James Frawley

[Hannabal 4]

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.

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.

These 2 points caught my eye. And yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I'll take Bartram every day of the week over Bell as a footballer, and importance to the team. Now and going forward.

Morton did some of his best work in tight with a couple of opposition tacklers hanging off him. Yes he's not first dibs, but I can't agree that he's not exposed to much body contact, even as a skinny receiver. Footy is all about finals. Try telling a "wide midfielder" that there's not much body contact in the middle of the ground in a final.

[Jarka 767]

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.

Cheers Fatty, I appreciate your post.

I have no problems with Axis, in fact at this precarious state of our existence rigourous debates and discussions are healthy, but as my previous posts highlights you still need to base your views on facts ( ).

I prefer to let people like this dig their own graves and just apply a gentle nudge to finish them off

[Jarka 767]

These 2 points caught my eye. And yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I'll take Bartram every day of the week over Bell as a footballer, and importance to the team. Now and going forward.

Morton did some of his best work in tight with a couple of opposition tacklers hanging off him. Yes he's not first dibs, but I can't agree that he's not exposed to much body contact, even as a skinny receiver. Footy is all about finals footy. Try telling a "wide midfielder" that there's not much body contact in the middle of the ground in a final.

I'm not convinced about Bartram yet H, but gee I hope I'm wrong. All I see is another Godfrey, a bit of a goer but lacks the talent and skill to be nothing more than a run-with player, and yes every team needs these types, it's just that we seem to have our fair share.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

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.

Well said.

[Hannabal 4]

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

Interestingly, Cameron highlights how he got Sylvia incorrectly pegged in that discussion. Cameron states that Sylvia "is more of an inside mid than ball carrier". "A 30 possession player with a ferocious attack on the footy." Yeah right ! Sylvia has a ferocious attack on the player with the ball, not the ball. So we ended up with a predator as opposed to a first dibs midfielder, and a predator who's not a proficient ball carrier. In other words a power flanker.

Not worthy of a pick 3 unfortunately. But still can be a valuable contributor.

I see far more in Bartram than a Godfrey type, J. Time will tell.

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

Jarka: "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?"

That was the line that I was responding to with regards to Morton. You raised Morton. The point is that you can't look at Morton and Frawley the same way because one is an outside midfielder and one is a key defender. Frawley is required to use his body to defend a specific man one on one, while Morton can expect casual contact as part of the midfield rotation. It's clearly not the same. Just look at similar examples of full backs. Frawley will probably play this week, or next. It's not about protecting him, but his ability to show potential is limited until he can build the body to play the position he will probably end up playing.

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

That chat was done later in the year. No less than half way through at least. Before this time he was playing Sandy reserves and had only just put in a few games for the Sandy seniors. He then injured a finger and missed about 6 weeks very early in 04. The footy club really rated him in this first year (as they did Frawley in his first year - despite missing the first 6 weeks with injury and only playing about 2 Sandy games before debuting for Melbourne) and his debut was going to be, at that point, not form related. It was because they saw great potential in him.

H: I really like Bartram as a footballer, as he is honest as the day is long, has a great engine and is a natural, competitive midfielder (albeit with suspect skills). Bell didn't have an engine or footy brain but is great one on one and that's why he plays deep in defence. I don't think Bartram will improve as much as Bell has simply because Bartram has less to learn. Bell is capable of playing on more opponents than Bartram and, the way the game is heading with smaller marking players up forward, he'll be more important IMO. I see Bartram as a Junior clone, but maybe one who can't play the way he needs to. Hopefully he recovers fully from his knee and is able to into the midfield.

With Morton, it's got nothing to do with getting hit. Anyone can get hit. But he will rarely, if ever, have to stand toe to toe with his direct opponent and win a one on one contest that involves power. Frawley will have to do this dozens of times a game, with these contests often being the difference between a rebound or goal.

The Sylvia example in that is very interesting, H. I can't help but wonder whether he could be that player if he had the engine. We may never know.

I'm far more happy to judge a player of Frawley's type on potential at round 3 of his second year. I actually think he's achieved far more than I thought he would at this stage of his career. He's an exciting prospect, because KPPs with defensive skills and speed are very hard to come by.

[Jarka 767]

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

That chat was done later in the year. No less than half way through at least. Before this time he was playing Sandy reserves and had only just put in a few games for the Sandy seniors. He then injured a finger and missed about 6 weeks very early in 04. The footy club really rated him in this first year (as they did Frawley in his first year - despite missing the first 6 weeks with injury and only playing about 2 Sandy games before debuting for Melbourne) and his debut was going to be, at that point, not form related. It was because they saw great potential in him.

LOL, now you're arguing with Craig Cameron. Good luck, let me know how it pans out.

BTW, his finger injury was during 2003, and CAC's comments I posted were made at the end of that season

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/...9849339978.html

But keep digging my friend. (You're right, this is fun )

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

Yep, and that injury report was from August in 03. Just before round 19. How does that take away anything from what I've said? And the CAC chat session wasn't at the end of the season. As you can see, he says that Bell will keep him out for nearly the whole year. He also said "There is still sometime to go in the season" when talking about the under 18s. I think I remember it happening about 2 or 3 weeks after the under 18 carnival that year.

I'm not arguing against CAC, I'm actually arguing with him, since I said that he was going to be played on potential, rather than exposed form.

But continue focussing on the big issues, without addressing the side issues like, for instance, Frawley.

[timD 994]

Let me get this straight: Jarka is basing the guts of his point of view on a point of view expressed by others. Fantastic: ignoring that recruiters vaue people differently - for example, the Freo blokes values ricky p in the top tem I think, or something and were gutted that we pcked him up just before them at 30-something. So were we wrong to wait? In effect Jarka is arguing that he likes another recruiter's point of view over CAC's. He then phrases an argument (cheap shizen but what ever) as if it makes the opinion a !!fact!! that we took frawley too high.

Funniest thing happened on my way to the draft...Jarka bitched that CAC doesn't pick KPP's, and then bitched when he picks one that might need development. Where are all those instant footy heroes just waiting to be picked up?

As for the bartrum argument, Jarka can you name ONE! other run-with player that we have. You imply that we have heaps, but 'cause this is absolute rot I'll keep the game simple - name one run-with player (no defenders now, that is cheating!).

What a self-pleasuring morass this bloody thread became.

[jikajika 0]

Yep, and that injury report was from August in 03. Just before round 19. How does that take away anything from what I've said? And the CAC chat session wasn't at the end of the season. As you can see, he says that Bell will keep him out for nearly the whole year. He also said "There is still sometime to go in the season" when talking about the under 18s. I think I remember it happening about 2 or 3 weeks after the under 18 carnival that year.

I'm not arguing against CAC, I'm actually arguing with him, since I said that he was going to be played on potential, rather than exposed form.

But continue focussing on the big issues, without addressing the side issues like, for instance, Frawley.

That's some perceptive analysis in those last few posts, AoB. And in the face of some unremitting LOLing too.

Well done to you.

[beelzebub 23,382]

Going back to the origins of this thread..lol

Iv seen frawley a few times.. in both colours.. and I think the key quality here that most wil agree on is that he coming along 'slowly'. Thats fine in itself. No problems there.. I havent seen too much to get terribly excited about and yes he does have a dip, thats good. Seems a little out of his depth currently in RnB..and seems better with Sandy..Looks like hes stil finding his way. Strikes me as more crash bang at present than menacing cluey backman.

Do we

1) Fast track in the 1sts in a year where he's likely to be under the pump from wo to go!!

or

2) allow him a little more room in the magoos to learn his craft to an effective level of proficiency..I.e he's of some use down back !!

Bailey himself has said that many are training very very well..but unable to translate this into games. I suspect he ( JF ) is one.

or do we wo out some arbitrary system of rotation through the backline.. a bit like..learn some lessons.(2nds).put in practice..(1sts) revise.. learn some more..(2nds ) back to implement ( 1sts )

might give a few time to catch breath between "outings"

[Waltham33 475]

Going back to the origins of this thread..lol

Iv seen frawley a few times.. in both colours.. and I think the key quality here that most wil agree on is that he coming along 'slowly'. Thats fine in itself. No problems there.. I havent seen too much to get terribly excited about and yes he does have a dip, thats good. Seems a little out of his depth currently in RnB..and seems better with Sandy..Looks like hes stil finding his way. Strikes me as more crash bang at present than menacing cluey backman.

Do we

1) Fast track in the 1sts in a year where he's likely to be under the pump from wo to go!!

or

2) allow him a little more room in the magoos to learn his craft to an effective level of proficiency..I.e he's of some use down back !!

Bailey himself has said that many are training very very well..but unable to translate this into games. I suspect he ( JF ) is one.

or do we wo out some arbitrary system of rotation through the backline.. a bit like..learn some lessons.(2nds).put in practice..(1sts) revise.. learn some more..(2nds ) back to implement ( 1sts )

might give a few time to catch breath between "outings"

Don’t throw him to the wolves. Mix it up with him, some KPP roles mixed in with some roles on the flank mixed in with some time at Sandy. I am happy for JF to not to make a real impact until next year, but I feel he will make an impact at some point for the MFC.

[Jarka 767]

Let me get this straight: Jarka is basing the guts of his point of view on a point of view expressed by others.

WRONG!!

Here's what I really posted:

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.

Don't make stuff up to back up your argument

My personal opinion is that Frawley's not up to it and in reality he has yet to demonstrate anything to suggest otherwise; last season or this current one. Now you ladies can keep on posting your highly amusing diatribes but the fact remains is that it's my opinion. Your posts aren't going to change my opinion without solid hard facts to back yourself up, all you do is attack my view <_<

I've posted my reasons and I've also posted my views on our poor drafting of KPP's over the last decade, and yeah I've copped alot of crap on this site from the usual crew, but the fact remains that we now have a list which is devoid of talented KPP's and rucks.

Personally I hope I'm wrong about Frawley as it just means yet another valuable pick wasted and it will set us back even further

[jikajika 0]

WRONG!!

Here's what I really posted:

Don't make stuff up to back up your argument

My personal opinion is that Frawley's not up to it and in reality he has yet to demonstrate anything to suggest otherwise; last season or this current one. Now you ladies can keep on posting your highly amusing diatribes but the fact remains is that it's my opinion. Your posts aren't going to change my opinion without solid hard facts to back yourself up, all you do is attack my view <_<

I've posted my reasons and I've also posted my views on our poor drafting of KPP's over the last decade, and yeah I've copped alot of crap on this site from the usual crew, but the fact remains that we now have a list which is devoid of talented KPP's and rucks.

Personally I hope I'm wrong about Frawley as it just means yet another valuable pick wasted and it will set us back even further

I don't think anybody's denying you a right to an opinion, Jarka.

They're just saying that yr opinion is based on some pretty tenuous premises.

You presented yr case for Frawley being 'not up to it'.

Axis of Bob presented a comprehensive rebuttal.

Now yr saying people are denying you an opinion. All they're saying is that yr opinion is wrong.

[jikajika 0]

I don't think anybody's denying you a right to an opinion, Jarka.

They're just saying that yr opinion is based on some pretty tenuous premises.

You presented yr case for Frawley being 'not up to it'.

Axis of Bob presented a comprehensive rebuttal.

Now yr saying people are denying you an opinion. All they're saying is that yr opinion is wrong.

I do apologise, my good polar bear. I see now that you did not say people are denying you an opinion.

You said they were attacking yr opinion.

Would it not be accurate to say that they are critiquing yr opinion?

Hope Frawley plays a corker this weekend. But no great disaster if not.

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

As an exercise in futility, I wanted to prove my point about close-to-goal key defenders generally requiring a few years before being expected to take on the opposition's key forwards. I have already outlined why I think this is the case earlier in this thread, but I thought that I'd try to give the "hard cold facts" that Jarka said that he required. So, here goes.

The attachment is a list of the starting full back on each club's list. It shows first year on an AFL list, the round/year that they debuted and the number of games they played in their 1st - 2nd - 3rd year.

Only 6.3 games average in the first year, 10.5 in the second and 14.2 in the third. Look at Scarlett, Barry, Merrett and Rutten- they combined for 14 games in their first 2 years. Brian Harris/Lake only played 1 in his first year and he was drafted as a 20 year old!

From that you can see that (in raw numbers) not many play a lot of games in their first few years. Hudgeton played 17 in his first year as a pocket next to Shanahan, Croad played 17 (although he only 'amassed' 99 possessions - 5.8 a game) and that was about it. Also, 4 of the players were drafted as 20 year olds, which shows that it takes them time to "show something" when playing in the role they did.

Frawley played 9 games in his first year, which is a) above the average, and b ) despite injury early in the year. I think that is very good.

As I said, football isn't as simple as people would like it to be. Sometimes you have to go a little deeper.

And thanks for your kind works, JJ. I don't post as often as I used to here, but it's good to know that some people are interested.

[Demon16 69]

As an exercise in futility, I wanted to prove my point about close-to-goal key defenders generally requiring a few years before being expected to take on the opposition's key forwards. I have already outlined why I think this is the case earlier in this thread, but I thought that I'd try to give the "hard cold facts" that Jarka said that he required. So, here goes.

The attachment is a list of the starting full back on each club's list. It shows first year on an AFL list, the round/year that they debuted and the number of games they played in their 1st - 2nd - 3rd year.

Only 6.3 games average in the first year, 10.5 in the second and 14.2 in the third. Look at Scarlett, Barry, Merrett and Rutten- they combined for 14 games in their first 2 years. Brian Harris/Lake only played 1 in his first year and he was drafted as a 20 year old!

From that you can see that (in raw numbers) not many play a lot of games in their first few years. Hudgeton played 17 in his first year as a pocket next to Shanahan, Croad played 17 (although he only 'amassed' 99 possessions - 5.8 a game) and that was about it. Also, 4 of the players were drafted as 20 year olds, which shows that it takes them time to "show something" when playing in the role they did.

Frawley played 9 games in his first year, which is a) above the average, and b ) despite injury early in the year. I think that is very good.

As I said, football isn't as simple as people would like it to be. Sometimes you have to go a little deeper.

And thanks for your kind works, JJ. I don't post as often as I used to here, but it's good to know that some people are interested.

i remember seeing Scarlett early days thinking "this guy is no good at all", he was getting killed, he looked skinny and hopeless against his forward opponents. i think i may have got that wrong Leo Barry....how many years was he running around like a chook with it's head cut off? how good was Leppitsch early days?

It's way too early to write off a key position player imo. 4 years minimum.

[Eastie Boyz 0]

Leo Barry and Leppitsch both started out as full forwards (as did Rutten)

Scarlett played a few games on the wing from memory, and Maxy Hudghton was playing on the the 3rd and 4th tallest opposition forward.

From the time I started playing footy til my first year of 18s I pretty much played on the smallest opposition forward or got chucked in a forward pocket.

Then in my second year of 18s I played every position bar ruck and took the oppositions best forward every week regardless of their size (provided it wasn't Trent Zomer) and I'm only Aaron Davey's size.

May seem like a pretty stupid thing to bring up but it shows that some players just need a little more time to develop than others.

Forget who it was, but a writer in the Herald Sun said you shouldn't judge players until they're 23 (5th year) and I reckon that's a pretty far call (unless you're a ruckman - in which case you get an extra 3 or 4 years)

[grazman 7,451]

I don't post as often as I used to here, but it's good to know that some people are interested.

Now come on Bobby boy, you know there are some of us that are always interested.... but point of order. Chicken Burrito (Firito) started as a run with player and wasn't used in a key back role until late 06 from memory. - but I agree with you about Frawley. From where I sit he's got a lot of very good attributes to make a good KPP back. He's quick, physical, mobile and is a pretty good decision maker. Jim's alright IMO. I'm sure if you asked 12 under 18 coaches you'd get 12 different opinions. I remember speaking to Aaron Rodgers U18 coach at a clinic one day after we drafted him and he told me he'd be a 200 game player. - He was no fool, but sometimes there are things that are just impossible to predict in terms of player development.

BTW for Jarka's info - CAC rated both Frawley and Petterd very highly and had significant difficulty in splitting them. In the end he went for Frawley on the hunch that Petterd may still be there with our second pick... he was right.

There were a lot on here (via Big Footy forums) that wanted James Sellar... in fact they were pretty shitty we didn't get him. The rationale from CAC was that Sellar had too many limitations including a pretty poor motor to make it as an AFL player. Time will tell.

[Eastie Boyz 0]

I always liked Aaron Rogers.

Think he's playing in Canberra somewhere now

[timD 994]

WRONG!!

Here's what I really posted:

Don't make stuff up to back up your argument

My personal opinion is that Frawley's not up to it and in reality he has yet to demonstrate anything to suggest otherwise; last season or this current one. Now you ladies can keep on posting your highly amusing diatribes but the fact remains is that it's my opinion. Your posts aren't going to change my opinion without solid hard facts to back yourself up, all you do is attack my view <_<

I've posted my reasons and I've also posted my views on our poor drafting of KPP's over the last decade, and yeah I've copped alot of crap on this site from the usual crew, but the fact remains that we now have a list which is devoid of talented KPP's and rucks.

Personally I hope I'm wrong about Frawley as it just means yet another valuable pick wasted and it will set us back even further

It's not the pathetic abuse that you spout, it is the weakness of the argument that is offensive, Jarka. Christ man, show some bloody rigour to your thinking! You raised recruiters and that they were the ones you listened to the most. Other opinons were less valued BY YOU. It means what I summarised it it mean. And what I wrote was all about 'opinions' - yet you criticise me for making something up while using my conclusion as your own? You tell me how to grade the calibre of reasoning you display.

The 'ladies' crack is amusing: every chick I know could take you (including my 15 month old niece or my 85 year old grandmother, and I'm talking physically - I'd spare you the display of my neice outpointing you intellectually, but it would make great youtube vids).

Finally, I set you one challenge and you could not respond. NAME one run-with player we have, given the abundance of them we supposedly have.

As for Frawley, I wonder if we have really returned to the most limp of states: we'll have to wait and see. But I guess that is what recruiting is all about, hey Jarka?

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

You're right, graz, in that Firrito started as a run with player. That was one of the reasons why he wasn't drafted until the rookie list after a year with Box Hill. His form was excellent all year and it was the Roos that took him. The thought was that he played much taller than he was (he's only about 6 foot 1 or 2) and so recruiters couldn't really see a role for him at AFL level.

It's also interesting to note that a lot of the full backs started out as forwards. I think that, at underage level, the best players are played up forward. Mal Michael was another who played a bit up forward. It's only after they reach an AFL list that they are given a chance at FB. Glass is one of the exceptions.

It also highlights that, as it is such a specialised role and one that involves a lot of physical attributes, you full backs require a lot more time because they need to acquire this physical maturity to be able to compete at full back. Frawley has been able to play quite well early in his career which is unusual and probably comes from his exceptional running ability which allows him to play small if required.

Also good to see that he had a good game on the weekend.

As for being short of talented KPP defenders on our list, I would say that we have very good talent in our defensive talls. Having seen Martin, I think that he has all the physical attributes to be a quality 'monster' defender. He may take a bit of time, but he's an exciting physical package. Along with Rivers and Frawley (and McNamara as a potential running tall) I think that we are well covered in this area.

[grazman 7,451]

You're right, graz, in that Firrito started as a run with player. That was one of the reasons why he wasn't drafted until the rookie list after a year with Box Hill. His form was excellent all year and it was the Roos that took him. The thought was that he played much taller than he was (he's only about 6 foot 1 or 2) and so recruiters couldn't really see a role for him at AFL level.

As for being short of talented KPP defenders on our list, I would say that we have very good talent in our defensive talls. Having seen Martin, I think that he has all the physical attributes to be a quality 'monster' defender. He may take a bit of time, but he's an exciting physical package. Along with Rivers and Frawley (and McNamara as a potential running tall) I think that we are well covered in this area.

I agree about Martin. If he were to play on the weekend, the first thing most people would comment on was how diabolical his kicking is and they'd miss the point altogether that he reads the ball in flight exceptionally well and as someone from a basketball background uses his body to good effect. I think he's a real plus for us this year. It'll be interesting to see if they choose either him or Jamar to replace PJ this week.

Leo Barry is another interesting candidate - again he has that magnificent Defenders ability to read the ball in flight and know where his opponent is at the same time. He's only six foot, but is an excellent defender. - I think sometimes people get a little hung up about who can or can't be a KPP player.

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

His kicking is bad, but he played on Jarryd Allen against Casey that I saw and he killed him. Just outread the ball, put his body in the right spots and was really composed in the air and with the ball in his hands. Gave the ball off to some excellent options deep in defence, but his kicking is pretty ordinary.

You're right that people would only see the poor kicking, which is a sad reflection on the observors. It's unusual to have a kid from such a background with natural defensive nous.

I'd be happy to play him, but more as a key defender than a pinch hitting ruckman. I don't think he will learn as much from playing AFL ruck when compared with VFL full back.

Re: Barry. One thing that is so important with Barry is that he's got such amazing core strength. Even at his height he is so strong, which shows out as well with his ability to break tackles.