Battler: A player from modest beginnings (re: deep draft pick, came up through the VFL, mature age etc) who generally exhibits this background by having no qualities that really stand out. They are not particularly fast or big and there is nothing fancy about them, ensuring they don't often appear in a highlights package. What this nearly always means is that despite these deficiencies they are on an AFL team sheet because they got there the hard way, through playing aggressively and courageously and showing dedication on the track etc. It is the meaning of the term 'underdog', at the opposite end of the scale from your naturally gifted, high pedigree players like Watts, Trengove, Toumpas etc.

I put it to you that at the moment we have 7-9 of these players in (or about the fringe of) our weekly 22:

Terlich, M.Jones, Pickles, Magner, Nicholson, Bail and McKenzie (Sellar doesn't fit the description due to being a high draft pick.. but for all intents and purposes he is a born and bred battler, you could even say Tommy Mac is too) - I think if you did a similar analysis at other clubs you would find the majority are only fielding 2 or 3 of these players every week.

I just wanted to get your opinions on this in general:

-Do you agree with my assessment that we have more than our fair share of this type?

-Why has it worked out this way, that we have a disproportionate number of these players? Is it because our glamor boy draft picks have not developed strongly? Is it a function of our desperate need for experience/maturity?

-Is it the reason we are struggling? To what extent?

-Can a side like this prosper or is it doomed for failure? Is there anything to be taken from a side like Sydney who seem to rely on having a tough unit of 22 players and not necessarily much 'star power'? Or is a team like this just going to keep spilling marks, shanking kicks and costing us games over and over again?

-Do you think it is fair to say that at this stage of their careers (Evans is 20, the others are 22 or older) there is not much room for them to develop and improve on their weak areas?

-How can you reconcile the fact we are struggling, yet the players mentioned have generally been amongst our best for the season? Would we be better off with or without them? Has this ploy (if you think it is a deliberate thing) been a positive one for the club?

Cheers

Edited May 20, 201312 yr by Curry & Beer

Geelong: Blicavs, West, Pods, Lonergan, Stokes, Guthrie - There's a few who did it the hard way or are in for defensive nature. And based on what I've seen from Terlich he looks as much a battler as Harry Taylor, has plenty of class was recruited at 21 ish age.

Don't get me started on Freo with DeBoer, Pearce, Dawson, Spurr, Bradley the list goes on and on.

If Grimes, Sylvia, Viney fit Trengove and Watts then all of a sudden there is no more Bail, Nicholson and McKenzie or Magner.

Toumpas doesn't get injured and comes along strong and we get rid of another one.

This is the where the GWS/Gold Coast have hurt us. They didn't take away our top picks but took a tonne of depth out of the draft and meant we had to go for Terlich, Matt Jones, Taggert and Tynan guys who would usually go further down in rounds of drafts.

I hate taking positives from Richmond but they are at the stage where they should worry about carrying too many low ceiling players like Jackson and King who are clear best 22 but not with a huge potential. We can wait until we get to that stage.

Edited May 20, 201312 yr by the master

Geelong: Blicavs, West, Pods, Lonergan, Stokes, Guthrie - There's a few who did it the hard way or are in for defensive nature. And based on what I've seen from Terlich he looks as much a battler as Harry Taylor, has plenty of class was recruited at 21 ish age.

Don't get me started on Freo with DeBoer, Pearce, Dawson, Spurr, Bradley the list goes on and on.

If Grimes, Sylvia, Viney fit Trengove and Watts then all of a sudden there is no more Bail, Nicholson and McKenzie or Magner.

Toumpas doesn't get injured and comes along strong and we get rid of another one.

This is the where the GWS/Gold Coast have hurt us. They didn't take away our top picks but took a tonne of depth out of the draft and meant we had to go for Terlich, Matt Jones, Taggert and Tynan guys who would usually go further down in rounds of drafts.

I hate taking positives from Richmond but they are at the stage where they should worry about carrying too many low ceiling players like Jackson and King who are clear best 22 but not with a huge potential. We can wait until we get to that stage.

I would have king in a heartbeat for his desire and attitude

Stokes is turning into a very good player for Geelong. More than a battler. Near the lead in some of the media player-of-the-year voting.

Battler: A player from modest beginnings (re: deep draft pick, came up through the VFL, mature age etc) who generally exhibits this background ...

... been a positive one for the club?

Cheers

One of the reasons the MFC has failed to lift off the bottom of the ladder despite our high draft picks is that the game over the past 5 years has turned to favour players with more solid bodies that can handle the increasing rigours and workload of the current style of footy. This shift, in addition to causing us to wait longer for our young pedigree draft kids to mature (Watts, Trengove, Toumpass, Viney, etc), increases the value of recruiting mature players. Given these players have been trying to get in to the AFL, it means that they are not "pedigree" high draft pick types... i.e. they have been passed over and gone back to further develope their game at a lower level.

That this development pathway produced half our best players on the weekend (Terlich, M Jones, Evans) highlghts the value of this development pathway. That the MFC is not alone (see Doggies article in age today) in struggling to get rapid results from it's pedigree draft picks (with the exception of big bodied players) means we are going to have to develope ALOT more patience as to when these pedigree picks are expected to impact at the highest level, i.e. after 2 - 3 years at Casey instead of one...

Another aspect of this new breed of mature, mongrel type players is they have had to work their asses off, be open to any and all advise on improving their game, etc... which makes them very coachable, unlike some pedigree types who may be more resistant to change and the hard work required (i.e. Gysberts)

Edited May 21, 201312 yr by PaulRB