James Frawley

[Nasher 33,246]

So the same doesn't apply to Garland?

It does, but someone has to play. If forced I'd choose the bigger bodied Garland over Frawley. Ideally I'd have neither playing. Guess who will be making way for Rivers this week.

[Jarka 767]

No, we have to protect poor little Frawley because he is skinny and he is going to continually have his arse handed to him in defence from our lack of midfield pressure. There's nothing to be gained by that.

It's different for midfielders and Morton has the opportunity to be part of the solution. Frawley would just be a victim of the problem.

So what do you think of his performances for Sandy so far this year?

Btw I think you're talking rubbish. Now is the time to play him, following good forwards around when they're at their best is an ideal way to fasttrack his learning. Playing on chumps at Sandy will do nothing for his development.

[Jaded No More 60,080]

It does, but someone has to play. If forced I'd choose the bigger bodied Garland over Frawley. Ideally I'd have neither playing. Guess who will be making way for Rivers this week.

According to Pro Stats:

Garland: 191cm, 85kg

Frawley: 193cm, 88kp

Frawley also has a tiny bit more experience.

[jikajika 0]

The reality is that he has shown nothing to suggest he'll make a great FB.

He was thrown to the wolves last year, Jarka.

Give him a chance to scrub up his game and smash a few blokes in the ressies first.

Even if he doesn't turn out to be the FB we want, he could still turn out to be a handy footballer...

...or is that a footy footballer?

[Jarka 767]

According to Pro Stats:

Garland: 191cm, 85kg

Frawley: 193cm, 88kp

Frawley also has a tiny bit more experience.

OOPS!

[beelzebub 22,724]

So what do you think of his performances for Sandy so far this year?

Btw I think you're talking rubbish. Now is the time to play him, following good forwards around when they're at their best is an ideal way to fasttrack his learning. Playing on chumps at Sandy will do nothing for his development.

Jarka.. mate ..I eally dont think hes quite cooked enough. He doesnt seem to sum up the situations to well at present. Maybe with a few more outings for the Zebbies he might develop some craft. Then he's of use to use.. otherwise he'll be fodder.

[Jaded No More 60,080]

Perhaps he didn't train as hard as Garland, and didn't impress Bailey enough to get a game yet. Fair enough.

Whatever the case, he isn't at Sandy because Bailey is scared of throwing him to the wolves. Everything about Bailey's philosophy of not limiting his players, contradicts this theory. Besides, he has thrown Morton, Garland and Weetra to the wolves and they are all less experienced than Frawley.

IMO Frawley will make his way into the side fairly soon and he should cement his spot in the team by year's end.

Even though he was beaten by most of his opponents last year (which defender wasn't?), he did show dash and pace and vision which are all great traits for a defender to have.

[Nasher 33,246]

So what do you think of his performances for Sandy so far this year?

Obviously I have not seen any. You knew that before you asked. It's irrelevant to my point anyway. Don't be a twit.

Btw I think you're talking rubbish. Now is the time to play him, following good forwards around when they're at their best is an ideal way to fasttrack his learning. Playing on chumps at Sandy will do nothing for his development.

I fail to see what he would learn by watching Hawthorn kick it down Buddy's throat every 30 seconds.

OOPS!

Yes I am surprised Frawley is apparently bigger. You obviously missed the bit where I said the same rule should apply to Garland. Gotta love pointing out the minor flaws in someone's arguments and completely ignoring the major point.

[Jarka 767]

Obviously I have not seen any. You knew that before you asked. It's irrelevant to my point anyway. Don't be a twit.

Gee, thanks for the personal abuse, can you please keep the discussion directed at the topic. You should know better but obviously that's not the case, while we're on this topic how the [censored] could I possibly know that you have no idea of his performances at Sandy?

I would presume that you read the Sandy reports here on this website, so ffs don't get your knickers in a knot over something pathetic.

I fail to see what he would learn by watching Hawthorn kick it down Buddy's throat every 30 seconds.

Are you serious? Playing on a great forward like Buddy he'd have the best seat in the house to learn when a good forward leads for the ball, the timing of his runs and attack at the footy. How a good midfield moves the ball from their backline to the forward, where to run to and where not to run to.

How is he going to learn from playing on chumps at Sandy? We've had a heap of KPP's play alot of footy at Sandy and only one of them have come through to play well at AFL level, so our system is clearly not working.

[Jarka 767]

Yes I am surprised Frawley is apparently bigger. You obviously missed the bit where I said the same rule should apply to Garland. Gotta love pointing out the minor flaws in someone's arguments and completely ignoring the major point.

Except for the fact that the basis of your argument that Garland should be playing ahead of Frawley is because he is 4 kg heavier, but in reality Frawley is indeed heavier.

Gotta love people trying to deflect their f*** ups

[Nasher 33,246]

Gee, thanks for the personal abuse, can you please keep the discussion directed at the topic. You should know better but obviously that's not the case, while we're on this topic how the [censored] could I possibly know that you have no idea of his performances at Sandy?

I would presume that you read the Sandy reports here on this website, so ffs don't get your knickers in a knot over something pathetic.

Speaking of getting your knickers in a knot over something pathetic. You were being deliberately facetious. If you don't want to catch a fish, don't cast a line...

You'd only need to glance over at my profile and look at my location to know how hard it would be for me to watch Sandy games. You've been around these parts forever, even longer than I have, so let's not play silly buggers. (I considered saying "let's not play dumb", but that might be a little personal for you).

I do not, have not and will never base my opinion on players on Sandy reports.

Are you serious? Playing on a great forward like Buddy he'd have the best seat in the house to learn when a good forward leads for the ball, the timing of his runs and attack at the footy. How a good midfield moves the ball from their backline to the forward, where to run to and where not to run to.

How is he going to learn from playing on chumps at Sandy? We've had a heap of KPP's play alot of footy at Sandy and only one of them have come through to play well at AFL level, so our system is clearly not working.

Absolutely serious. He can see how a good midfield move the ball from their backline to the forward by sitting in the stands. I can see that from my TV screen. Players at this level spend hours analysing, watching and learning outside match conditions. I don't think the AFL field should be where they learn their trade, especially not key defenders. It should be where they apply and consolidate them. Until then, let them practice against lower grade opponents in the VFL.

[Jarka 767]

You'd only need to glance over at my profile and look at my location to know how hard it would be for me to watch Sandy games. You've been around these parts forever, even longer than I have, so let's not play silly buggers. (I considered saying "let's not play dumb", but that might be a little personal for you).

Wow, you didn't even read my previous reply properly did you?

I would presume that you read the Sandy reports here on this website

*shakes head*

[Nasher 33,246]

Wow, you didn't even read my previous reply properly did you?

*shakes head*

And you have the audacity to tell me to stick to the topic at hand. Btw I can only assume you missed the line that followed the one you quoted.

[Jarka 767]

And you have the audacity to tell me to stick to the topic at hand. Btw, I have no idea what you're talking about.

LOL, what are you smoking today?

Reread my reply, I already stated that I presumed that you would have read the Sandy reports on this website to get an idea of how frawley is performing and then you get all narky because of where you live and giving me [censored] for it saying that I should be aware that you're unable to go Sandy games.

FFS calm down

[Jaded No More 60,080]

Hi kids, remember me?

Once upon a time somebody started a thread about me on Demonland... I was ever so excited until two people decided to turn the thread into the Jerry Springer show.

[Axis of Bob 10,497]

Jarka, you have a very simplistic view of football. Remember that footballers are people, and what's good for one is not necessarily good for another.

As an example, look at how much time it took for Bell to become a good defender (including a lot of time at Sandy and time in the Sandy reserves) when compared with Bartram.

Also, Frawley is being looked at to play deep in defence, while Garland is more of an attacking half back/half forward. You're comparing apples with oranges. Plus they are different people.

But that doesn't fit in with your simplistic view of football.

(Yes, I have seen both at Sandy)

[Jarka 767]

Jarka, you have a very simplistic view of football. Remember that footballers are people, and what's good for one is not necessarily good for another.

As an example, look at how much time it took for Bell to become a good defender (including a lot of time at Sandy and time in the Sandy reserves) when compared with Bartram.

Also, Frawley is being looked at to play deep in defence, while Garland is more of an attacking half back/half forward. You're comparing apples with oranges. Plus they are different people.

But that doesn't fit in with your simplistic view of football.

(Yes, I have seen both at Sandy)

My comments on Frawley is based on what I've seen of him, other posters views and the views that several junior coaches had on him before the draft. I value the judgements of the latter highly because they see the kids every week, unlike the majority of posters on these forums who probably have never even been to a junior game at a suburban ground. If that's simple then I guess the fat, keyboard hero slobs have something to teach me /shrug

Also your comparison with Bell is humorous considering at the same stage of their careers Bell had shown alot more potential, he just had problems with injuries and stringing games together. I'm not convinced on Bartram, but overrating players seems to be a favourite past time of Melbourne supporters, hell, in recent years we've turned it into an art form.

I didn't make the comparison with Garland, Nasher did, so really your pov on that is irrelevant

[Axis of Bob 10,497]

I'll base it on what I've seen of him as well.

FWIW, Bell played all of his first year at Sandy and the Sandy reserves. He then played 3 games at the end of his second year when he wasn't really ready. He continued to struggle to find his feet until the end of 2006, when he started to look more comfortable. It was only really last year that he became a solid member of the side.

The fact is, at this stage in his career Bell hadn't even played a single AFL game. It wasn't due to injury, he just wasn't ready. He has now developed into a good AFL player. But for you to say that a "comparison with Bell is humorous considering at the same stage of their careers Bell had shown alot more potential" is just plain wrong. It gives the impression that you are simply making things up.

Bartram played 22 games in his first year and had showed far more than Bell who, at that stage in his career, was struggling to get a kick in the Sandy reserves (yes, I was watching those games). You saying that you're not convinced of Bartram actually lends further support to my argument since Bell will probably be the superior player despite the slow start to his career.

I could call you a name that referred to your lack of intelligence here, but I'll refrain for fear of making you cry.

Jarka, you made a comparison with Cale Morton and Frawley, so I'll go with that one if it's better (it's not better for your argument). Morton is a midfielder. He's playing as a wide midfielder and not getting much body contact at all. As a result his physical development is not a major part of his game. Frawley is a key defender and will be asked to play defensively on the opposition's best forwards. As a result he plays a tight game that requires a lot of body work. Hence he will need more time until he is able to perform that role.

Again, apples and oranges.

With Frawley, I prefer to back my own judgement with the help of the judgement of those whose opinions I rate. Yours I don't rate since you have shown yourself to be simplistic in your view of football.

My opinion is that Frawley shows a lot of promise as a defensive tall, since he has very good speed and is also very good one on one for a kid of his size (or lack of at this stage). He is also a very physical player, which is a requirement at a deep key defensive position. Key defenders often take a lot of time to come along, especially those who are being looked at to play close to goal. It's a very specialised position. What is good is that he's able to play on smaller oponents at this stage. But with added size as well as his demonstrated ability one on one, he should be able to play on the big players in the future. It allows flexibility as the game moves further away from the 'monster' forward and more towards the running forward (ie, Franklin). I also hope you weren't including me in the group of people have never been to see under 18 games.

Also, remember Ben Rutten? You know, the All Australian?

He was drafted before the 2002 season. He then spent all year in the SANFL. In 2003 he played 2 games. Yep, just 2 games in 2 years. In 2004 he played 9 games.

They should have dumped him after 11 games in 3 years. What a dud!!

Football isn't as simple as you like to think it is. There are so many different factors that not ever peg has a nice round hole to fit. If I teach you anything, I hope it is that. If not, we can continue this fun.

[grazman 6,743]

I liked the bit in the rag yesterday about Noel McMahen and how Checker Hughes thought that for every inch above six foot players needed an extra year to develop It's just patently unfair to expect a tall to develop as quickly as a mid or small defender.

Most good tall forwards are quick and surprisingly agile - Frawley will be alright.

I wonder Jarka if you were one of those that was pumping for James Sellar ahead of Jim?

[Dalrot 85]

Jarka is very sensitive over the internet obviously.

[Rogue 585]

So we have to protect poor little Frawley because he is skinny but it's perfectly ok to throw Cale Morton 'to the wolves' even though he is 4 kg's lighter and the same height?

Morton was playing on the wing whenever I saw him last weekend. That's a little different to playing on a KPP.

That said, I don't think Frawley's being 'protected' because he's skinny.

[Jarka 767]

Morton was playing on the wing whenever I saw him last weekend. That's a little different to playing on a KPP.

That said, I don't think Frawley's being 'protected' because he's skinny.

LOL, Nasher was the one who said he should be protected because he is skinny.

Morton was also one of the few players who actually put his body on the line last week, not bad for a 'skinny' winger.

[Kit Walker 210]

I liked the bit in the rag yesterday about Noel McMahen and how Checker Hughes thought that for every inch above six foot players needed an extra year to develop It's just patently unfair to expect a tall to develop as quickly as a mid or small defender.

So Sandilands should be fully developed when he's about 32 then? He'll play til he's 50!

[Guest fatty]

With Frawley, I prefer to back my own judgement with the help of the judgement of those whose opinions I rate. Yours I don't rate since you have shown yourself to be simplistic in your view of football.

My opinion is that Frawley shows a lot of promise as a defensive tall, since he has very good speed and is also very good one on one for a kid of his size (or lack of at this stage). He is also a very physical player, which is a requirement at a deep key defensive position. Key defenders often take a lot of time to come along, especially those who are being looked at to play close to goal. It's a very specialised position. What is good is that he's able to play on smaller oponents at this stage. But with added size as well as his demonstrated ability one on one, he should be able to play on the big players in the future. It allows flexibility as the game moves further away from the 'monster' forward and more towards the running forward (ie, Franklin). I also hope you weren't including me in the group of people have never been to see under 18 games.

Football isn't as simple as you like to think it is. There are so many different factors that not ever peg has a nice round hole to fit. If I teach you anything, I hope it is that. If not, we can continue this fun.

What a load of twaddle.

So maybe you could teach me not be a condescending, facetious prat that you are. Jarka's presenting a view that maybe Frawley was not such an inspired choice. Its too early to write him off, I agree - FFS we've given Sylvia 400+ yrs. I hope the inspired choice of Frawley pays off also. Jarka doesn't think so. So what?

And football is simple, Axis. That's where you're all muddled up.

[Jarka 767]

I'll base it on what I've seen of him as well.

FWIW, Bell played all of his first year at Sandy and the Sandy reserves. He then played 3 games at the end of his second year when he wasn't really ready. He continued to struggle to find his feet until the end of 2006, when he started to look more comfortable. It was only really last year that he became a solid member of the side.

The fact is, at this stage in his career Bell hadn't even played a single AFL game. It wasn't due to injury, he just wasn't ready. He has now developed into a good AFL player. But for you to say that a "comparison with Bell is humorous considering at the same stage of their careers Bell had shown alot more potential" is just plain wrong. It gives the impression that you are simply making things up.

blah blah blah

Football isn't as simple as you like to think it is. There are so many different factors that not ever peg has a nice round hole to fit. If I teach you anything, I hope it is that. If not, we can continue this fun.

This is a summary of a demonland chat session with Craig Cameron where he discusses various topics including Daniel Bell. It's leading up to the 2003 draft and this is what he has to say about Bell's 2004:

"Daniel Bell was a certainty, however, his injury will keep him out for nearly the whole year"

http://www.demonland.com/Chat.htm

I also know that he missed alot of footy in 03 due to injuries, one of which was a finger.

Interesting, this would give the impression that you are simply making things up...having fun fitting that square peg into the round hole?

Let me know if you want to continue the fun