Chip in the midfield?

You actually think that's a good idea??

<insert facepalm image>

Yes, in burts, or I wouldn't have posted a reply in agreement. Don't be too quick to sarcastically throw down every comment you come across E25, a moment of thought sometimes prevents a longer moment of humility. Sheesh

A moment of thought would possibly make you realize what an incredibly stupid suggestion it is.

Ignoring the fact there would be no need to throw him in the middle with our group of talented mids...

You'd be playing away from his significant strengths of bodywork, positioning and reading the ball in the air.

What qualities does he possess that would make him a good midfielder?

What would make him a better option than all the better mids we currently have?

I'm willing to listen to a reasonable argument, but right now there is none.

Your serve.

A moment of thought would possibly make you realize what an incredibly stupid suggestion it is.

Ignoring the fact there would be no need to throw him in the middle with our group of talented mids...

You'd be playing away from his significant strengths of bodywork, positioning and reading the ball in the air.

What qualities does he possess that would make him a good midfielder?

What would make him a better option than all the better mids we currently have?

I'm willing to listen to a reasonable argument, but right now there is none.

Your serve.

First and foremost let me qualify a little by saying I'm in no way suggesting he be moved into the midfield permanently or even for an entire game. However spurts on the ball against a smaller forward line, similar to perhaps a Carlton at the moment (yes, i'm well aware he plays equally well on smalls), when we feel we are matching them well with the likes of Garland, MacDonald, Grimes, Bartram or Petterd/Dunn/Bail would be an exciting and worthwhile experiment I feel.

I know we have a "group of talented kids.." (no wait, you said mids, how Freudian) but don't be so narrow minded as to think his combination of pace, strength, height and reading of the play would not unsettle even the most professional of opponent midfields. Oh, I was going to answer your two questions but realized I already had.

Questions?

First and foremost let me qualify a little by saying I'm in no way suggesting he be moved into the midfield permanently or even for an entire game. However spurts on the ball against a smaller forward line, similar to perhaps a Carlton at the moment (yes, i'm well aware he plays equally well on smalls), when we feel we are matching them well with the likes of Garland, MacDonald, Grimes, Bartram or Petterd/Dunn/Bail would be an exciting and worthwhile experiment I feel.

I know we have a "group of talented kids.." (no wait, you said mids, how Freudian) but don't be so narrow minded as to think his combination of pace, strength, height and reading of the play would not unsettle even the most professional of opponent midfields. Oh, I was going to answer your two questions but realized I already had.

Questions?

Is his tank up for it?

Is his tank up for it?

I resoect the question but i guess it's kind of irrelevant as I can't see him needing to play there for more than say a quarter. But as a left of field play to break up a game? His tank would be more than enough to rattle some cages (if not teeth... )

With all due respect to the idea that we 'should hear out all ideas and not immediately shoot them down' - the mention of Frawley going into the midfield was one line with no argument whatsoever.

Give some backing for the argument, otherwise the arse will fall out...

Posters put their ideas for them to get critiqued.

If you don't agree with the previous sentence - "Blog - diasable comments"

A moment of thought would possibly make you realize what an incredibly stupid suggestion it is.

Ignoring the fact there would be no need to throw him in the middle with our group of talented mids...

You'd be playing away from his significant strengths of bodywork, positioning and reading the ball in the air.What qualities does he possess that would make him a good midfielder?

What would make him a better option than all the better mids we currently have?

I'm willing to listen to a reasonable argument, but right now there is none.

Your serve.

sounds a bit like a bloke getting round the paddock for freo but i reckon chip would be quicker

Give some backing for the argument, otherwise the arse will fall out...

Posters put their ideas for them to get critiqued.

I wasn't being sensitive, critique is fine. A one line sarcastic slur is fine too, but weak on his part. It should also be open to critique should it not?

As to backing for the argument, what more than what I have offered do you want from me? It is only a frivolous off season daydream after all.... Or did you miss my other post?

sounds a bit like a bloke getting round the paddock for freo but i reckon chip would be quicker

More than one example i think...

Not Freudian at all.

We have a group of talented mids.

He is not a mid. We already have enough.

Why on earth try to make him into one?

At least start with Grimes.

This entire thread is riddled with stupidity.

I wasn't being sensitive, critique is fine. A one line sarcastic slur is fine too, but weak on his part. It should also be open to critique should it not?

As to backing for the argument, what more than what I have offered do you want from me? It is only a frivolous off season daydream after all.... Or did you miss my other post?

You're a damn fool.

You make an idiotic post, then claim being called on it is weak?

Then you try to defend your idiocy in the name of frivolity..?

Give up.

You're a damn fool.

You make an idiotic post, then claim being called on it is weak?

Then you try to defend your idiocy in the name of frivolity..?

Give up.

And you are out of control. Idiocy is an extremely strong term for the suggestion of a 193cm, 91kg highly talented player have brief cameos in the midfield. Apart from reminding all of us idiots that we have midfielders already you have put no form of argument up whatsoever! This was a suggestion of 'spurts', not a total reshuffling of the bloody lineup! Keep your smug arrogant comments in check dude... Disagreeing is one thing, your form of debate is a complete other.

And don't embarrass yourself with comments like 'Not Freudian at all.' Just reinforces peoples knowledge of you being far more ignorant than you realize.

More than one example i think...

jared brennan, cale morton, scott pendelbury, jobe watson, micheal barlow, anthony morabito, david mundy, lynden dunn, cam bruce, joron gysberts, adam goodes - tall blokes who have a run in the middle.

bodywork, positioning and reading the ball in the air - why wouldn't these be positive attributes for a mid fielder?

it was only mentioned with the understanding of the club having a wealth of riches in the backline and the prospect of newton possibly flourishing down back. instead of the same old, same old and suggest we stick a backman (chip) in the forward line i was thinking a little out of the square. it's post season and footy news is thin on ground. why e25 had to make it so personal, i don't know.

jared brennan, cale morton, scott pendelbury, jobe watson, micheal barlow, anthony morabito, david mundy, lynden dunn, cam bruce, joron gysberts, adam goodes - tall blokes who have a run in the middle.

bodywork, positioning and reading the ball in the air - why wouldn't these be positive attributes for a mid fielder?

it was only mentioned with the understanding of the club having a wealth of riches in the backline and the prospect of newton possibly flourishing down back. instead of the same old, same old and suggest we stick a backman (chip) in the forward line i was thinking a little out of the square. it's post season and footy news is thin on ground. why e25 had to make it so personal, i don't know.

There you go!

I would take the time to post that when you bring it up.

Good points, but the fact of the matter is he is an AA in his 4th year as a tall defender that rebounds quite a bit and gets into the middle more than many defenders.

I wouldn't be changing that much.

In fact, I still think our defence is our strongest 'line.'

Give them a few years to settle.

I wasn't being sensitive, critique is fine. A one line sarcastic slur is fine too, but weak on his part. It should also be open to critique should it not?

As to backing for the argument, what more than what I have offered do you want from me? It is only a frivolous off season daydream after all.... Or did you miss my other post?

You make an idiotic post, then claim being called on it is weak?

Then you try to defend your idiocy in the name of frivolity..?

This is where you can a bit of a snake in the grass sometimes E, contorting peoples statements to try and win an argument. I didn't claim being called on it was weak, in fact I said it was fine. You calling me on it with a cheap sarcastic one line statement that offers nothing to the debate than the attempt at humour which is the way over used 'face palm' gag. Now if that ain't weak, I don't make the best Manhattan from Paris to Budapest. Which I do.

...but the fact of the matter is he is an AA in his 4th year as a tall defender that rebounds quite a bit and gets into the middle more than many defenders.

I wouldn't be changing that much.

I think we are all in agreement on this. This would be only when there is a mismatch, better defensive option or need for a spark in the midfield, so hopefully not often at all! But to use it as an X factor play to steal/save a match from gridlock i think has merit! It certainly wouldn't hurt his normal defensive game to train a little in the midfield either, again not huge chunks of time but enough to have him as an option. Flexibility is a great part of our players strengths, I would like to see our coaches exploit that more in the future when the skills are more finely tuned. Something tells me that is exactly why DB did as much swing work when he did... To use it later

Why do we want to take our No 1 AA defender and the cornerstone of our very good defence and put him in the midfield where we have a glut of players we are wanting to put through the midfield that would be better suited to that role?

I am sure Frawley is capable of playing good football anywhere but for the sake of the team's interests why cant we leave him where he benefits us most?

Pretty sure Sir James Frawley leads our rebound 50's out of defence; provides alot of the run out which is advantageous for our mids to link up.

I wouldn't be changing that up in a hurry.

Ok, so you still don't get it.

One last time, for old times sake. NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT ANY CHANGE TO FRAWLEY'S MAIN ROLE IN THE TEAM!

It was just an idea for the occasional change up, for say 5-10 minutes when it fits for a plan X. Damn... How close minded are some of you?! I'm sure glad DB doesn't think like you guys

Why do we want to take our No 1 AA defender and the cornerstone of our very good defence and put him in the midfield where we have a glut of players we are wanting to put through the midfield that would be better suited to that role?

I am sure Frawley is capable of playing good football anywhere but for the sake of the team's interests why cant we leave him where he benefits us most?

it was only mentioned with the understanding of the club having a wealth of riches in the backline and the prospect of newton possibly flourishing down back. instead of the same old, same old and suggest we stick a backman (chip) in the forward line i was thinking a little out of the square

Ok, so you still don't get it.

One last time, for old times sake. NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT ANY CHANGE TO FRAWLEY'S MAIN ROLE IN THE TEAM!

It was just an idea for the occasional change up, for say 5-10 minutes when it fits for a plan X. Damn... How close minded are some of you?! I'm sure glad DB doesn't think like you guys

You haven't replied to anyone in particular, so I'll assume you're referring to my first post on this 'idea' of Chip to the midfield.

Firsly, I don't think it would benefit the team, nor do I think it would benefit Frawley. He hasn't the motor for 10 minutes in the midfield.

And, I don't think it is closed minded.

Fwiw, I like the left field thinking. Gutsy move.

Ok, so you still don't get it.

One last time, for old times sake. NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT ANY CHANGE TO FRAWLEY'S MAIN ROLE IN THE TEAM!

It was just an idea for the occasional change up, for say 5-10 minutes when it fits for a plan X. Damn... How close minded are some of you?! I'm sure glad DB doesn't think like you guys

How closed minded.....read the posts....A lot.........now that we have quite a few quality cattle I can see quite a few 'whatthe!!" moves taking place........

Ok, so you still don't get it.

One last time, for old times sake. NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT ANY CHANGE TO FRAWLEY'S MAIN ROLE IN THE TEAM!

It was just an idea for the occasional change up, for say 5-10 minutes when it fits for a plan X. Damn... How close minded are some of you?! I'm sure glad DB doesn't think like you guys

I get it, and I think it was a great post.

For those keyboard warriors like E24 that are just looking to shoot people down continuously, he is not saying move Frawley permanently into the midfield, he is not saying that Frawleys best position is not in the back line, he is not saying that we don't have good young midfielders, he is not saying that we don't need Frawley in the backline. I don't think he is even saying that Frawley definitely should spend time in the middle.

The suggestion is that if we have the players to reduce his loss in the backline for a short period, Frawley could possibly be great in the midfield when we need a spark.

I don't think that Neitz, Schwarz or Lyon's best positions were in the midfield, but all of them were occasionally thrown in the middle when something different was needed. Why would anyone not consider this with Frawley?

I'd like to see more posts on here like this one, rather than E24 constantly trying to prove to himself that he is smarter than everyone else.

His contract hasn't expired yet, so it's not that perplexing is it? He's got the same right to be there as every other player. And to be honest, I reckon the squad was selected by just picking the fittest team, rather than the best team.

Really? I thought his current contract ends 2010.

It's perplexing because I'd imagine that Newton wouldn't be offered an extension so having him on the trip would be a waste on time & money. Unless of course he's just there to make up the numbers, as I previously suggested.

If you were in charge of the trip would you take a player who you knew that you were going to delist shortly?

Pissweak snipes as usual Thomo.

Good to see it still stings.