fr_ap
Members
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by fr_ap
-
It's not odd and it's not unique to AFL Loss making businesses are often valued far more highly than those consistently profitable - all on the basis of earnings potential not having yet been proven Same story in the AFL - what's unknown is often far more valuable than what's known Everyone wants to strike Gold...
-
-
Jacko would have said very little to us directly. The agents are the mouthpieces so as to deliberately obfuscate true intentions Honestly it's not as simple as looking the bloke in the eye - it's all very guarded
-
Weird hill to die on mate. Selwood the only 'current' player who was there for 2007. Selwood and Hawkins the only players who were there for 2009. In fact - whilst I said 2 flags, only 3 players were there for 2012 - Selwood, Hawkins, Duncan. So you could argue they've only won 1 with this current list. Prem windows last c.6-10 years usually off the back of a core cohort hitting 23/24 until they reach 30-34. They only grabbed one right at the end, aided by a couple of multi-flag heroes that have had long and storied careers, who they will not replace with ease. I'm not sure how else I can make my point?
-
Agreed on selection policies & standards - my culture thread makes my views on that very clear! Re. their 3 recruits being well prepared - it is true they're more advanced than JVR Taj Laurie AMW etc. What you're missing though is that short of injuries or back luck, we aren't yet reliant on those guys coming into the team. Most could all have another 3-4 years before they're absolutely required to step in, because our core cohort is in the right age bracket. Geelong can insert Bruhn, Henry and Bowes to replace Selwood, Hawkins and Tuohy across 23 and 24 - that's fine, each of the 3 recruits look like good players. But there's nothing to suggest they are close to the calibre of those they are replacing - which is what Geelong need to stay on top. This is my point. They've got some good players in the right age brackets, but in all respects, they are role players (perhaps other than De Koning). It remains to be seen whether they can transition from role players to game winners without the current Senior crop dragging them over the line. That's not true for us - our young and mid-20s players are winning us games and have done now for 2 seasons (Gawn and May the exception as I noted). They've had a sustained successful period with this list, but only 2 flags a long time apart. I wouldn't call that a dynasty given the players they've had at their disposal. The Tigers achieved more with less. Agreed not going to debar them from winning again in 23 - but as I said I know who I'd rather support.
-
Wouldn't stress about it DD. Think of it this way - when Oppo teams are coming up against the Dees - the fans are filled with dread at the thought of Petracca, Oliver, Pickett, Fritsch, Langdon Gawn and May. Gawn & May are at/nearing 30 & we will need to find good replacements (Grundy a good start for a few years), but Trac, Oliver, Pickett, Fritsch & Langdon have years ahead of them, hopefully at the Dees. We are filled with dread when we play Geelong too - but its in reference to Hawkins (34), Selwood (Retired), Dangerfield (32), Smith (33), Cameron (29). Stengle is good, but benefited from the fresh voice, new energy & sympathetic coaching of Eddie. Like us with Mark Williams, this will fade & I have doubts on him going on to become a multi-time AA. Pickett has already proven his consistency and quality on and off-field (presuming we can keep him!). If he was picking up the crumbs of Hawkins and Cameron, he too would be AA and then some. Cameron is 29 and is the weapon we don't have. He'll keep them competitive for years, but will be less effective once Hawkins moves on. De Koning is very good - but unproven over the medium/long term - and the guys they're bringing in are all talented but also unproven. They'll have ups & downs before they get to 25-27 not to mention significantly change the mindset/chemistry of the current team presuming they all make the 22. Probably more than any other team in the competition, we have a proven cohort of 24-27 year olds that are top-line and should keep us in the hunt for the next 3-6 years. They've been through their ups and downs already. We're the envy of the comp in this regard. Even on the next tier down - Geelong have very good players yes - Guthrie (30), Stewart (29) - arguably equivalent to Brayshaw (27), Salem (27) when on form. Jack Henry is very good and young (24) - but Petty is arguably his equal (22). Tuohy & Hibberd are analogous too. Swings and roundabouts across the rest of the field - they've got good role players in some spots, we have good role players in others. Most of this Geelong group played their entire careers together and have only saluted at the end after a dream season where everything went right. They had to change their coaching, gameplan and get quite a few fresh voices to get across the last 15% they lacked in previous years. They're always a strong team, and the home ground advantage ensures that, but they're hardly on the cusp of a dynasty. I'm not saying this year was their dead cat bounce, but I think of it a little along those lines. In many respects it was their last chance. Let them enjoy it as its unlikely to last. Our guys went through the [censored] together and came out the other side whilst they're still in their prime. That counts for so much more. Ditto for our supporters - Geelong fans think they've enjoyed this flag. Truthfully they've got no idea what it feels like to see the entire journey start to finish. I've been vocal on our shortcomings this year and I may be wrong - there are no guarantees in either direction - but I know which team I'd rather support from this point on.
-
-
I have a high degree of faith that Bedford will be a better player than Bobby Hill. He kicked 9 goals this year despite really only playing 6 games. ANB & Spargo kicked the same number despite playing 22. He's of very high output in what is arguably the most difficult position on the ground. He's of very high character & work ethic and that's evident in his development so far, as he was extremely raw on arrival as a NGA prospect. It would also be very clear to GWS having interviewed him. Very coachable, dedicated to improvement, and if I think back as far as the "hell & back' videos, he was in there doing extras to try and set an example for a very raw Kozzie despite probably knowing Kozzie was going to take his spot in the AFL side. Billy Stretch also had all of these attributes, but had limited points of difference on the field. Nonetheless he had an OK career and on another day could have continued playing AFL in a good team. Bedford has points of difference with his pure speed and goalsense. Bobby Hill by contrast was highly touted, has shown flashes and undoubtedly has more natural talent, but I'm not convinced he is of particularly high character or work ethic. He has pushed through some personal difficulties which is admirable. Assuming a player has some points of difference, hard work beats talent every time. I think this is where the FD is coming from and why they're upset to lose him. Lamb's body language noticeably fell in the Monday press conference when Bedford was brought up. Having said all that it's unlikely we get something in the 30s for him. It's an ordinary outcome as we're selling at the exact wrong time - on the precipice of breaking into the team and really upping his worth. I suspect if this was an end of 23 conversation, he'd be up for a 2nd/3rd rounder at least.
-
-
As the other poster pointed out, Goody, Lamb, Gawn and many others made all the same comments about Jackson. Everyone does, until the truth comes out. We've all been through this enough times before (Jessie, Jacko) to know that whilst it may be a misconstrued, embellished version of the truth, it will not be 100% fabricated. It never is.
-
Fair enough - and yes last sentence was a joke / self deprecating hypocrisy given comments about Knightmare forming judgements from afar...
-
Out of curiosity, who are the depth/youth at Casey gunning for his spot? Ive been vocal about how we didn't rotate the squad and blood new players, but young midfield depth is not really something we have. You could make an argument for Laurie, but he's not nearly as versatile or strong as Harmes on the ground or in the air...Bedford was one but is now gone. Who's the one to take his spot? Jordon could but not very dynamic and that creates a need for another winger - Howes hasn't shown much...
-
Agree 100% couldn't have put it any better. I know which one I'd be chasing if I had that cash and draft picks and it wouldn't be Jackson. Taranto and Hopper are seriously good and make the Tigers a real weapon again. They lacked grunt inside but have smarts in spades across the ground....deadly combo once you add the grunt
-
I know you think you're being clever here but you're hurting your own point. Knightmare has a very ordinary record for someone who dedicates the time he does. Silly duffer is a very good description (I'm aware you're being sarcastic). I've covered this before but he heavily qualifies most of what he says and is generally overly verbose (to cover himself - throw enough darts you might hit a target)...His 'strengths summary' of a player is a big box paragraph of adjectives he's ether pulled from a Thesauraus or sentences positioned as words... "Kicking, handballing, body control in the air when pushed from the side, protecting drop zone when he is stationed on the ground". He's very dedicated but for an aspiring recruiter genuinely seems to have very little feel for the game or what game-day behaviours form the best senior players. He also has zero insight into the mental / personality aspects of drafting which are just as (if not more) important than player A's skills at the 2:05 minute mark of Video X. Having said all that, Tsatas looks poor. Pass.
-
-
Excellent! (Well not for him) Crisis averted back to Monday
-
Kossie hanging on insta with Trent Burgoyne 😑
-
This kid is the one I want us to draft
-
That was before the flag - we're talking now about what to add to sustain our run at the top. Agree, we can only deal with what's available - my point was we probably need to do something to the forward half directly - trade, draft or FA - and it's wrong to say Richmond had no trades to win in 2019 because Lynch was a FA.
-
You do realise Richmond solved their biggest deficiency with almost the best KPF in the game by adding Tom Lynch after missing their first back to back? And that he was crucial in getting them over the line in the PF that year, and in several finals series since? That's the position we are in now and at the moment it doesn't look like we will be resolving our (same) weakness in the same way I don't mind Grundy, but we're kidding ourselves if we think the same forward line is going to take us all the way next year. JVR better be bloody special to come in and be a KPF in a prem team in year 1. While I'm at it - Richmond added Short, Baker and Pickett to their GF team in 2019. They used 2018 and 2019 to introduce new players to the team who went on to become crucial cogs. Short of Bedford coming in and out and rotating veterans like Melk and Hunt, we don't look close to doing the same and picked the premiership 22 even when their form or fitness did not justify it Also, Richmond were clearly the best team in 2018 but blew up a PF. We were not in 2022 and went out in straight sets. I think the situations are quite different and for you to make an example of what they did is less relevant than you think
-
Entire saga is quite disturbing and deeply concerning. Unfortunately (as in, I wish my mind did not jump to a judgement), my immediate reaction is that there probably a reasonable degree of truth in the accusations. Without getting into any incriminating specifics, having had some dealings with the AFL I was often left very unimpressed and at times puzzled by their decision making, governance (or lack thereof), strongarm tactics and incompetence. So when these types of stories come out, I am more inclined to believe them. That said, I also think it is likely that the accusers and accusees have different interpretations of what occurred. I'd like to think whatever guidance the coaches and development managers provided to these players was at least intended to be in their best interest and either became a bit of an overreach, poorly communicated or misconstrued for its intent. Many of us would have often had to give some tough guidance to young mates when a girlfriend, location or other factor was clearly working against them and not in their best interest. I hope that is where this came from - notwithstanding it is inappropriate for an employer to be giving this guidance (or direction) directly rather than through an accredited, independent third party without a vested interest in the performance outcome. Clearly there are reasonable limits to this though which appear to have been walked past if these allegations are true.
-
Sheezel will go top 3. Every club after him.
-
Got to wonder what people are watching when they say he reminds them of Noah Balta, Jacob Weitering and Jack Riewoldt. Balta is all athlete, Weitering is very dour but a smooth mover and Jack is as mercurial as a big forward can be. JVR is nothing like any of them. He's hustle, bustle, reach and grab, push off and mark. 2nd and 3rd efforts on the deck. He's all heart. A bit of Hogan with more athleticism, a bit of mihocek with a bit more height and reach.
-
They're hard to win and B2B is rare because it's very easy to slip 5/10%. On field, culturally, both, you name it. That's it. I've only tried to articulate the slippage I see. You could argue we slipped on field instead, and that's fine. But that's not what you're doing - you're making excuses, trivialising and diminishing our failures by suggesting they were due to temporary problems, not our fault, and somehow defensible. It is 100% arrogant and disrespectful to our opposition, and your response is too. You highly doubt doing anything other than what we did could have been successful? (Because we are the exemplars and couldn't possibly be at fault? Do you honestly claim to have foreseen how every other scenario could have played out?) We've gambled successfully before so therefore we had the right to gamble again? (Never mind that May had extremely little influence on the GF - we won inspite of his injury/the gamble, not because of it. It does not afford us the right to play through injury again during a season proper with competitors breathing down our neck) You don't "endorse" the option of winning outside the 4? Finishing outside the 4 is an "alternative approach"? (As if our finishing position was entirely within our control? We picked and chose when to go and where to finish? Presuming if we benched our injured stars, our reserves would have been unable to deliver?) I literally cannot spell this out any more clearly for you. To be frank, if anyone from the club really believes that our season came down to a choice of either playing fit, 2nd choice players or missing top 4 (which is exactly the choice you're implying we made) then we're in deep deep trouble. You'll deflect, externalise and blame injuries, luck and exogenous factors. It's what arrogant people do. Humble people and humble clubs accept and acknowledge their shortcomings so they can address them and improve. It's one of the things that got us so far in 2021.
-
And maybe you'd be happier at Tullamarine. Keep buying what the club are selling. A) Not once did I say we have a culture problem. I said there are signs it slipped. B) Your response is exactly the slippage I'm talking about. You are literally proving my point. According to you, we lost the flag because: We were banged up Our reserves wouldn't have been any better than injured stars We 'gambled on winning a final' "We'll win more but not consecutively" So in summary - we assumed we could get most of the way on one leg, lost integrity at selection and banked on being entitled to an extra week off. Having lost, we then have the excuse that 'the way we play is taxing', and that we never should have expected to go back to back in the first place. If that isn't a description of an arrogant, entitled and disrespectful approach to an extremely competitive season, I don't know what is. "We could have accepted we'd have to win it outside the top 4"....Really? And you're arguing against my observations of complacency and disrespect for our opposition? Oh & by the way, Casey isn't Melbourne. They didn't win the flag last year. In fact, they've come close for years without succeeding, and the entire club has been enormously driven to deliver for quite a while. Almost all of the 'signs' I listed had roots in us winning the flag - none of these were present at the Casey level.
