Note that Langford doing well in the time trial needs to be read carefully against the track.
The bulk of the players - excluding Langford and a few others - did the two lap challenge late last year. It was easily won by Mutch followed by Dylan Clarke and Hurley. Ambrose and Jok - both elite runners - were rested from it, along with a few others. The EFC article literally stated those two didn’t have anything to prove.
Langford “led all comers” on the remaining group that didn’t compete in the challenge but did another run over grass on the main oval. Hardly elite running against the elite runners of the club.
Originally you were arguing that Langford’s lack of a tank is holding him back, in the same way that Francis’ has. Now you’re only arguing that he isn’t an elite runner, which is a very different thing. Good to see that you’ve conceded your original argument
I’m not - for me elite running is about endurance/distance when it comes to playing AFL. Other attributes are repeat sprint efforts.
As I have always said, Langford doesn’t have much of a tank to be an elite midfielder - mind you, it is more than Francis. His low intensity approach also doesn’t allow him to win much ball on the inside and release to let others spread (midfielders get away with playing this way less and less now; everyone has to be able to spread from a stoppage).
If you don’t have a big tank, high intensity, possess an ability to apply huge pressure to the opposition when they have the ball (e.g. Devon Smith), aren’t a contested ball beast, or at least the ability to burst short distances quickly, then you are not going to make it as a midfielder in the AFL today.
Langford, on what he has shown, doesn’t really possess much of these attributes unfortunately. That’s why I think turning him into a “big bodied mid” hasn’t worked and probably won’t. If he has a role at AFL level, it’s as a mobile 3rd tall, like a Jack Gunston. Problem at Essendon is that Mitch Brown has that mantle currently and he has huge tank as evidenced by his ability to run about 14 km a game which is elite.
The ability to get to 14 km is critical today. It’s why Ham did so amazingly well in his first game. He ran 14.2 km for the game. you can get to a lot of contests in a game when you can do that.
Not sure why there’s a big Langford discussion on the Francis thread, but anyway…
I don’t think endurance is Langford’s problem at all and seems a weird criticism. Intensity at the contest sure, occasional slow decision making (seemed to get better at that with games last year) fair enough. Low possession numbers even I’d say is fair enough.
How far you run in a game can be a fitness thing, but if can also quite easily (and far more often) just be a factor of your role. I suspect Langford plays more up the ground than most of the teamplays take advantage of his good delivery into the forward 50. He also gets surprisingly low game time, consistently one of the lowest %.
I don’t expect the big bodied inside ones to necessarily run 14 km but I expect them to win a stack of the ball, especially contested possessions.
So I went and looked at Patrick Cripps’ numbers from last weekend in the Blues win against the Bulldogs: 37 possessions with 16 contested. 11 clearances. 2 tackles (when you win that much ball you’re not going to be doing much tackling). 89% time on the ground.
Now, let’s looked Langford’s last game against the Saints:
15 possessions with 3 contested. 1 clearance, 3 tackles. Only 72% time on ground.
Now, Carlton supporters will tell you Cripps is the best player in the AFL - he’s not, but he would be in the Top 10 players in the comp (needs to deliver more by foot and spread better from a stoppage).
It’s fair to say, Cripps is an elite big-bodied mid as he racks up these sorts of numbers regularly.
It’s also fair to say that Langford is a long, long way short of Cripps as a big bodied midfielder.
That’s not quite the point you were making though, and neither is it quite fair weighed up against possibly the most productive mid of his type in the league.
Your point, if I’m not mistaken, was ‘tank’. Let’s put the magical number of ‘14km’ away, as that’s more hyperbole than a benchmark. Every team has one or two of these 190cm+ mids. Have you looked to see how/if they ranked in the top 5, based on the same stats you were using and as you argued for Langford? That would be interesting.
Cripps is probably the one good mid who langford could outrun. They’re both average runners, just cripps is very very good at stoppages, and Langford isn’t.
(I don’t think you’re really proving much of a point about Langford’s running either way - the other half of your point re intensity and consistency at finding the ball is basically where he falls down IMO)
Fair points you make, but I use the fact you need to have a big tank to be a big-bodied mid so you can get from contest to contest to compete and win the ball.
Such mid’s (e.g. Cripps, Kennedy) are not “great” runners in the vain of, say, a Lachie Whitfield. But they have a big enough tank to get from contest to contest to compete well from stoppage to stoppage repeatedly.
Unfortunately, the only stat I can get my hands on could quantify such endurance is total distance covered. It’s a measure but definitely not the only measure and perhaps not the best one.
Fact is, as you’ve pointed out Cripps is very good at stoppages and Langford isn’t. This is probably the #1 attribute of a big bodied mid. This comes, not only, from the ability to have the endurance to compete at a stoppage and get to the next one but to then bring the required intensity to find the ball. Langford is lacking in both endurance and intensity which is why I think his possession (& contested) numbers are so low and why he is so inconsistent in that role: he seems basically spent after one or two (or three) stoppages in succession whereas a Cripps or a Kennedy are good for repeat stoppages.
Langford’s general running is probably ok for a player his size in a less contested ball role e.g. 3rd tall who plays basically in the forward 1/3 of the ground. But his physical attributes don’t seem to align with those of the more elite big bodied mids as his possession & contested ball numbers don’t align with theirs.
Francis is wondering if ‘Langford discussions’ are now an infectious disease?
There seem to be eruptions of these all over Blitz.
I’ll try an antibiotic
Are Frangas main problems between the ears?
I’m not talking about his mental health-
what I’m beginning to see is a struggle between free- wheeling, instinctive Francis, when he looks a million dollars, and a Francis who, in the Firsts, seems overly focused on only a couple of things - interceptions/ spoils & kicking. This is at the cost of his ability to take the ball & run, to crash & bullock ground ball packs, to run forward and create space as a damaging receiver. All of which he’s capable of, but not attempting.
Noting Woosha & his reported advice recently to Walla - back your instincts more.
Is this balance between team rules & playing your own game what Francis has to resolve?
Leading half forwards do as much running & sprinting as anyone. It’s uuuhhhh… kinda what they do. If you’re saying he’s got the tank for that, you can’t then go on and say he’s not got the tank for midfield.
You’re tying yourself in knots.
A traditional leading HF played in the forward 1/3 of the ground. If Langford could have that role still, it would work. You normally have one tall forward that plays that role.
What won’t work for Langford is the modern CFH/HF role as a hit up target past the midfield for teammates exiting D50…and then running back in F50 to be a target and doing it again and again. Think Walsh from the Crows (at his best) and now Mitch Brown. Mitch Brown isn’t doing 14 km a game by going no more than 60m -70m from goal; he is often pushing up to the defensive side of wing to give his teammates an option and then pushing back forward to be an option. That’s why he clocks around 14 km game after game. It’s why he can still kick 3 goals a game whilst doing so. He is a poor contested mark; but hey, you can’t be good at everything.
Francis’s main issue at senior level is people extrapolating from a small sample size. Does anyone think that once he’s played four times more AFL games than he has now (to be on par with Langford) there will be any question over whether he can hold a best 22 spot?
How the game evolves and whether his lack of endurance is a factor.
Hurley or Ambrose go down right now, he is suddenly a permanent fixture without much competition for the role
Given his mental health demons, I suspect Francis is better knowing he is safe and secure in the side rather than to have to be challenged to justify getting a game week after week. Other players need to be challenged regularly as they grow complacent if they think the role is theirs.
