was VERY obvious this was a weakness. They hoped to win a flag with Tarrant & Rocca as KP's & it was only after that failed & they had their midfeild base that they traded Tarrent to help build a new KP base.

To say you'd have Winders over Didak in any position is a sad reflection of your inability to see outside of the club. Didak is the player we hoped Winders would become but never did. I like Stants & think he's underrated by many BUT he has not performed as well as Didak pure & simple.

What is stopping us from having Watson as our Swan, Melksham as our Pendlebury and Zaka as our Thomas? In case you plan to go off half cocked on the abilities of Watson versus Swan, maybe you could consider Swan's ability in 06 versus Jobe of the same age? That puts better perspective on where Collingwood/Swan was at before they drafted Reid, Brown and Dawes.

You've outdone yourself. Are you seriously trying to say that because in 2006 Swan had similar stats to Watson in 2007 that in 2011 Watson will be as good as Swan? Are you also completely ignorant to that fact that Collingwood in 2007 were a kick away from the grand final without any contribution from Ried, Dawes or Brown. They were that close to a premiership with such names as Chris Bryan, Sean "gunna b" Rusling & the Great Guy Richards in their tall ranks. Thats a better indication of where they were.

No need to edit. Luke Ball was acquired well after the KPPs. 5 players acquired post 2006, 4 players acquired pre 2006. 5 is the majority. You seem to struggle with the math as well as the written word.

Nice try **** but again you fail. My question to you was this: Simple question. Are Didak, Ball, Thomas, Swan & Pendelbury older than Ried & Brown? Thats why tehy were able to draft tall. Any danger you could actually address a point rather than trying to divert?

Add to that Ben Johnson who played midfield & you can see that Collingwoods midfield is far far far more experienced than its KP's. Of course you also knew that Wellingham is 10 months older than Ried didn't you?

I won't provide examples because its not what i believe. The whole way along I've argued you need an entire package. Which is why i believe its just as important to draft talls.

yet you've presented nothing but piss poor examples in favour of talls. Why is that?

I was comparing their debut seasons. Maybe if Melksham had 33 touches and 7 goals in a vfl praccy match I would've been more biased towards him. But as it stands I'm more certain Zaka will make it.

Jake spent more time in the midfield than Zaka in his 1st year & for mine clearly showed more class.

It has never been my argument that a midfield is unimportant in winning the flag. I bring up Carey because you claim Riewoldt wouldn't be lauded if the Saints had won the flag.

Riewoldt performed poorly particulalry in 2009. You were claiming that a Stkilda victory would have been attributed to him which is completely stupid because he played little to no part. What the GF's did show is how good Hayes & Goddard are. IF the ball bounces for Milne then Hayes woudl be the Stkilda hero not Riewoldt. Again you claim to not have a bias against mids but give no credit to the guys who actually got Stkidla that close. You brought up Carey only after I pointed out that again you gave no credit to the midfielders North had.

I have brought up examples in which the best midfield didn't win the flag. It happens. Geelong 08> Hawthorn 08, West Coast 05 > Sydney 05, Brisbane 04 > Port 04. Many factors including how a team functions and luck with injuries decide a premiership, its not just who has the best midfield.

No you tried to say that they were teams that didn't have a great midfied not just didn't have the "BEST". I've never said you had to have the best but I have clearly said many times that all those premiership sides had very strong midfields & in the context of Essendon we have had very weak midfields for some time. THings like luck are out of our control. What we can control is where we focus our resources. All the recent premiers had strong midfields, not all of them had top power forwards.

In answer to your question: I don't feel that its blind devotion. I do believe like the OP that we have set ourselves up well for the future. With talls developing already in our side we can afford to take more midfielders in the draft to address your concerns. But it doesn't necessarily have to be with our first pick. I believe in organising the spine first they will have the physical development required and then we can sort the midfield out.

Your 1st pick is your best opportunity. We have drafted mids with second rate picks for years & we have a second rate midfield as a result. You can't on 1 hand applaud our tall talent built as a result of many 1st round picks & then dimiss that its the best chance to address the midfield problems.

Keplar Bradley played AFL football last season. Kane Tenace played SANFL. Using your hindsight again pick a mid from pick 10 until the end of the first round of the 2002 draft. Faced with the real (and not imaginary) options, the club took Laycock. I don't agree that its poor drafting.

From 2000 to 2004 we had 22 ND picks & currently have only 5 players left on our list. Hindsight doesn't come into it - thats poor drafting.

The trouble is you seem to equate high picks with expected success no matter of the talent pool and the perceptions of the players at that time. For that reason you are desperate for a mid with pick 8, because you automatically assume it gives us a chance of uncovering some sort of panacea. If the recruiters don't believe the panacea exists, they might go a different way and you'll criticize them. Whether they are right or wrong

High picks do have greater expectation because you are chosing from a larger pool. This is the clubs best opportunity in the draft. Thats why they used our 1st round picks on talls because thats what they wanted & using our 1st picks gave us the best opportunity. The panacea might not exist but you'd be stupid to even imagine that the recruiters would know that at this stage. Recruiters get ratings of kids wrong all the time. its not te exact science you are trying to paint. What is certain is that there will be kids available at pick 8 that are rated as very good midfield prospects. I want us to take one of these prospects because its our best chance of finding a good midfielder. regardless of who we pick it will be a risk. My point is that a risk to fill an obvious need is the best chance to get that mix you "claim" to want as well.

 

[Vass38]

wow - u guys are getting pretty heavy....!!

 

[Smyth94]

Just on the Zaka vs Melk debate

IMO Zaka is the superior player and will continue to be for the rest of their careers.

Though they are two different players, Zaka has better skills and is more versatile and rounded player than Melksham.

 

[yodellinhank]

At this point I think its only fair to ask if you are suffering some form of incapacity? Despite never at any stage saying I would take player A over B you keep trying to draw me on that in the feint hope that it will deflect away from the embarrasing ignorance you have displayed.

Ignoring the facts seems to be a quality you have in spades, I'll post again:

its pretty obvious to me that it doesn't matter how good Gorringe may be he is not needed more than the player we hope our pick 8 will be.

My argument was simply analogous. (Watch out, i've used that word twice now... must've been word of the week at school)

You tried to say Sydney didn't have a strong midfield & got owned, you've tried to downplay Hawthorn's midfield & been exposed & then you tried to pot North's midfield obviously not realising the wealth of talent they had. Maybe you should try going back to the 60's or something because your knowledge of recent football teams is laughable.

Owned? You named me 3 midfielders. I asked is that all it takes? You've ducked the question a number of times now. Look at the side assembled by the OP, 9 mids including Watson, Zaka and Melksham. I know you don't rate Watson or his ability to improve but the guy averaged similar numbers to this season's brownlow medallist and finished equal 9th himself. If the 8 others in that list can lift then I'm certain Watson's output will increase with them, and thats not to even mention who we may draft in the drafts of 2010, 2011 and 2012.

Again we have an example of you not even remembering what you've writen.

You mean like you have done throughout this debate?

Now you're just being an idiot. I never once said we were so poor in 2000 & have clearly outlined that we still had some class

We enjoyed having Lloyd & Lucas, the best combo since Dermie & Dunstal but it only netted us 1 flag - WHY? Because our midfield was terrible.

Our midfield has been a weakness since the 80's.

Can you name a side that has finished top 4 despite having one of the worst midfields?

Can you name a year after 2000 when these 4 even played together in our midfield let alone had any form? Individually I'm not suggesting those players were terrible but our midfield combination post 2000 was poor & degraded to terrible.

In what way is it a contradiction? Sydney had a very good midfield despite what you may wish was so. Goodes & Kirk were elite at that time & players like Bolton & Williams were very good players.

Drop Mercuri out of Hird, JJ, Misiti and it suddenly becomes a terrible midfield? And Goodes, Kirk, Bolton is better?

By the nature of talls taking longer to develop

The other issue I wanted to address is the notion that mids are good to go day 1 & talls take years so you have to draft them 1st. I think thats flawed.

Hmmm.

My question was: give us some examples of sides who have not had a strong midfield yet won a flag Your response to that was to mention Sydney, Hawthorn & then finish with Then of course there was North Melbourne... You did throw up North as an arguement of a side with a poor midfield because you are ignorant. You had no idea about North & the players in their midfield & just hoped you could pass off the urban legend about them being a 1 man side.

Taken in the context of how it was meant, I raised North Melbourne as evidence I had provided counter to your claims. You leave your own assessment of Essendon out of the equation because you have contradicted yourself and it doesn't suit your argument.

You seem to want to hang on to a few throw away lines & your overuse of the word specious screams of desperation (was that the word of the week in class?). Let me see if I understand your logic here. Are you saying that if the team that made 3GF's in a row, won 2 & also made it to the prelim this year never existed then that would be a great example for your position....WOW thats really messed up. BTW the lack of love for the great Ashley Hanson in your postings is worrying. (yep you stuffed up again)

I am saying that said team is the basis for your argument. It has nothing to do with mine. Let me refresh the argument for you, again, seeing as you claim I've argued for key forwards as opposed to dismissing your argument which is in favour of focussing in on the midfield:

Midfields decide premierships.

How a team functions as a unit across the park is what determines premierships. Collingwood, Geelong, Hawthorn, Sydney and Essendon premiership teams are all good examples of this. We need to develop a system that revolves around utilizing our strengths and minimizing our weaknesses.

Richmond on paper has a pretty good midfield. So too Carlton. They need much more than that if they are to win a premiership.

You claim throughout this thread that I have suggested the midfield not to be the most important part of a team and that I favour key position players. Yet you don't provide even a single example of when it is I have said that. Because I haven't. However, knowing you can't win the debate, you deflect the issue.

I've provided you several examples on midfields that a) weren't as strong as their opponents and b) took home the silverware. However you choose to deflect doesn't detract from the fact that your argument is false.

Interesting that you mention Hansen, I would have thought he is further evidence of my claim that you need a complete package in order to achieve sustainable success. Not an argument on how midfields win flags.

Does this mean now that your arguement is shifting again to just CHF's? Why didn't you include all KP's? Also why all of a sudden is the Stkilda trend only about Riewoldt (who are their other power forwards you speak of). Clearly Stkilda are a classic example of a team who has invested heavily into their midfield & its a clear strength. Obvioulsy you don't rate players like Goddard, Hayes & Dal Santo but most people who watch footy know how good they are & could see that they are the players that carried the Saints into teh finals when Riewoldt missed most of the season. THats not to say I don't rate Riewoldt but he has failed 3 times to perform in the GF & its been their midfield that has seen then agonisignly close, not their power forward.

My argument has never shifted. Hasn't stopped you from trying to shift it by repeatedly misrepresenting it.

LOL. So I take it you are too young to remember how good North's TEAM was & only know Carey because of the reputation rather than know how they actually achieved 2 premierships. If Stkidla had gone back to back (which they were 2 kicks from doing then Riewoldt would still be viewed as a very good player who has not delivered in grand finals.

And yet Carey, whose largest haul in a grand final was 2 goals is remembered as one of the most dominant players in football. Huh.

Swan & Pendelbury are CLEARLY their best 2 mids & definately among the best mids in the league. If you can't at least acknowledge that then you are an imbicile. Add to that Didak & Thomas are their most skillful mids & there is the base. Hell you can even throw in Ben Johnson who of course you probably forgot about. Collingwood clearly targeted the midfield afetr 2003 when it was VERY obvious this was a weakness.

Buckley (Brownlow), Woewodin (Brownlow), Paul Licuria (dual copeland medallist) and Alan Didak considered a weakness yet Swan, Pendlebury, Thomas, Didak considered a strength?

You've outdone yourself. Are you seriously trying to say that because in 2006 Swan had similar stats to Watson in 2007 that in 2011 Watson will be as good as Swan?

Swan is a great player in a great side. If we can lift as a side, Watson will be regarded as a great player. He doesn't receive the accolades because we have struggled as a team. If you don't believe Watson has the potential to be a top player, then you surely believe we are no hope of achieving success 2013-5.

Nice try **** but again you fail. My question to you was this: Simple question. Are Didak, Ball, Thomas, Swan & Pendelbury older than Ried & Brown? Thats why tehy were able to draft tall. Any danger you could actually address a point rather than trying to divert?

Add to that Ben Johnson who played midfield & you can see that Collingwoods midfield is far far far more experienced than its KP's. Of course you also knew that Wellingham is 10 months older than Ried didn't you?

Its not about age, its about how they were built. Collingwood didn't take Reid comfortable in the knowledge that they would have a midfielder named Sharrod Wellingham. They didn't plan around Luke Ball, who was at the time a St Kilda player when they picked Dawes after already taking 2 highly rated key talls.

Again, twist it your way; its not helping.

All the recent premiers had strong midfields, not all of them had top power forwards.

I can play your game; name them (and you can't say Geelong because Mooney was all australian and you can't say West Coast because Lynch and Hansen kicked more goals than players like Riewoldt, Franklin and Roughead, and you can't say Cloke because he was b&f in 07 when they were inches from a GF...) Got to love caveats.

From 2000 to 2004 we had 22 ND picks & currently have only 5 players left on our list. Hindsight doesn't come into it - thats poor drafting.

How many do Brisbane have that they drafted themselves? Port? Its a gap on our list and not others because we were in a mindset of adding to a list rather than building one.

Geelong will probably suffer the same fate from 08-12, and Collingwood have traded out their picks 3 of the last 4 drafts. Revisit these guys in the future.

At the time, given our ladder position it is understandable. In hindsight, you would like a different approach. It didn't help us that when we got good picks they were in drafts with shallow talent. Maybe that was bad management.

High picks do have greater expectation because you are chosing from a larger pool. This is the clubs best opportunity in the draft. Thats why they used our 1st round picks on talls because thats what they wanted & using our 1st picks gave us the best opportunity.

You argue what they wanted, I argue what was available.

My point is that a risk to fill an obvious need is the best chance to get that mix you "claim" to want as well.

My point is simple, if the recruiting staff take someone who is not a mid, those who subscribe to the only mids first paradigm will go nuts and claim it is a mistake regardless of if it is or it isn't. The same thing happened with Hurley. If we end up with too many decent talls, we can always trade them out. And we are in need of a ruckman.

I have no issue if somebody's argument is that Gaff/Parker/Atley/Smith are better players than Gorringe, or that maybe Lycett can be taken with a second round pick, as I have no idea whatsoever of their capabilities. However posters blindly stating we must take a mid are speaking from an ignorant viewpoint.

Apologies to the Mods for how long this has carried on, and apologies to the OP whose thread has become hijacked. I agree with the OP that hopefully our window indeed opens up then, that with 50-100 odd games into the likes of Melksham, Colyer, Zak and Howlett will improve our midfield immensely, and that if the recruiters believe Gorringe is going to be a better get than one of the first round mids, then it wouldn't be so bad to take him and get mids with our other picks.

That's (hopefully) the last I'll have to say about it guys, I suspect OB1 will want the last word, fire away.

 

[Yoda_]

Agree with Zaka being more a half forward who may rotate through the midfield & Melksham looks more like a starting mid. Can't have the Didak comparrison as I can't say I've seen Zaka pull out any real tricks. Didak have super skills whereas Zaka seems solid at most aspects but not outstanding.

I was more thinking about Zaharakis as a semi permanent forward that spends some time in the midfield rotations (much like Didak).

Obviously Didak is a freak, his feet are "the smartest in the league" according to Dennis Commetti.

His ball use would be sublime in the midfield, but then again we use it well up forward already.. Just wished he could have kicked more goals than he did points.

I think we may be exposed as too tall by some teams. Not many sides have more than 1 decent tall forward so assuming all are fit I think we have to play 1 forward. Fletch can play smaller but I don't know if the others could.
As for Fletch retiring well I reckon thats how Knights thought with Lloyd & we missed his experience badly. Every second we can get with Pears, Hooker & Hurley to spend with Fletch the better. He is a champion & you should never write champions off. Even once he's gone our backline may be too tall. I personally would have liked to see Pears & Hooker given some time forward. Gumby is still very much a project player & Neagle must be on his last chance. Carlisle is the wildcard but may still be another 24 months away from regular games.

Don't think that Pears has the smarts to play forward, never really did as a junior. Hooker was actually drafted as a forward, a roaming CHF (something we really do not need another one).

But when you look at a potential team, it could consist of:

DEFENDERS: Hurley, Hooker, Pears, Fletcher
FORWARDS: Gumbleton, Hille/Ryder (Neagle/Carlisle?)
RUCKS: Ryder/Hill

so that is 7 of 21 player in the starting line up (not including a possible permanent full forward of Neagle or Carlisle), a pretty tall line up, even you would think?

 

[yaco55]

I was more thinking about Zaharakis as a semi permanent forward that spends some time in the midfield rotations (much like Didak).

Obviously Didak is a freak, his feet are "the smartest in the league" according to Dennis Commetti.

His ball use would be sublime in the midfield, but then again we use it well up forward already.. Just wished he could have kicked more goals than he did points.




Don't think that Pears has the smarts to play forward, never really did as a junior. Hooker was actually drafted as a forward, a roaming CHF (something we really do not need another one).

But when you look at a potential team, it could consist of:

DEFENDERS: Hurley, Hooker, Pears, Fletcher
FORWARDS: Gumbleton, Hille/Ryder (Neagle/Carlisle?)
RUCKS: Ryder/Hill

so that is 7 of 21 player in the starting line up (not including a possible permanent full forward of Neagle or Carlisle), a pretty tall line up, even you would think?

HFF

Our best perfirmances in 2010 occurred when we played 7 talls.

3 tall backs
2 tall forwards
2 rucks

 

[Yoda_]

HFF

Our best perfirmances in 2010 occurred when we played 7 talls.

3 tall backs
2 tall forwards
2 rucks

So who misses out then?

Fletcher, Hurley, Pears, Hooker, Ryder, Hille, Gumbleton, Neagle/Carlise/Draftee?

So do we play the ruckmen as a sole forward? and let them, try and play a whole game out, or do we keep one of the talls as a sub, or do we structure up with 7 as you keep saying Yaco?

 

[DaSawx]

I'd rotate Hille and Ryder and keep Neagle/Carlisle out.

If one gets injured or needs a spell go smaller.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

I can only see 3 possible options

either:

1. rotate Hille and Ryder FF/Ruck
2. Play Hurley as a power full forward (leaving Fletcher, Hooker, Pears down back for short term)
3. Play Neagle or Carlisle and rotate the rucks through FP/Bench/Ruck

Personally i think it needs to be number 1 or 2. Hurley i think will be needed down back when Fletcher retires, so we may aswell give him experience down back.