Roos or Dees?

[Bhima 0]

Much like the rest of you, I spend a fair bit of time pondering the list and imagining the perfect formula for a legitimate premiership assault.

Currently, and this is already well documented on other threads, coming into 2011 the dees are lacking:

• A quality second ruck
  
• Key forward (preferably who can also be a quality second ruck)
  
• Foot skills coming out of defense
  

After seeing the Roos yesterday I started thinking about their list and couldn't find many deficiencies:

By the by, we were missing Grimes, Petterd and Davey from our best 22.

They were missing Petrie, Hansen, Thomas, Ziebell and Lower from their best 22.

2011 - Nth Melbourne

Forward Line:

Thomas Petrie Lower

Wright Hansen Warren

Depth: Garlett, Campbell, Anthony, Hale and Edwards

Midfield:

Harvey Swallow Ziebell

Wells Rawlings Bastinac

Greenwood Cunnington

Depth - Adams

Backs:

Mcmahon Grima Firritto

Pratt Thompson Harding

Depth - Tarrant

Rucks:

McIntosh

Goldstein

Depth - Hale

Harvey, Rawlings and Firritto are their only real veterans, and all three have a good few years left. The rest of the team are young and very talented. Their only potential weakness is in defence, however both key defenders (Thompson and Grima) are improving, can win plenty of possessions and have decent foot skills for their size. They can draft a decent half back flanker with pick 18.

They are certain finalists next year and, although unlikely, I wouldn't be surprised to see them make the top four in 2011.

I love the dees and would take our list over any other team, but North has a team that is currently better than us and of a similar age. You also have to admit that B Scott has been bloody impressive in his first year as coach. Can you see any shortcomings on their list that I've missed? In the long term I think we potentially have more individually brilliant players, but have they got a better overall spread?

Last night's game was a beauty and I reckon Roos Vs Dees fixtures are going to sensational over the next five years (providing they are still in existence).

Cheers

Edited August 30, 2010 by Bhima

[MadAsHell 4,089]

Key Position forwards and backs would be their biggest weakness IMO. Also I think they still rely on Harvey a bit to much to win them games. I'll be interested to see how they go around 2012/2013 post Harvey.

[old55 21,864]

They are very impressive - their handball and running in the backline was really great.

I think Harvey makes a big impact for them and he's 33. Petrie and Rawlings are 28+. They are 3 really important players.

If they're going to win a flag and these players are going to have a major influence it has to be in the next 3 years.

We've got McDonald, Bruce and Green in this age category - less impact.

[Akum 2,660]

Scott has drilled them to play the zone, and they do it in a very disciplined way, but they don't have a lot else. This makes them look better than they are against teams that can't combat the zone (including MFC 2010 version). But they get absolutely smashed against teams that can beat the zone, which is why they've got thumped so many times this season.

And which is why, when we learn to consistently and reliably beat the zone, we'll be one of the teams that smashes them. We were much closer to them this time than we were earlier in the season, and we'll get them next season.

[Deetective Sgt. Taggert 380]

Their midfield was certainly impressive yesterday and they definately boast some young talent, but think at this stage their current performance relies on older heads, especially Harvey who I doubt will be around long enough for them to have serious crack at a premiership. I really haven't seen enough of them this year to make a balanced opinion (and I'm probably still bitter from losing to them yesterday) but I think it fairly obvious we have more 'potential' superstars and a stronger nucleus of young key position playings emerging (Jurrah, Watts, Petterd, Garland, Frawley etc..) Moreover I think we have the capacity to improve ourt game significantly on how we played today, which I would expect would blow them apart in the future. Even the Roos fans in my vicinty seemed frustrated with the way North was playing depsite it winning them the game...

They were more consistant this year compared to us but got toweled up every time by the top four teams, while we almost beat the top team twice and lost narrowly to the dogs, suggesting out game plan is superior for mind.

[Red Sox 2]

Nice post Bhima.

I think North have some very capable mids with some outstanding possible mids within there, but I think both ends of the ground could be a concern.

The most telling thing for me about North, they achieved a 50% win/loss mark for 2010, you would expect a percentage around maybe 95-100%?

They finished with 87%. Only the bottom 4 were worse than that (besides flaky Port!).

[Sir Why You Little 35,321]

Scott has drilled them to play the zone, and they do it in a very disciplined way, but they don't have a lot else. This makes them look better than they are against teams that can't combat the zone (including MFC 2010 version). But they get absolutely smashed against teams that can beat the zone, which is why they've got thumped so many times this season.

And which is why, when we learn to consistently and reliably beat the zone, we'll be one of the teams that smashes them. We were much closer to them this time than we were earlier in the season, and we'll get them next season.

North are a real enigma aern't they. It's almost what keeps them going. There players are faceless unknowns-the club somehow exists.

Even last night on the ABC 774 Radio driving home they were in the Melbourne Rooms hearing speeches & Songs. I heard nothing from North.

The Media want Melbourne up & Firing, Jimmy has awoken that, but right now North are a better side than us, and they have the coach that essendon would love.

A few times last night North went Coast to Coast under pressure-DB would do well to study last nights game closely. We are close but not better than them.

Losing Jonesy did not help, but the Boners got a few injuries too.

[1858 273]

North have quite a few players who have been in the system for 2 or 3 years starting to take the next step - that is their luxury atm.

I would put their midfield slightly ahead of ours. I think they have 1 or 2 more better users of the footy than us although what we will get out of Blease, Tapscott and Gysberts in the future is anyone's guess. As I said in another thread, if we could get a player like Salopek (who is good at getting the footy inside and using the footy on the run) without giving up our first pick it would be a coup for us - IMO he has McDonald like qualities from the team respect and leadership pov as well.

North's forward line is an interesting one. They are all buzzing about Hansen's prospects now but it doesn't change the fact that their highest goal kicker for the year was Thomas (a small) with 29 goals and he is apparently on Adelaide's radar. I think their forwardline is too inconsistent and given two full strength forward lines ours is in front IMO although going forward we need to really iron out the wrinkles in our forward setup.

Defence is even IMO. We have a good work ethic and link play on our day but still ball use is an issue and I think we tend to focus too much on the exploits of 1 or 2 of our defenders (Frawley and Garland) when evaluating the whole setup. When our system breaks down we can get in trouble. North's defenders seem a little more confident (in general) with the footy but don't have any notable stars down back.

One of the main differences I noticed yesterday was the amount of mistackles on moving players we made - way too many. We need to really improve on this area along with our disposal and core strength. North always show us up in the simple things.

[Deetective Sgt. Taggert 380]

One of the main differences I noticed yesterday was the amount of mistackles on moving players we made - way too many. We need to really improve on this area along with our disposal and core strength. North always show us up in the simple things.

Yeah, our inability to stick tackles yesterday was frustrating. But this is exactly the sort of thing we can improve upon and is what I was referring to before in how we still have much scope for improvement whereas they seem to already be a well-drilled side yet only just managed to beat us...

Edited August 30, 2010 by Ascobar

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,661]

[quote name='1858' .

One of the main differences I noticed yesterday was the amount of mistackles on moving players we made - way too many.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I agree, 1858.

Time and time again, North players would break free from crowded situations with a mere twist of their body, run clear, and have plenty of time to choose a downfield option. In the first quarter, we tackled well and harassed, but as our players tired, tackles didn't stick, costing goals.

[Jaded No More 59,997]

They have some very good young players, especially in the midfield (Swallow is an absolute gun).

But I do wonder whether they can peak much more beyond a mid-table finish. I think they are playing close to their best, especially when Harvey is on fire, and yet they couldn't make finals and their percentage is very poor. Some of their kids are 2/3 seasons ahead of ours, and I know I'd be upset and worried if we don't make finals in 3 seasons.

Much like Adelaide, they are very disciplined and when they play the zone well, they can choke teams into defeat, but I think time and time again we've seen that the best teams in the competition will beat the zone and end up winning premierships with a more flowing, attacking game.

At the moment their midfield is better, and they have better ruck/forward prospects which we desperately lack (that is, a secondary ruckman who can help Jamar), but we have a far superior defense and better forward prospects.

[Rogue 585]

After seeing the Roos yesterday I started thinking about their list and couldn't find many deficiencies

I think it's far easier to point to problems in your own team's list simply because you know it better.

I don't know how much you've seen of North, but it might be worth pointing out that while they've beaten us twice they have a significantly lower percentage. They've been pretty woeful at times, particularly against better sides:

* 39 v 143 St Kilda

* 91 v 157 Collingwood

* 57 v 127 WB

* 78 v 139 Fremantle (at Freo)

* 72 v 145 WB

* 63 v 115 St Kilda

As others have said, they get a bit out of some guys that are coming to the end of their career. At 32, Harvey's a star who can still really influence the outcome of a game, but he won't be around for too much longer. With all due respect to McDonald and Bruce, they're not in the same class.

[praha 10,574]

If North is going anywhere next year, it's down. Can't see them improving that much. I expect them to be around the same spot as this year.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

If North is going anywhere next year, it's down. Can't see them improving that much. I expect them to be around the same spot as this year.

Disagree.

North have a great list of younger players. Their forward line is the concern for them I feel.

No issues with mids or backline.

They will be on par with us in the coming years.

Edited August 31, 2010 by stevethemanjordan

[george_on_the_outer 7,101]

They will be on par with us in the coming years.

I hope not, because we are aiming for something better than mid-table.

North have now put themselves in the dangerous position that Richmond have occupied for 20 years. Never good enough to win a flag. Too good to finish bottom.

Trouble is that the draft rewards those who go to the bottom.

Will we be in a better position than them in the future?

The answer to that is: will Scully, Trengove, Gysberts and Tapscott be better than Bastinac and Cunnington?

Will Watts, Blease and Strauss be better than Ziebell and Wright? And would Joel McDonald and Liam Jurrah be in THEIR best 22?

Who knows at this stage, but because we have been amassing quality ( in terms of high picks) in greater numbers than North in recent times, then we have a better chance than them of improving.

Regardless of the subjective arguments, North is the benchmark for finals....beat them and you WILL play in September. It is one of the targets for 2011.

[e25 5]

Yeah, but it you don't "reward" the club that goes bottom, we'd still be there.

Or... we wouldn't.

There'd be no way of climbing back up the top, teams at the bottom would continually lose players to sides like Collingwood.

I have no issue with the priority pick and I'd be happy for it to stay.

[Geddy Lee 582]

If North is going anywhere next year, it's down. Can't see them improving that much. I expect them to be around the same spot as this year.

Goldstein will continue to improve, and they have a swag of quality midfielders to come back in, including Ziebell.

I will be very surprised if they drop next year. They''ve done away with the shinboner [censored] and have put together a good list with a decent coach.

[Guest bauschy88]

From what I saw at the game, and in comparison to pretty much every previous game north had played.. They were basically playing out of their skins. Really quick movement through the middle, fast hands, accurate by foot and even fluky handballs over their heads that were coming off. I reckon it was one of their best performances for the year.

So, to go down to them by 10 points, when IMO we were faaar from our best out there, is indicative of what to expect when we have all guns blazing. ie when we played Sydney. (and I quote from a few footy experts post Sydney game, "That was the best footy I've seen from any side this year!")

Sure, North are still a developing side, as are we. But in comparison to what North's version of "their BEST footy" is this year and what we've dished up as our best footy.. I'd have to give the choccies to Melbourne.

Melbourne's list wins out for me!

[Deeoldfart 7,851]

I think our list is more talented and has more depth to it, and over the next 5 to 6 years I reckon this will be decisive. Right now the Roos ladder position, and the fact that they have beaten us twice during the year, puts them ahead of us ............. but not by a huge margin when you look beyond a simple win/loss ratio for the season. I'm supremely confident that we will pass them during season 2012, if not next year.

[titan_uranus 23,177]

I firmly believe we have the better list. Our skills are higher, our best football is well in front of theirs, and we can match it more often with the best teams than they can.

Having said that, they're more consistent, they get the absolute most out of their players (which is in some ways a negative), and they also have a good young list which is promising and which deserves to be talked up like ours is.

Next year you'd say that it will be us and them who will be pushing for a spot in the eight above the rest of the current bottom 8.

[Radar Detector 1,339]

...because we have been amassing quality ( in terms of high picks) in greater numbers than North in recent times, then we have a better chance than them of improving.

Eventually it's the ability to turn draft picks (high or otherwise) into quality players that counts. Whilst we all hope (and probably expect) Scully, Trengove, Watts, Grimes, McKenzie etc. to be better than Cunnington, Ziebell, Bastinac, Wright, Anthony etc. there is no guarantee. The fact is they are both pretty promising young lists and until one or the other starts to convert their potential into bona fide results, we won't know. I agree we look well placed for the future but to blindly expect this to automatically translate into results is folly.

[Axis of Bob 10,496]

Good post and thread, Bhima.

I had to have a good sit down and think about this before I posted because, while I'd rather have our list, I was looking at North's list and didn't really see any glaring weaknesses. It made me re-evaluate what I had in my mind.

If you look at their list, they have decent key forwards, decent small forwards, a spread of talented midfielders (young and old), some decent key defenders and a good ruck division. There wasn't anything glaring there that made you say "well they aren't as good".

However, I was looking at the problem the wrong way. It wasn't about their lack of weaknesses, it was their lack of strengths. The Dees have Scully, Trengove, Watts, Jurrah and Frawley. Then you look at North and think "Who is their Tom Scully?" "Who is their Jack Watts?" "Who is their Liam Jurrah?" "Who is their James Frawley?" I see a lot of solid players, but I don't see the out and out star that can take them the extra step.

That matches up with my gut reaction to the question. North are a team that's going to be pretty good - good enough to be consistently good, but unlikely to win a flag. Their lack of weaknesses helps them beat the teams below them but the better teams will beat them. We are inconsistent, but our top end ability is higher. Our ceiling is higher. Brad Scott plays a heavy zone and their evenness means that there aren't many weak links to be exposed.

But eventually they will need someone to break the game open for them. At the moment it is Brent Harvey, but which of their kids is going to be able to do that in the future?

[Bhima 0]

It's good to get quality feedback on the Roos' list as I have only really watched them closely on the occasions we played them. I think you have summed it up nicely Bob, as have others: The Roos currently have less weaknesses than us, however our list has more 'upside' than theirs. I think that's why I'm little obsessed with addressing the weaknesses on our list, because if we can get the final pieces of the puzzle during drafting and trading, we will have the best list in the competition. God I can't wait till 2011!

Cheers