Since '94, a side from outside the 8 has made the top 4 every year. Who

[Mitchell Madness]

Interesting.
The Roos finished 5th in 2005 and then had a year this year where pretty much every player played well below previously displayed form. If they can pick up a CHF in the draft to even half cover the gaping hole at CHF then they ould be a chance as they are otherwise pretty even across the ground. A new reliance on young guys in the midfield may see an inconisistency that would see them get that high..

Can't see any of the other teams doing it.

oh please! what reliance on "young guys" you are using that term a little to generously, as the only "young guy" you lot rely on is Wells, and saying he is young is not right. He has played 84 games. You dont rely on any of the actual inexperienced players to do the hard work. You have the likes of archer and simpson in the midfield, thompson up forward, and jonathon hay down back. the only one you could half class as "young" is Mcintosh, but he has vertually the same amount of experience as Campbell does for us. the rest of your "young guys" are not key parts of your line up, and if you actually recruited decent players, you would find barely any of them would make your side.

 

[KUNG FU]

If its a 'breakout' team, it'll be the Hawks or maybe Richmond.

If its a team that just had a bad 2006, it'll be Geelong.

Personally, I have been thinking that the Hawks are just about ready to smash the competition up with Hodge, Mitchell & Franklin. they had an excellent start to the year and I can see them keeping that form all year they'll make it. But I still think Clarkson won't be pressuring his young guns just yet to make a real push just yet. Put them on the burner for 2008. I don't think Wallace has really challenged his players very much this season. He also seems to playing them a bit soft, waiting for them to develop. So I guess Geelong is the next obvious choice. Their problems seem to be beyond game-day or the list. If they get sorted, Geelong should be a real chance for top 4.

 

[Dan26]

except in the context of your original post.

What do you mean?

umm... you do watch footy, and not just the stats - right?

I'm pretty sure Geelong were within an inch of the prelim in 2005, and lost the 2004 prelim by just over a goal.

They did nearly make the PF in 2005 but this can be misleading. What happens in the finals (over one or two games) can make a team seem better than what they actually were over 22 weeks. Hawthorn in 2001 is another good example of this.

Geelong were a chance in 2005 in the sense that they made the finals, and anyone who makes the finals needs only 4 wins (for teams 5-8) or three wins (teams 1-4) so anyone is a chance realistically.

As for their week to week form in 2005.... they were marginally better than 50-50. Almost the same as this year. So, despite getting close to the PF in 2005, I wouldn't be using that as a reason to justify their resurgence in 2007. I mean not only was it two years ago (an eternity as I said) but that loss to the Swans also made them seem a bit better than what they actually were. They did only win 12 games remember.

I'll give you a fact: they contended hard in 2004 & 2005; but somehow you now think they aren't good enough?

They were a genuine premiership-quality contender in 2004. Since then they've gone backwards. They were only a contender in 2005 in the sense that made the finals. They weren't a genuine quality contender in 2005. It's like saying Carlton in 1999 (12-10, 6th like Geelong in 2005) was a genuine contender even though all they really did was have a couple of wins in September to make them look better than what they really were.

but this twaddle about them not being good enough defies the fact they there were one of the flag favourites heading into 2006, and better minds than you and I don't know what went wrong.

This twaddle about them not being good enough to win the flag is based on the not having enouh star quality players and this is borne about by the results. They've been a 50-50 team for two years since they peaked in 2004.

So what if they were flag favourites early in 2006? That's an off-field betting issue. The reality is they had a 50-50 season (as they did they yera before in 2005), because they weren't good enough. Nor were they good enough in 2005, despite one unlucky final.

And I will argue that they will not be good enough in 2007.

People seem very forgiving of a team that has won half their games over the last two years. I actually think they are more likely to go down than up.

 

[TheRealComptroller]

I hardly thnik 12 wins 10 losses in 2005 is "great"

And besides, 2005 is now two years ago. One year is along time. Two years is an eternity.

The last two years Geelong have been "roughly" a 50-50 team. There seems to be some sort of urban myth that Geelong was a top-4 flag contender in 2005. They weren't. They were 12-10. And they followed that up with another "close to 50-50" season in 2006.

So, based on that, why do people think they will bounce back? They had their chance in '04. They've been middle of the road since then. I don't think they will make the finals. I think they (and everyone else) over-estimates their list.

I'm happy to be proven wrong. I like Geelong.

Very good points.

FWIW Geelong in 2005 would not have made the finals in 2006 with their W-L record.

People tend to focus on the Sydney semi and the fact Geelong were 5 seconds away from a prelim.

I tend to believe that the Saints would have pumped us in the prelim.

It is worth noting that people forget that two weeks earlier the Cats were only able to beat Richmond by one point .................at KP! (Not dissing Richmond, but if Geelong were a true contender they should have been able to pump a bottom 8 team on their home turf)

The Geelong of 2005 was a very eratic team; they had beaten WCE by 70+ (or were the 2005 Eagles also an eratic team with this loss and their losses to Collingwood [15th] and WB [by 40+] ?) but had also lost to Freo and Melbourne in Geelong. Freo had never won at KP and the Demons hadn't since 1988.

I had started a thread on the Geelong board (that was lost in a system crash) about how Geelong actually slid further from 2004 to 2005, than from 2005 to 2006. We have gained Ottens since then but have fallen. Why?

The only major structural change from 2004 was the departure of Ben Graham to the Jets.

Benny was an often maligned player but was he much more important to the team than people realised?

At the time, the arrival of Ottens after 2004 was thought to be able to somewhat offset the loss of Graham. It wasn't; because Ottens missed much of 2005 and also Graham's mobility meant he didn't play as deep as Ottens does. Also Ottens rucked in many of his games in 2005.

Did Ben Graham's departure cost Geelong significantly? Or was it just a coincidence? Correlation does not mean causation.

Teams often fall away after a single good year: Richmond in 1995 finished in the top 4 (missing Richo for a large portion of this season!), they wouldn't make the finals again until 2001; Essendon in 1993 won the flag and the Bombers weren't "great" (just missed the GF in 1996 but they only finished 6th after the 1996 H&A, they were in the top 4 in 1995 but lost in the semi to Richmond) again until 1999. Or in a variation on this theme the Crows hadn't made the finals since 1993 and then in 1997-1998 won back-to-back flags and then missed the next 2 finals series and didn't win another final for 4 years.

I sometimes wonder if Geelong's 2004 was in fact the real aberation.

Also the 2006 NAB GF victory caused Geelong to be the punters' choice for the premiership but IIRC few commentators were overly enthusiastic about Geelong for the flag at that time. (I certainly wasn't; it was March FFS!) One year earlier Carlton had also experienced a shortening in their finals/flag odds based on their NAB GF victory and that was also proven to be a very ill-considered response of the punters to the Blues' March prowess.

 

[Dan26]

Excellent post The RealComptroller.

I think if Geelong "thinks" 2006 was an aberration, they will experience more pain in 2007. The only way they could improve in 2007, in my opinion is to make major changes, because I don't beleive their current list is anywhere near talented enough to be in the top 4, and I think the last two years prove that.

The team from outside the 8 who will make the top 4 will often be a team that has made some major, major changes, or a team that clearly has potential and 2007 is their "break-through" year. I see Port in this boat, with a promising young list and still a lot of talent, and a mix of experience.

I don't think Geelong are going to make enough changes to their list, for us to think this is a "New Geelong", so I don't think they fit the first part. And I don't think they necessarily have that much potential (no more so than any other team) to have a break through year, so I don't think they fit the second part either.

The danger for Geelong is that they think they are roughly where Hawthorn thought they were around 2002-2003, after narrowly missing a GF (with an average team) in 2001.

When the slump for Hawthorn came it was unexpected by the general community, the same way as Geelong's (possible) slump in 2007 may very well turn out to be.

 

[pharro]

oh please! what reliance on "young guys" you are using that term a little to generously, as the only "young guy" you lot rely on is Wells, and saying he is young is not right. He has played 84 games. You dont rely on any of the actual inexperienced players to do the hard work. You have the likes of archer and simpson in the midfield, thompson up forward, and jonathon hay down back. the only one you could half class as "young" is Mcintosh, but he has vertually the same amount of experience as Campbell does for us. the rest of your "young guys" are not key parts of your line up, and if you actually recruited decent players, you would find barely any of them would make your side.

Harris goes alright. Swallow and Hale aren't exactly preparing for the pension just yet. And to say that North relies on Archer in the midfield indicates that you haven't paid much attention to North over the last 13 years or so.

 

[Crow-mo]

They did nearly make the PF in 2005 but this can be misleading.

No it CANNOT!!! it is the one unarguable fact - results. everything else is subjective, what happens on the park is NOT misleading. they did make a prelim in 2004, a nick davis talent spasm away in 2005 and entered 2006 as one the of the flag favourites - this is not misleading it is fact.

this cannot be mitigated by "yes, but...". it is a simple truth.

What happens in the finals (over one or two games) can make a team seem better than what they actually were over 22 weeks. Hawthorn in 2001 is another good example of this.

no, no, no. finals are the only thing that matter. the ONLY thing. our game is predicated on this very point, it is not up for discussion. whether it is the olympic 100 metres or AFL football - everything that comes before counts for jack. particularly as it is a line in the sand, that everyone understands and measures to.

How many times did Brisbane finish on top of the ladder in the 3 flags?

Geelong were a chance in 2005 in the sense that they made the finals, and anyone who makes the finals needs only 4 wins (for teams 5-8) or three wins (teams 1-4) so anyone is a chance realistically.

or you could have watched the games, and come up with an informed opinion based on what did happen, not what theoretically could've/should've/would've.

again, they entered 2006 as one of the flag favourites. this idea that they were never good enough is a fictious revisionism.

If you want to argue that they were not prelim finalists in 2004, not within a whisker in 2005, or flag favourites entering 2006 - go ahead, I'll be all ears. But this "oh it's misleading" twaddle is just an obfuscation that seeks to skirt around the simple facts that do accord with your point of view.

As for their week to week form in 2005.... they were marginally better than 50-50. Almost the same as this year. So, despite getting close to the PF in 2005, I wouldn't be using that as a reason to justify their resurgence in 2007. I mean not only was it two years ago (an eternity as I said) but that loss to the Swans also made them seem a bit better than what they actually were. They did only win 12 games remember.

irrelevant. if you continue to use the regular season as the final arbiter of a teams quality, I'll have no choice to but to accept that you do not understand the fundamental tenets of our game.

IF we accept your premise above - which I unreservedly do not - this does not explain their flag favouritism heading into this year.

They were a genuine premiership-quality contender in 2004. Since then they've gone backwards.

but you have no evidence of this, none. it is a made up assertion to compensate for a lack of persuasive argument. 2005 was every bit as successful, and they were expected to continue at a similar level in 2006.

They were only a contender in 2005 in the sense that made the finals. They weren't a genuine quality contender in 2005. It's like saying Carlton in 1999 (12-10, 6th like Geelong in 2005) was a genuine contender even though all they really did was have a couple of wins in September to make them look better than what they really were.

and this proves my point, you seek to deny actual results with the fantasy affections of your own opinion. what is more relevant, what happens on the park or in the head of someone struggles to reconcile reality and his own statistically skewed perception? Carlton in 1999 made the grand final, that sure sounds like contending to me. I am staggered that you dispute this.

This twaddle about them not being good enough to win the flag is based on the not having enouh star quality players and this is borne about by the results. They've been a 50-50 team for two years since they peaked in 2004.

1. not enough star quality players is not an accepted proposition, for either whether they do or do not, nor from the perspective of it as a requirement.
2. but the results do not support you, unless you choose to ignore that matches that matter. next you'll handing our gold medals to the fastest qualifiers in the olympics.

So what if they were flag favourites early in 2006? That's an off-field betting issue. The reality is they had a 50-50 season (as they did they yera before in 2005), because they weren't good enough. Nor were they good enough in 2005, despite one unlucky final.

actually it is entirely relevant. so what? is that the body of expert opinion shared the view that your contention is incorrect. at the relevant time and place, overwhelming popular and expert opinion believed they were good enough. you have not provided a single piece of evidence that isn't spreadsheet based

And I will argue that they will not be good enough in 2007.
People seem very forgiving of a team that has won half their games over the last two years. I actually think they are more likely to go down than up.

you'll note that I have said before, and I will say again - I do not know if they will bounce back.

what I maintain is that revisionist fantasy is not a persuasive argument about their underlying quality. Entering the season enough experts were convinced that they did have enough quality, and I do not see too many reasons why that quality has now disappeared.

 

[TheRealComptroller]

The danger for Geelong is that they think they are roughly where Hawthorn thought they were around 2002-2003, after narrowly missing a GF (with an average team) in 2001.

When the slump for Hawthorn came it was unexpected by the general community, the same way as Geelong's (possible) slump in 2007 may very well turn out to be.

Hawthorn in 2001 is a classic example of how perception and reality often don't match.

Technically they were only 2 kicks away from a GF.

Dig a little deeper and this isn't as wonderful as it appears to have been.

They played Essendon in that preliminary final at the best possible time. Hird clearly wasn't fit (and the following week in the GF) Mercuri went down early and Lloyd missed through suspension (I should mention that Hawthorn lost John Barker early too). This was a pretty big gift - Essendon were effectively without 3 of their best 5 (?) players.

Also look back to Round 22 - they lost to the 15th placed Saints, a team that hadn't won a game for 10 weeks.

Also in Round 18 they lost to the 0-17 Dockers, in Melbourne.

In 2001 Hawthorn were very good early - 8 game winning streak to start the season. They were then 5-9 for the rest of the H&A season.

They were also very good in their last 3 games - they smashed the Swans in the first week of the finals and had a magnificent victory against Port in SA and were 9 points off Essendon.

However, teams that people view as having the potential to soon win a flag shouldn't be losing to very poor teams that are enduring massive losing streaks; certainly not twice.

That is why in 2004, when Hawthorn were struggling and finished 15th, I thought it was misleading for journalists to say Hawthorn had fallen so far and so rapidly and say "this side almost made the GF 3 years ago."

Geelong also lost their prelim in 2004 to Brisbane by the exact same margin as Hawthorn lost to Essendon.

Does this mean Geelong could finish 15th in 2007?

It wouldn't surprise me.

 

[ShinSplints]

Try to get over Brown and Bowden for next year?

2 players?? no wonder richmond is in the toilet.

 

[Hawkk]

Harris goes alright. Swallow and Hale aren't exactly preparing for the pension just yet. And to say that North relies on Archer in the midfield indicates that you haven't paid much attention to North over the last 13 years or so.

Harris is 24 going on 25 and is entering his 7th season - hardly young, and Swallow while an excellent pick up in the 40's and definately a handy pick up long term has hardly done enough to be considered a 'young gun'...yet

Harris may well become the first 30 year old 'young gun' in football history.

 

[Hawkk]

Hawthorn in 2001 is a classic example of how perception and reality often don't match.

Technically they were only 2 kicks away from a GF.

Dig a little deeper and this isn't as wonderful as it appears to have been.

They played Essendon in that preliminary final at the best possible time. Hird clearly wasn't fit (and the following week in the GF) Mercuri went down early and Lloyd missed through suspension (I should mention that Hawthorn lost John Barker early too). This was a pretty big gift - Essendon were effectively without 3 of their best 5 (?) players.

Also look back to Round 22 - they lost to the 15th placed Saints, a team that hadn't won a game for 10 weeks.

Also in Round 18 they lost to the 0-17 Dockers, in Melbourne.

In 2001 Hawthorn were very good early - 8 game winning streak to start the season. They were then 5-9 for the rest of the H&A season.

They were also very good in their last 3 games - they smashed the Swans in the first week of the finals and had a magnificent victory against Port in SA and were 9 points off Essendon.

However, teams that people view as having the potential to soon win a flag shouldn't be losing to very poor teams that are enduring massive losing streaks; certainly not twice.

That is why in 2004, when Hawthorn were struggling and finished 15th, I thought it was misleading for journalists to say Hawthorn had fallen so far and so rapidly and say "this side almost made the GF 3 years ago."

Geelong also lost their prelim in 2004 to Brisbane by the exact same margin as Hawthorn lost to Essendon.

Does this mean Geelong could finish 15th in 2007?

It wouldn't surprise me.

Excellent post - I did see alot of Hawthorn circa 2002-3 in Geelong last season - in fact if you look at the way they finished the season, the inconsistent win-loss trends and even the way the coach handled the pressure, it’s almost identical.

We didn't make the changes and sank to 9 wins across 44 games, it’ll be interesting to see if Geelong have the steel to make the tough decisions before its to late – they may be in a completely situation to us and turn it around.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Harris goes alright. Swallow and Hale aren't exactly preparing for the pension just yet. And to say that North relies on Archer in the midfield indicates that you haven't paid much attention to North over the last 13 years or so.

Swallow and Hale aren't exactly match breakers either. You could get by without them, ala - you dont rely on them. And as for archer, i understand he plays on halfback/wing, but if you actually watched your own team, you would notice that he does actually spend a fair amount of time in the midfield

 

[Art Corvelay]

Geelong or Port for my mind are the only real 2 with a chance, however slim. Definitely can't see Brisbane, Carlton, Essendon or North making it.

If Geelong don't even make the 8 expect Bomber to be goooooooooone.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Wow, such a passionate discussion about the cats, from two supporters of opposition sides. Great reading, thanks very much for your thoughts and time. The only thing I would say against the opinons of Comptroller and Dan26 is that it is beyond pointless trying to compare two different teams at any stage of their development, let alone several years apart. The sheer number of factors and variables mean that Hawthorn of 2001-2003 are about as relevant as University to the current Geelong side.

 

[chapmanmagic35]

Very surpised about the Port Power talk....

 

[chapmanmagic35]

Hawthorn in 2001 is a classic example of how perception and reality often don't match.

Technically they were only 2 kicks away from a GF.

Dig a little deeper and this isn't as wonderful as it appears to have been.

They played Essendon in that preliminary final at the best possible time. Hird clearly wasn't fit (and the following week in the GF) Mercuri went down early and Lloyd missed through suspension (I should mention that Hawthorn lost John Barker early too). This was a pretty big gift - Essendon were effectively without 3 of their best 5 (?) players.

Also look back to Round 22 - they lost to the 15th placed Saints, a team that hadn't won a game for 10 weeks.

Also in Round 18 they lost to the 0-17 Dockers, in Melbourne.

In 2001 Hawthorn were very good early - 8 game winning streak to start the season. They were then 5-9 for the rest of the H&A season.

They were also very good in their last 3 games - they smashed the Swans in the first week of the finals and had a magnificent victory against Port in SA and were 9 points off Essendon.

However, teams that people view as having the potential to soon win a flag shouldn't be losing to very poor teams that are enduring massive losing streaks; certainly not twice.

That is why in 2004, when Hawthorn were struggling and finished 15th, I thought it was misleading for journalists to say Hawthorn had fallen so far and so rapidly and say "this side almost made the GF 3 years ago."

Geelong also lost their prelim in 2004 to Brisbane by the exact same margin as Hawthorn lost to Essendon.

Does this mean Geelong could finish 15th in 2007?

It wouldn't surprise me.

If Geelong finish 15th, I will run through the Grand Final Parade nude

That's how sure I am they won't.

 

[The Zebra]

oh please! what reliance on "young guys" you are using that term a little to generously, as the only "young guy" you lot rely on is Wells, and saying he is young is not right. He has played 84 games. You dont rely on any of the actual inexperienced players to do the hard work. You have the likes of archer and simpson in the midfield, thompson up forward, and jonathon hay down back. the only one you could half class as "young" is Mcintosh, but he has vertually the same amount of experience as Campbell does for us. the rest of your "young guys" are not key parts of your line up, and if you actually recruited decent players, you would find barely any of them would make your side.

The original point I made was there is a new reliance on the young guys in the midfield as of 2006 and that will cause inconsistency. What the ******** is wrong with that statement? Worried that I am trying to take the mantle of most young, overhyped, 'future champions' from the almighty Hawks and their team of priority picks?

Swallow (18), McConnell (20), Smith (20), Wells (21), McIntosh (22), Hale (22), Moran (20), and Firritto (22) will carry most of the load in 2007 along with Harvey (28) and Harris (24).

Simpson will play less of a role and Grant will move almost permanently to a HFF. These guys have been great for 10 years and a changing of the guard will probably see more inconsistency for a little why (don't worry we don't plan to spend 5 years out of the finals lie the Hawks - my clubs supporters wouldn't tolerate that - and certainly wouldn't rejoice in it).

Plus will have a 23 year old playing CHB and probably an 18 year old playing CHF. That is some young guys occupying some key very positions.

 

[TheRealComptroller]

If Geelong finish 15th, I will run through the Grand Final Parade nude

That's how sure I am they won't.

It does appear that there is too much class in the team for a 15th placed finish in 2007. (I hope so!)

However look at Carlton.

In 2001 - they finished 5th (they beat both GF teams in the H&A)

In 2002 - they received their first wooden spoon.

We would only need to fall 5 places from this year to finish 15th, Carlton fell 10+ places in one season to take their first spoon.

Hawthorn made the finals in 1996 and were 15th in 1997.

The Crows were premiers in 1998 and were in the bottom 4 in 1999; dropping 12 places in one season.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

The original point I made was there is a new reliance on the young guys in the midfield as of 2006 and that will cause inconsistency. What the ******** is wrong with that statement? Worried that I am trying to take the mantle of most young, overhyped, 'future champions' from the almighty Hawks and their team of priority picks?

Swallow (18), McConnell (20), Smith (20), Wells (21), McIntosh (22), Hale (22), Moran (20), and Firritto (22) will carry most of the load in 2007 along with Harvey (28) and Harris (24).

Simpson will play less of a role and Grant will move almost permanently to a HFF. These guys have been great for 10 years and a changing of the guard will probably see more inconsistency for a little why (don't worry we don't plan to spend 5 years out of the finals lie the Hawks - my clubs supporters wouldn't tolerate that - and certainly wouldn't rejoice in it).

Plus will have a 23 year old playing CHB and probably an 18 year old playing CHF. That is some young guys occupying some key very positions.

Swallow - hardly done anything to be a key
McConnel - Who?
Smith - Not relied on
Wells - might be young age wise, but he has enough experience to actually be classed young in that that department
McIntosh and Hale - ok, ruck, ill give you that one
Moran - hes played one game of all uncontested posessions! I would hardly want my team to rely upon him
Firrito - He still plays!?!
Harris - 24? Mitchell is younger then him, and a hell of a lot better
Harvey - 28 dude!!!! what the hell!!!!!! 28!!!!



And dude, if your supporters wont tollerate it, good, you will just send the club down hill, Fans are the reason clubs go into turmoil. Just look at the hawks of '04. Our fans could not believe how poorly we performed, and it showed inside the club as well.

 

[grrofunger]

Watch this leap up the ladder next year

Gibbs,Murphy,Kennedy,Pick 17, Pick 19, Russell, Hartlett,Walker,Simpson,Bentick, Blackwell, Fevola,Fisher,Waite,Thornton,O'Hailpin,Flint,Carrazzo

Talk about exciting youth

 

[Mong]

Good thread Dan26.

I think the most likely by a long way is Geelong, followed by Port.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Watch this leap up the ladder next year

Gibbs,Murphy,Kennedy,Pick 17, Pick 19, Russell, Hartlett,Walker,Simpson,Bentick, Blackwell, Fevola,Fisher,Waite,Thornton,O'Hailpin,Flint,Carrazzo

Talk about exciting youth

much more promise then the roos, and younger, however, fev aint what you would call "young." Willo is younger then him, and even i aint calling him "young" any more

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

I'm glad that the cellar dwelling teams have found something to be happy about. Such an obsession with youth, doesn't count for anything if they're no good.

 

[dave_27]

Watch this leap up the ladder next year

Gibbs,Murphy,Kennedy,Pick 17, Pick 19, Russell, Hartlett,Walker,Simpson,Bentick, Blackwell, Fevola,Fisher,Waite,Thornton,O'Hailpin,Flint,Carrazzo

Talk about exciting youth

lol. bit early for that.

 

[The Zebra]

Swallow - hardly done anything to be a key
McConnel - Who?
Smith - Not relied on
Wells - might be young age wise, but he has enough experience to actually be classed young in that that department
McIntosh and Hale - ok, ruck, ill give you that one
Moran - hes played one game of all uncontested posessions! I would hardly want my team to rely upon him
Firrito - He still plays!?!
Harris - 24? Mitchell is younger then him, and a hell of a lot better
Harvey - 28 dude!!!! what the hell!!!!!! 28!!!!


.

OK - one more time and I will try and type this S L O W L Y for you.

I didn't comment on the quality of this midfield group, I simply made the point that there will be a further transition in 2007, by which a lot of experience will be replaced by youngs.

Grant, Simpson and Harvey are decorated, AA, 200+ game premiership players and they will largely move out of the dominant midfield roles they have held for years and a lot of the responsibility will be taken over by the likes of Wells, Swallow, McConnell, etc.

This - IMO - will present the challenge of overcoming some natural inconsistency.