Axis of Bob

I think that the posters like Pennant St Dee and ChaserJ seem (to me) to offer some great judgements and insights here, although aren't necessary prolific posters. I'll always stop to read when I see that they've posted something. I'm sure there are others (apologies to them) that I know when I see them but I can't think of them at this moment. I think if you cast your eye around and read over time you'll start getting a decent idea about who knows what they're talking about and who is just an enthusiastic video watcher like me.

Thanks, I appreciate it. There are a couple of people here who genuinely know what they’re talking about and I try to listen to them whenever they post. For the rest of us I think it’s important that we know we’re just having interesting conversations and that none of us should take ourselves too seriously because we don’t know half as much as we hope we do. 😁

I'm not really a fan of Schubert. I see him as being a big guy who is good at the small guy stuff (for a big guy) but not very good at the big guy stuff. At AFL level the big men don't have the same opportunity to play like little guys as they do in juniors. The game at AFL level is so fast that those relative mobility advantages they have are actually mostly useless. The skills that he needs, and should be mostly judged on, are his ability to play as a dominant tall player (marking, crashing packs, playing with power etc). Thilthorpe is the player that most people compare him with but Thilthorpe isn't succeeding because of his small man skills, he's succeeding because of his dominbant big man skills (with his mobility as a nice add on). As a junior Thilthorpe showed that he could command a pack as a long target, with his ground play complementing that. Schubert relies on his mobility more than his attack on the football and ability to command a marking contest and he won't have time for that at AFL level. AFL key forwards need to be able to beat their opponent in a contest and I'm not sure that's Schubert's strength. That's a big red flag for me because there are better players than him that have played like that and failed at AFL level. But, as always, I'm just a nobody who has watched some videos, so what would I know?

Bowey is much quicker and more agile, able to twist and turn out of danger and deliver quickly. I can’t think of a good recent AFL comparison for Lindsay, which in itself is an issue. Maybe Kane Farrell? Trent McKenzie? Lindsay appears to be an outside defender with ordinary athleticism and an outstanding boot. It’s not a combination that you see often at AFL level, with a lot of the defensive distributors in the AFL being quick or being midfielders/forwards that get moved into defensive positions to maximise their strengths. But maybe there’s something this keyboard warrior is missing, as I’m no expert and am just going of the same videos everyone else watches.

Like Salem does now, as a banged up older player who's lost his speed and is hanging on with his smarts and kicking. Lindsay is like that as an 18 year old but without Salem's toughness or ability to win contested footy. For comparison, these are Salem's 2013 draft highlights. They're different players at the same age. https://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/176359/draft-pick-9-christian-salem-highlights?videoId=176359&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1385020800001

I can see a world where we would want him since Langford is less of a midfield extractor and more of a contest winning forward runner. It's like having Bontempelli and Liberatore in the same midfield, with one of them being the in and under and the other being more of a big roaming playmaker. Sharp also looks like he could play a good defensive inside midfielder (like Steele or Viney) which is still valuable in any midfield (like Dunkley or Atkins). I don't think you'd want many more of that type but I can see why you'd take him if you believed in his ability. The other side of it is that it relatively easy to pick up those types. Langford is the hard on to get but there are often hard, inside bulls available both in the draft and from other clubs. You can find a player being squeezed out of another midfield and offer them a role in your midfield (like Steele) because a midfield can only take so many of that type. It the same as with ruckmen, so you can just pick off the frustrated ones with the lure of opportunity.

I agree with this. He looks fantastic. A lot of Xavier Lindsay about him in that he’s quick, clean and tough. Didn’t play champs, not super prolific and a type that gets lost in the mix a bit, but looks to have some real AFL traits to him.

My view on Sharp is that he is a great size for the role as a hard ball winning inside midfielder. He should do that role well at AFL level from the bits I've seen (as some Joe Nobody on the internet). Sort of like a bigger, more inside version of Ryley Sanders. The question is whether that's the type of player that we are wanting to pick up, given the changes that we appear to have been making. If we are then pick him. If not then it's probably a really good opportunity to trade the pick away knowing that he will probably attract several interested parties that wouldn't be knocking on the door for that pick otherwise. But we don't really have enough information to know if he's the sort of player that would interest us at the moment or not.

Thanks. I certainly don't want to compare the two players directly, as I only looked at Toumpas as an example to demonstrate a point. Lindsay and Toumpas are very different players and played different roles as juniors, with strengths and weaknesses that are different. When drafted, Toumpas was expected to be both quicker and better at winning contested footy than he turned out to be, which was what did him in. Toumpas was a good kick but certainly not as good as Lindsay. Toumpas was a very efficient kick whilst Lindsay is much more creative and can work at angles Toumpas simply couldn't. It means that you can make some allowances in a player's role and accept some of the negatives to his game to be able to get a boot of that quality into the team, provided that you feed him the ball enough for it to be effective. I'm personally not sure that I would want to do that with such an early pick but I can certainly understand those that do. I think his role projection seems to be pretty limited though, so you'd be drafting a designated half back kicker and hoping that your system can accommodate it.

Dare I say, and this is certainly not a direct comparison nor even any acknowledgement of similarity with Josh Lindsay, the Toumpas trap. Toumpas was a great kick, clever, high character, classy and had a whole lot of very good AFL traits. The problem is that they were stuck behind ordinary athleticism from a low-contest player. That meant that we barely got to see his clever ball use because we didn’t get much of it and was smashed as soon as he did. If I were to pick up that type of player I’d prefer to do it later in the draft where I’m hoping to get role players rather than core pieces of the team. As for Lindsay, I’d like to see more before having a strong opinion about him.

Drafting Josh Lindsay would make me nervous. Obviously good kick off the ball and his teams look to have him use the ball off half back wherever possible. But we’re not drafting him to play juniors or VFL, we’re drafting him to play AFL. He looks very similar in style to Salem but more of a recent Salem without his previous zip or the toughness Salem possesses. One of the best correlations between drafting and success at AFL level (IMHO as someone who is not a professional!) is your ability to win contests and to play at high speed. These are like hurdle requirements to be an AFL footballer, otherwise you become a liability at the top level. If you can do these things then you give your other traits a chance to shine, like kicking etc. I worry about Lindsay’s ability to pass these hurdle requirements. As we get towards the draft and I watch more of the players this may change, but these are my early impressions.

Whilst he probably moves more like a Watson or Papley, I feel like his role probably ends up more like Gryan Miers as a half forward connector. He’s a nice kick and can work some odd angles, plus he seems to have a bit of flair for talking risks with the ball to create scores. We’ve struggled to find players that operate in that soft spot forward of the midfielders and in front of the big forwards. He works that space pretty naturally and it’ll be super important if we play the way King is hoping we will.

This can be true whilst CDT’s type being a contributing factor to West Coast being the most likely trading partner if we want Robey is also true.

Woodend isn't exactly Dimboola though. The point is that, no matter what position he plays, he still requires much more time to develop. The issue with this is twofold for a struggling WA club: 1) This time being in a development phase makes it more difficult to integrate with the club and increases the possibility of homesickness. If you're across the country by yourself playing WAFL in front of a small crowd then the other thoughts are more likely to creep in than when you're in a packed stadium living your dream, or getting limited time in the seniors. It also makes the siren's call of competitors much more alluring when they can offer a better role than he's played (because he'll be a better player by then!) and also closer to home. 2) The value for WC's investment won't be realised until much later, which means that the return they'd get on their investment (both draft and development) will likely be much lower than it would be for, say, Duursma or Reid. That wouldn't mean that picking him would be the wrong thing to do, but it would make it riskier and possibly make West Coast more willing to do a trade if given an attractive enough deal. The other possibility would be if they can draft WA talent, like they showed they were willing to do in the first round with Harley Reid being the only non-WA first rounder they've taken since Chesser in 2021 (Nixon, Reid, Ginbey, Hewett). In fact the only Vic Metro player on their list that they've taken earlier than the mid-30s was Liam Duggan back in 2014.

I think a deal for 2 is the most likely for all the teams with dual to 10 picks. I just don’t see West Coast being super interested in a Melbourne raised pseudo-ruck/utility (Duff-Tytler), given the time needed to develop him in combination with the Vic Metro go-home factor they have tried to avoid. Playing WAFL in Perth for long periods or getting limited roles in AFL makes him ripe for Victorian overtures promising him expanded roles and money just after WC do the developmental work. I think Richmond would only be interested in a big overpay from someone and Essendon would rather trade up. So WC pick 2 would be the target, if that’s something we desperately want to do. Otherwise 7 and 8 are valuable in themselves.

I’d be surprised if White got through to the rookie draft, based on the small amount I’ve seen. He showed enough in a third of that VFL game alone to be worth a pick, particularly in a shallow draft. He’s 200cm with proper athleticism and coordination. There are plenty of paths to success for young players with those attributes.

Must be a confusing time for you after spending the week calling for his head based on your feelings about rumours, only to find that everyone is actually quite happy with his work once the facts presented themselves after the deals got done.

As far as ‘good riddance’ statements by a club go, that’s a pretty strong one.

That is already the case. Both parties can choose to terminate a contract by mutual agreement. But why would Oliver do that when he has a giant contract that needs to be honoured? Because he feels guilty about being paid millions of dollars? Even in a world where contract law didn't exist and moving clubs voided the contract, it would just mean that Oliver would never agree to be traded. His options are "$1.5m a year to play 5 years at Melbourne or $500,000 a year to play 2 years at GWS?" He'd just stay at Melbourne, do the bare minimum and be paid a truckload play VFL.

Yes, it did because of the tone of voice that was going on in my head when I was writing it! But, in all seriousness, it was a conscious stylistic choice because I thought the gendering made my point more humourous by tying it to a stereotypically misguided concept of masculinity, rather than to the typically human concept of confirmation bias. I imagine that explaining it like this will make that little joke even funnier ...... 😐

There will be several who will maintain that this is a bad deal because changing your opinion based on new information makes you feel like less of a man! 😁

The Brisbane midfield has Dunkley, Geelong has Atkins, etc. Quality defensive midfielders like Steele are important in teams no matter what style they play.

Because we're not going to win or lose a flag due to the play of Jack Steele, just as we didn't win a flag due to the play of Daniel Cross. We did, however, win a flag with the players on the team that played with Daniel Cross, just as we hope to do the same with the players that play with Jack Steele. Those players will be better for being in a team and club with Jack Steele.

👍

This fundamentally misunderstands how AFL trades work under the system that they operate in. It also is not what actually happened. @Slartibartfast , you were right about this guy. 👎