#11 David Zaharakis - signed till end of 2021


#2704

Different type of players, hurley adds just as much value to a team then any of those players.


#2705

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.


#2706

Maybe you should quit while you are behind.


#2707

still backpedaling?


#2708

Didn’t know I’d started


#2709

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.


#2710

No red hair.

Or Barney Fife or Aint Bee.


#2711

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.


#2712

From what I see on here, it is because he is not an inside midfielder and they want him to be.


#2713

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.


#2714

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.


#2715

why are we comparing players who are at completely different stages in their careers, play different positions, and would be judged on different criteria?


#2716

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.


#2717

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.


#2718

How else would you suggest comparing players?

Not a single player on field has the same set of instructions.

Both are inside/outside midfielders that roll forward.


#2719

Well I didn’t say anyone was poorer. Was just pointing out the relative response against some objective measures.

My point above was really addressing the ‘different stages of career’ aspect. Based on this one game and the reaction to it.

In regard to different positions, sure that makes a difference - I often read how Zaka gets cheap outside possessions - but in this particular game he had 11 contested to go along with a pretty good finishing game. I also read what a poor user some reckon he is - in his comeback game someone said he needed to lower his eyes (in that game a few weeks back he had 14, yes 14, score involvements). In this game he had zero turnovers and lots of score involvements (not quite 14 but 11 is up there), so at least prima facie he had a pretty ok game, both inside and outside.

Nothing against Parish - he was good, very good, with some eye-catching intensity, and I reckon he’s looking much more like a possible star now than early in the year. I’m just pointing out how harshly Zaka seems to get marked regardless of output.

High possessions, high de, high cp, score goals, zero turnovers (not bad from 11 CP), game-high 11 score involvements = “meh”.

If half our players -whatever their age or position - play their role better than this, we probably win a flag.


#2720

Fair enough, I do get what youre saying but I loathe when people look to youngsters to paint a senior players game in a more positive light.

Further, I dont like the use of stats to point out things like turnovers etc. Multiple times Zaharakis was streaming forward and kicked pretty garbage balls going forward which absolutely kill momentum and fark up a real chance at scoring. I rate these pretty much just as bad as turnovers as you go from a situation in which you should be scoring, to a stoppage/ throw-in etc.


#2721

Zaka is not a out-out star, he is just a solid contributor/role player / COG in our midfield engine.

Footy in 2018 isnt about a few stars, its about the sum of the parts…Cotchin is more about playing his role in defenisve structures accross the field etc…

Zaka is fit, can play inside and outside and we have other better players ie- zerrett who clubs put the tag on so hes missing out on that.

I think most on here rate midieflders on the following catgeories
1 did he rack up 30 disposals
2 did he turn it over, what was disposal efficiency
3 did he kick any goals.

Not everyone can rack up 30 a game sometimes 25 possies with some inside 50’s and score involvements is a good game, plus doing team things, chasing, shepherding, running hard to create space, or drag opponents from dangerous space for forwards to lead into…


#2722

Zaka is the new Stants.

It will be this way until he retires, … we better learn to just deal with it I’m afraid.


#2723

Better player than Stanton for mine but still suffers from being a regular for essendon for 10 yrs or so and never playing in a successful team (same as stants). People therefore likely associate them with the ■■■■ years of EFC.

I also think these two are similar whipping boys because the errors 10 years into their career are the same as they were 6/8 years ago (ie. zaka sometimes soft, stants getting tackled from behind with a lack of awareness etc).