#10 St Francis de Agressi - up to 2021 round 2

There will be, always will be. Francis just need to try to be positive. He will get plenty of opportunity.

I get that the back 6 is pretty well set. But thereā€™s 4 spots on the bench that can be used to rotate players through. He should be in getting games and exp.

I know. But I keep hoping that the players with the natural talent will push players like Ambrose out of the side. Much like I hope Laverde or Begley will displace Baguley soon enough.

1 Like

There are 7 defenders playing. People saying he should just be playingā€¦you have to say who you would take out.

Hooker
Hurley
Ambrose
Ridley
Redman
Saad
McKenna

There simply isnā€™t a spot for Francis at the moment because there are other blokes playing better.

6 Likes

If Francis can get to anything near last years form Iā€™d absolutely have him playing in place of Ambrose. You lose a bit defensively in that move but youā€™ll eventually get a lot more in counter-attack.

I can understand why people want to start messing with the midfield.

Erm.

No.

No, I canā€™t.

No chance Ambrose is the best 1:1 defender we have and has a huge tank - Francis (like Langford) has no tank.

Iā€™d be bringing in Francis this week to play in place of Ridley on De Goey. Ridley might look good with ball in hand but he is poor in an physical contest, especially aerially. Even Elliot, as short as he is, would take him to the cleaners. Francis is superb overhead and a great burst player - similar to De Goey, but taller.

That would have our back half match ups looking like this, noting that McKenna is now playing more off a wing than HB:

Francis - De Goey
Hooker - Cox
Ambrose - Mihocek (who has a huge engine)
Hurley - Elliot (should physically obliterate him)
Saad - Stephenson ( a risk, struggled on him last year early and McKenna had to be thrown on him).

1 Like

Adelaide donā€™t own their pick next yearā€¦ they swapped it with Carlton.

Unless i missed another trade they only own the Carlton pick in the 1st round

1 Like

Adelaide have Carltonā€™s second round pick as well. Thatā€™s close enough to round 1

2 Likes

Baker I love your work but you love nothing more than to have a crack at Langford at any chance even if the subject has no relevance.

Langford regularly finishes in the top handful in the preseason trials and has completed most of his preseasons since joining the club.

I highly doubt a tank is his problem.

1 Like

Killer, unfortunately a tank is Langfordā€™s problem, like it is Francisā€™ problem.

Itā€™s a key reason behind what holds them back from being the player they could be based on the talent they have.

Langford is not going to be the ā€œbig-bodied midā€ he and the club hope him to be because of his tank and the lack of intensity in his game.

I think his natural role is a mobile, tallish forward who roams only the F50 and not up and down the ground. Against GWS, he played more as a forward and did some good things and was far from our worst on a bleak afternoon. In that role he played about 87% game time. In round 2, he played more of a general mid and had a poor game. Played in his natural position I think he could be a good player, but he is being hugely over-rated on this site as a big-bodied inside mid, who, by definition works really hard and wins a lot of contested ball. That requires a tank and intensity and he naturally lacks either as has been shown repeatedly.

2 Likes

The club have never suggested ever that he has a problem with his tank. Understandably so considering he regularly finishes so high up in the trials.

And if the club are so forlorn about his midfield prospects why is it that they talk him up as being a star at every opportunity, including this past preseason?

Are they deliberately trying to ruin his confidence.

Itā€™s all upstairs with this kid but he has talent.

2 Likes

Winning 2 km time trials - or doing well in them - isnā€™t relevant to a game of AFL where players with a huge tank run 14 km plus. Mitch Brown can do this which is why he is in the team. Ambrose could do this. Thatā€™s a key reason why he is in the team (plus his superb physical presence and ability to totally blanket a forward using both attributes). I heard that young Ham came in and ran about 14 km in his very first game. It wouldnā€™t surprise me because, even on TV, he looked like he was doing a lot of running (and his attack off HF at a centre bounce if the North mids looked like clearing in Q3 was super).

Running 14 km in a game is something that Francis and Langford can only dream about. Francis at least has natural contested ball winning ability and intensity when near the ball.

I think it was a mistake the club giving Langford Jobeā€™s #4 jumper - perhaps it was a way of building confidence in himself by showing some trust in him. He re-paid that trust by absolutely insipid, low intensity midfield games in both JLT games when he was given ample midfield time to prove himself. He still got picked for the first two games, despite that - I call that showing confidence. But, as the losses mounted, the clubā€™s patience wore thin.

3 Likes

Of all of the areas where Langford needs to improve, his tank would be pretty low on the list tbh. Iā€™d be surprised if we had more than 6 players who regularly run more than 14km per game. What is holding him back from being a first choice mid is his relatively poor inside game and general lack of intensity. Although, Iā€™d say, considering he was seemingly rested this past weekend he was next cab of the rank; so he probably isnā€™t as far down the pecking order as Blitz is making out.

3 Likes

yeah langford is regularly in our top few runners at the club,
His tank isnt the issue.

Langford is one of those unique players whose value seems to be diminishing the longer we donā€™t see him.

Most players are thought to have magically improved when we donā€™t see them.

Poor Kyle.

6 Likes

It sounds very much like you have no evidence to back this up about Langfordā€™s tank.
Youā€™re just guessing.

Itā€™s a pity we canā€™t access stats on how far each player has run in a match

Nothing to do with Langfordā€™s tank. Itā€™s that you could make a cup of tea in the time it takes him to make a decision. Maybe heā€™s too scared to make a mistake.

Francis has the opposite problem. Great decision maker, bad tank.

Francis is no doubt a great footballer but he had an average start to the year and the guys that came in and replaced him have just been better. If Franga takes his next opportunity by the balls then he could stay in for the rest of the season. You donā€™t shuffle around other parts of the ground to fit him in.

2 Likes

You can access how far a player has run - at least the top 5 players - through the AFL tracker on the AFL App.

Letā€™s look at the first two games Langford did play:
Round 1: Langford does not figure in any of the Top 5 statā€™s shown:
Total Distance Top 5: Whitfield with 16 km is #1. We only have two players in the top 5: Brown with 13.8 km and Heppell with 13.7 km.
Total Sprints: not one Essendon player in the Top 5. Again Whitfield #1 with 24. (GWS killed us overall 243-196).
Work Rate (average speed in attack). Top 5 are all Essendon players but it does not include Langford. #1 is McGrath with 10.0 km/h and #5 is Shiel with 9.0 km/h.

Now, letā€™s go to Round 2:
Total Distance Top 5: Josh Battle #1 with 15.0 km. Again, we only have two players in the Top 5 and they are the same two: Heppell with 14.9 km and Brown with 14.4 km.
Total Sprints: there is a problem with the data as it shows Battle with 27 but then the Top 5 numbers, including Battleā€™s are actually the Total Distance numbers. total numbers though has Saints winning easily 279-246.
Work Rate: Sinclair from the Saints is #1 with 9.6 km/h. We only have two in the Top 5: Fantasia with 9.3 km/h and Heppell with 9.1 km/h.

From the two days games played this year, Langford hasnā€™t been Top 5 in any of the key GPS numbers that indicate endurance.

Unfortunately, the app doesnā€™t seem to allow to look at 2018 (this data is only available since 2017 btw).

Iā€™m betting that, if I could get hold of last yearā€™s equivalent data heā€™s probably not making the Top 5 much, if at all, on these key measures of endurance. Would love to settle this with that data. 2 km time trials are one thing but being able to run 14 km + a game is what really matters.

The issue with this is that all the guys who run lots of kms during a game do well in time trials. Ambrose took Stantonā€™s title as the time trial king. The whole reason they do a 2km time trial is that itā€™s a good indicator of their aerobic running capacity

And players jumper numbers are of little to no relevance to someoneā€™s ability and performance

EDIT: and not being top 5 out of 44 players does not indicate a lack of running capacity

1 Like