Maybe if you want a contracted player you should have to buy out their current contract.
3 Likes
Exactly
Had 2-3 years to run for memory and GWS made him sit out a year before bending over in the end.
May have had something to do with the eventual compensation.
Man I’d totally forgotten about Sam Blease. I really thought he was going to be a good player.
So did Melbourne.
Different type of players, hurley adds just as much value to a team then any of those players.
Not really. Netting only a very good player and a player who’s not a lot better than good-average from the national draft doesn’t cut it.
Nowhere have I said Hurls was a bad selection.
I haven’t cherry picked anything - merely mentioning the relevant draft year.
Maybe you should quit while you are behind.
1 Like
still backpedaling?
Didn’t know I’d started
If you’ve still got two players going around from 10 years ago, that’s a pretty good result. Especially if one of them is a multiple All-Australian. We took 4 players in the ND and ended up with half of them being very good players. So what if a couple of late picks didn’t work out.
Drafting is about what you do with successive years anyway. Picking out one draft in isolation doesn’t prove much, especially one with two big hits. From the 2007-09 drafts we still have Myers, Hooker, Bellchambers, Colyer, Hurley and Zaharakis still on the list. Melksham, Carlisle and Crameri were all traded and are still playing AFL (effectively traded for Redman, Francis and Zerrett I might add). Ben Howlett gave us years of solid service with a rookie pick. Pears and D. Daniher also showed plenty of promise but they’re bodies never gave them the chance to fullfill it.
1 Like
No red hair.
Or Barney Fife or Aint Bee.
1 Like
Zaka cops a lot of criticism from fans on this site.
This morning I heard Hinkley saying that Polec is in the same league as Gaff as an outside runner.
No doubt he will go for $$$ at his new club . But more importantly, its an upsell by Hinkley, wanting to get the most currency for the trade.
So, thinking about Zaka as pretty much our equivalent, I did a comparison of Polec and Zaka on the AFL stats pro.
Turns out they are very similar in most respects, except Zaka polls better in goals , goal assists etc… They are rated as 95th and 96th best players in the AFL. Gaff is rated 114 th best player in the AFL.
So, I suppose it depends on why we are picking fault with Zaka. If its because we want him to be better, OK, if its because we dont think he measures up to other “more desirable” players in other sides, think twice IMO.
6 Likes
From what I see on here, it is because he is not an inside midfielder and they want him to be.
4 Likes
I have been a huge critic of Zaka in the past but since he’s added a more contested element to his game and consistency he has become critical to our fortunes.
5 Likes
People have the blind spot. He ain’t perfect and there are times he frustrates me too but he’s a ver solid contributor. A lot only see his faults, like a lot did with Stants. Think it was the first Hawks game, watched as right in front of me goddard held the ball a little long. Abmrose was on his left and didn’t Shepard a hawk. Zaka was on his right calling for the handball give which would have worked out. Goddard held on and got pinged by the bloke abmrose maybe could have stopped. Some bloke behind me went off on a minute long scream about how Zaka who was on the other side - should have shepherded… l just shook my head.
Even in the last game, Zaka was solid, I’d have said 3rd of 4th best. Not a mention here, while many raved about parish, who I’d agree was good. But consider: disposals
DZ 25, DP 22
Turnovers DZ 0, DP 2
Score involvements DZ 11, DP 6 (yes DP played more back)
Goal assists DZ 1, DP 0
Contested poss DZ 11, DP 7
Goals DZ 2, DP0
Not suggesting anything wrong with DP’s game just the relative response is interesting.
7 Likes
why are we comparing players who are at completely different stages in their careers, play different positions, and would be judged on different criteria?
Pretty simple, those comments that I was referring to were about the quality of that performance on that night. Not about trajectory/future.
“In my top 2” was not “on an assumed rate of improvement from that performance would be expected in some 7 years to be in my top 2, but only then, because you know if he’d been playing for more years than he has it wouldn’t actually have been much of a game.”
And
“That sets the standard, if he plays like that will be a gun” was not “that sets an expectation that I will project with an assumed rate of improvement may eventually see him become a gun, but he’d want to get better because if he’s just doing the same as that in future years I’ll be like “meh, trade for a third rounder””
Could go on but won’t bother.
That response is too confusing for me to digest.
You are comparing stats between two players to highlight the point that one got a harsh assessment of their game despite statistically being better, as opposed to someone who got a good assessment, despite being statistically poorer
I am saying there are factors with each player that make them pretty incomparable, which explains that anomaly.
Regardless of all that, defending a player by saying ‘yes but im my opinion x was poorer, look at these stats’, isnt particularly persuasive.