Ye Olde Medhurst vs Tarrant argument

[FarmersWife]

Okay, so it's almost been 3 years now. We all said it would take about this long to find a real indication as to which team gained the most out of this deal, so here we are.

We could maybe call this thread the 'Ben Reid & Medhurst vs Tarrant" thread, but Ben Reid has been an insignificant note in the deal. In 3 years he has kicked 3 goals in 9 games. To put that in perspective, Hayden Ballantyne kicked 3 goals in his second game for Freo and he's hardly been brilliant. So we won't consider him, because his input has been next to nothing.

One major point in comparing Tarrant and Medhurst is that the latter won All-Australian selection in 08. I personally felt that this was a contentious decision, with Daniel Motlop a much more consistent performer over the entire year. Medhurst kicked only 4 goals in the final 7 games of 08, whereas Motlop kicked 18 in his final 7 games (27 in his final 10 games) and for a lower performing side.

At present, Tarrant is looking the goods for All Australian selection himself. His performance last night was once again exceptional and John Anthony remains the only player to beat him in a game this year when he kicked a modest 4 goals. He has played against and and beaten Fevola, Johnson, Goodes, Franklin, Tredrea, Lloyd and now Brown, among many more scalps along the way.

Medhurst in the last 17 games played has only kicked 22 goals, playing as a stay at home forward who is often fed the ball on the flank. This gives him an average of 1.29 goals a game over a lengthy period of time.

With Medhurst having a good 08 and Tarrant having a good 09 and with 07 being pretty much even, it's looking 50/50 so far, although unless Medhurst raises his game again, the Medhurst (& Reid) vs Tarrant deal will fast become a win for the Dockers.

 

[dominguez]

Tarrant's form has been great but it's still a shit trade just like it was almost 3 years ago.

 

[Stronzo]

The trade isn't as bad as it once seemed. Tarrant has proved his worth, but I doubt he'll get AA, seems like the vic media overlook him when they discuss AA fullback. e.g. last weeks footy classified.

 

[purplepassion82]

Fair to say that collingwood won the trade in the first two years, but we have won it this year, if that makes any sense.

Tarrant has been sensational for us but it's probably worth nothing that Medhurst hasnt played much this year either. At this point in time, considering our last draft, I am happy with Tarrant.

 

[ImperialPurple]

Depends which way you look at it.

Taz was recruited by us cos CC wanted another key forward to take the pressure off Pav as we pushed for a GF and our first premiership.

Medders went to Collingwood as the "chump change".

Given that Taz is now playing as a backman, Pav as a midfielder and we have crashed and burned since our millisecond in the spotlight for part of the 2006 season; while Medders is a 50 goal AA small forward in a reasonably successful team... you'd have to say that we got well and truly arse-whacked in that trade.

The fact that we also gave up pick 8 just makes it look even worse - doesn't matter what they did with that pick.



The one redeeming feature in all of this for us, is Taz's outstanding form as a key backman this year. However, that has thrown "team balance" right out with McPharlin having to go forward cos if Pav and Taz aren't there, who do you put there with Murphy and Campbell having proved themselves as complete hacks of the highest order, and Grover just not being up to it??? McPharlin is a backman, not a forward - plus he's been shit this year.... but would he have been shit if he was still down back???


Nah - they "won". Big time. [And I am a big fan of Taz's, so this is not personally directed towards him in any way shape or form...]

 

[E Shed]

What she said.

 

[FarmersWife]

Depends which way you look at it.

Taz was recruited by us cos CC wanted another key forward to take the pressure off Pav as we pushed for a GF and our first premiership.

Medders went to Collingwood as the "chump change".

Given that Taz is now playing as a backman, Pav as a midfielder and we have crashed and burned since our millisecond in the spotlight for part of the 2006 season; while Medders is a 50 goal AA small forward in a reasonably successful team... you'd have to say that we got well and truly arse-whacked in that trade.

The fact that we also gave up pick 8 just makes it look even worse - doesn't matter what they did with that pick.



The one redeeming feature in all of this for us, is Taz's outstanding form as a key backman this year. However, that has thrown "team balance" right out with McPharlin having to go forward cos if Taz isn't there, who do you out there with Murphy and Campbell having proved themselves as complete hacks of the highest order, and Grover just not being up to it??? McPharlin is a backman, not a forward - plus he's been shit this year.... but would he have been shit if he was still down back???


Nah - they "won". Big time. [And I am a big fan of Taz's, so this is not personally directed towards him in any way shape or form...]

Yes your right, it does depend on which way you look at it.

Your looking at it, as how did the trades effect each team as a whole. Instead, I'm looking at it as how have those players contributed to their teams.

Many things have happened since the two players were traded, such as the massive player turnover that has required Pavlich to play in the middle. Tarrant playing well in the backline was hardly responsible for that move, or for MacPharlin being forced to play out of position, because a key forward's required in his absence. It just so happens that Tarrant is shit-hot at FB and more capable that McPharlin on the gorillas like Brown, as clearly illustrated last night.

Even going by your way of looking at it, who would you rather have had on the field last night - Medhurst doing U-turns in the forward line, or a disciplined Tarrant blanketing Brown.

Who do you think Collingwood would have preferred against Hawthorn this weekend? - Medhurst kicking 1 goal in the forward line, or Tarrant on Franklin (or even in the forward line).

And let's not forget that Medhurst was a 50 goal a year forward with Freo as well. We all said he was great, then he thought he had done his job. See that pattern recurring again? 22 goals from 17 games is hardly a 50 goal a year performance. That's an extended period of being poor.

 

[Clay Davis]

We could maybe call this thread the 'Ben Reid & Medhurst vs Tarrant" thread, but Ben Reid has been an insignificant note in the deal. In 3 years he has kicked 3 goals in 9 games. To put that in perspective, Hayden Ballantyne kicked 3 goals in his second game for Freo and he's hardly been brilliant. So we won't consider him, because his input has been next to nothing.

No, we shouldn't consider Ben Reid, as we are not absolved by the poor picks of other clubs, but we should consider what we could have gotten for him, which was either Mitch or Nathan Brown, among others. Let's not forget Polak was part of the deal too.

So, it was Pick 8 & Medhurst & Polak vs Tarrant.

I like Tarrant, but let's look at what the list deficiencies were at the end of 2006.

1. A midfield that was poor at winning the clearances, that was also top-aged, and was likely to retire within a few years.
2. No true defensive KPP that could take the power forwards of the comp and negate them.

With this in mind we got an older KPP forward in exchange for:

A younger small forward
A younger KPP defender
A rookie player, who could have been a KPP defender (one of the Browns)

Now, we still have midfield deficinency, which we've attempted to rectify in the past two drafts, but by top-loading the list with an older KPP in exchange for two young KPPs and a small forward, we now have deficiencies ALL OVER the ground.

We turned what was a small problem that could be rectified across a few drafts into an urgent problem that may take many years to fix.

I don't want to hear about how Polak and Medhurst wanted to leave, because we exchanged THREE players for ONE, and failed to address the list deficiencies we had in the first place. No matter which way you look at it, we lost that trade badly.

 

[Clay Davis]

Yes your right, it does depend on which way you look at it.

Your looking at it, as how did the trades effect each team as a whole. Instead, I'm looking at it as how have those players contributed to their teams.

Many things have happened since the two players were traded, such as the massive player turnover that has required Pavlich to play in the middle. Tarrant playing well in the backline was hardly responsible for that move, or for MacPharlin being forced to play out of position, because a key forward's required in his absence. It just so happens that Tarrant is shit-hot at FB and more capable that McPharlin on the gorillas like Brown, as clearly illustrated last night.

Even going by your way of looking at it, who would you rather have had on the field last night - Medhurst doing U-turns in the forward line, or a disciplined Tarrant blanketing Brown.

Who do you think Collingwood would have preferred against Hawthorn this weekend? - Medhurst kicking 1 goal in the forward line, or Tarrant on Franklin (or even in the forward line).

And let's not forget that Medhurst was a 50 goal a year forward with Freo as well. We all said he was great, then he thought he had done his job. See that pattern recurring again? 22 goals from 17 games is hardly a 50 goal a year performance. That's an extended period of being poor.

When Tarrant retires in a couple of years and the KPP players who went after pick 8 ar still running around, how will you feel then?

At this point in time, you might be able to treat it as a win, but the cumulative total of player outputs prove it to be a loss.

 

[ImperialPurple]

I agree in many ways what you are saying. There's no "right and wrong" IMO.

However, with that pick 8, we could have taken any one of these young talls all taken in the first round:

Nathan Brown (pick 10, Collingwood - 37 games)
Andrejs Everitt (pick 11, WB - 21 games)
James Frawley (pick 12, Melb - 35 games)
Jack Riewoldt (pick 13, Rich - 39 games)
Mitch Brown (pick 16, WCE - 19 games)


They are all 20 years old - and as much as I love Taz, would provide much more in the long term for this club than he will.


Yes - this year he adds more to us than Medders does to the Pies - but we are sitting on the bottom of the ladder, while they just lost their first game for 2 months last night, and will play finals... again.

Sorry - but they still "win".

 

[Side Bet]

At least we had a crack at the flag and will use Taz as a premo back. Look at Dew, it can work... risky but it can. And Taz is slightly fitter

Pick 8 is pick 8, it's the pies fault if they don't use it well. That said we traded 2 hacks who could not break into our 22.

I have convinced myself it's better to have Taz than 2 non-starting players, but the pick 8 is haunting....

 

[ImperialPurple]

I don't want to hear about how Polak and Medhurst wanted to leave, because we exchanged THREE players for ONE, and failed to address the list deficiencies we had in the first place. No matter which way you look at it, we lost that trade badly.

Not exactly gravy. Richmond also gave us pick 42 (or something) which we exchanged with Essendon for Solomon.

So essentially it was:

Pick 13 (8), Medhurst and Polak for Tarrant and Solomon.

But in hindsight, I would much rather we did the Polak trade (he was out regardless); then picked a young fella with pick 8.

And don't believe for a second that Medhurst wanted to leave. He had to be forced out the door. I know this for a fact, because I have spoke at length at the time with the wife of the person who did the forcing / coercing / convincing. We worked together and were mates.

Medhurst wanted to stay and try and force his way back into the team, but he was told there would be no opportunities and if he wanted to play AFL football, he would have to go. We should have, in hindsight, traded him for a 4th rounder from the Pies if they were that keen, and CC and co were so adamant to get rid of him. Taz would have ended up at the weags (poor boy), which was his preferred destination at the time (misguided soul that he was), but we could have got ourselves one of the Brown boys or Riewoldt... someone we would have for the next 10 years, instead of 2.

How different would things look now??


**** CC & co and their policy of trading away our first round draft picks for "stars"...

 

[Clay Davis]

Not exactly gravy. Richmond also gave us pick 42 (or something) which we exchanged with Essendon for Solomon.

So essentially it was:

Pick 13 (8), Medhurst and Polak for Tarrant and Solomon.

But in hindsight, I would much rather we did the Polak trade (he was out regardless); then picked a young fella with pick 8.

True about Solomon. Nevertheless, pick 8 could have been a 150+ player for us in a KPP position.

And don't believe for a second that Medhurst wanted to leave. He had to be forced out the door. I know this for a fact, because I have spoke at length at the time with the wife of the person who did the forcing / coercing / convincing. We worked together and were mates.

Yeah, I remember Medhurst wanting to stay.

We should have gone for picks, but apparently, despite obvious deficiencies and lack of depth for the team in 2006, we were going to win a premiership. A couple of injuries and suspensions in 2007 and we were rooted. And now it's even worse.

 

[hoss]

I don't think we have lost ... Tarrant would be one of the first picked for us each week whereas Medders was a part-time player who struggled to get a game in our 22.

Fair to say that both players were winners.

 

[freocynic]

When you consider that we were the instigators of that trade and the relative ages of the players being traded, we 'lost' that one big time. That was the CC/Schwab - 'mortgage your future' thinking. I still think Polak will have something to offer Richmond when he comes back from injury, and he has played well against us (on pav i think) in the past. And Medhurst's 2008 was probably just a bit better than his best year for us, 2003.

I think we could have done better trading no one and just keeping pick eight!

It was sad to Medders go, and i didn't want Tarrant when he got here, but Taz this season has been close to AA form. I'm a big fan of him now

 

[Clay Davis]

When you consider that we were the instigators of that trade and the relative ages of the players being traded, we 'lost' that one big time. That was the CC/Schwab - 'mortgage your future' thinking. I still think Polak will have something to offer Richmond when he comes back from injury, and he has played well against us (on pav i think) in the past. And Medhurst's 2008 was probably just a bit better than his best year for us, 2003.

I think we could have done better trading no one and just keeping pick eight!

It was sad to Medders go, and i didn't want Tarrant when he got here, but Taz this season has been close to AA form. I'm a big fan of him now

We had pick 13, traded that and Polak for pick 8. It was Polak for a pick upgrade, essentially.

 

[ImperialPurple]

Tarrant and Medhurst are only a year apart in age. (Taz turns 29 in Sept, Medhurst 28 in Dec).


Solly and Polly might have 4 years difference, but I would rather Solly than Polly. Solly has a huge heart, Polly does / did not.

Solly >>>>> Polly (even before his accident).

 

[freocynic]

Polak did lack heart for sure. And he always looked confused at what to do with the ball when he had a mark/free kick. We have enough heartless players on our list.

Yeah i would rather the hardness that Solomon brings to the team too. He was a real bonus in that whole trade deal

 

[dominguez]

Medhurst wanted to stay and try and force his way back into the team, but he was told there would be no opportunities and if he wanted to play AFL football, he would have to go. We should have, in hindsight, traded him for a 4th rounder from the Pies if they were that keen, and CC and co were so adamant to get rid of him.

Is that a typo?

 

[dominguez]

Your looking at it, as how did the trades effect each team as a whole. Instead, I'm looking at it as how have those players contributed to their teams.

In a lot of ways when you trade a top ten pick and a quality player for a 26 year old the players form is less important than how the team performs.

If we sit bottom four during Tarrant's tenure then giving away a top ten pick to get him was a mistake.

And let's not forget that Medhurst was a 50 goal a year forward with Freo as well. We all said he was great, then he thought he had done his job. See that pattern recurring again? 22 goals from 17 games is hardly a 50 goal a year performance. That's an extended period of being poor.

That's unfair, he's been injured several times this year.

The fact that Polak, Medhurst, Croad, Murphy and several others went backwards at Fremantle is more of an indication of Connolly's incompetence than anything else IMO.

 

[Moo]

We won.

That trade finally taught the club a lesson in building a list from the ground up.

Thanks to that trade we have Palmer/Hill and not Jay Schultz and Scott Gumbleton.

To be fair it is a C'wood win but not by as much as they think. Medders is a good player buit I'd like to take a bet that he never again hits the form he did last year.

 

[FarmersWife]

That's unfair, he's been injured several times this year.

It's not unfair to criticise Medhurst this year (22 goals in 17 the last 17 games). Do you forget the injuries that Tarrant had for his first two years. His 07 was played at Freo without a preseason for his new team, because he had to have double calf surgery in December. No one cared about that then or now, so why should we acknowledge Medhurst suffering a few minor injuries.

Also, that 22 goals in the last 17 games includes the last 7 weeks of 08, where it was presumed he was in AA form with 4 goals from 7 games, two of which were finals.

 

[dominguez]

It's not unfair to criticise Medhurst this year (22 goals in 17 the last 17 games).

He'd be disappointed with his return but you implied that his attitude was the issue this year while I'd say it's mainly due to an interrupted preparation.

Do you forget the injuries that Tarrant had for his first two years. His 07 was played at Freo without a preseason for his new team, because he had to have double calf surgery in December. No one cared about that then or now, so why should we acknowledge Medhurst suffering a few minor injuries.

That's what makes recruiting him such a bizarre decision, a top ten pick + a quality player for a guy with dodgey calves and a poor finals record who would turn 27 in his first season at Fremantle.

Thankfully the move to the backline has paid off but for that trade to be a "win" for us Tarrant has to play a part in us making the finals in 2010 and/or 2011. Obviously the fact that we parted with a top ten pick isn't Chris's fault though.

 

[jonesy86]

Medhurst's year has pretty much been a write-off. Had surgery in the pre-season and more niggling injuries. Started in round 1 very under-done, found some form in round 4 before being knocked out and then injured his ankle in round 6. He missed the best part of 2 months and now needs some more games under his belt to find some match fitness.

 

[ImperialPurple]

Is that a typo?

No. Just that that is what he would have been "worth" at the time. He was inconsistent, viewed as incredibly selfish, CC was determined to get rid of him, and the Pies were sniffing around. Should have done the trade separately and packed him off for a 4th rounder (or whatever) if they were so determined to trade him - but KEPT PICK 8!!