Between 50 and 100 games is where the magic happens (or doesn’t). All those little things start to add up to dramatically improved consistency.
He’s far more damaging that what he has been.
You also start to develop a more mature football body that can run for longer and cope with the physical stuff.
Hang on a sec…I’ve been told we’ve totally farked up his development.
Whoever told you that is an idiot. But you already knew that.
We lost games this year because we were wasting him in the 2s or stuck in the forward line when he’s been ready to go in the middle since last season.
I’m glad he’s finally being played where nature intended, and he’s performing as well as I expected since I saw him in the u18s, but the way he was used in the first part of this season was a clear blunder, one that was extremely obvious at the time, one that went on far too long, and one which might end up costing us a finals spot.
I love Darce… But also know this type of interview pre contract negotiation is right out of the player managers playbook.
I like to think its true regardless though
I have no idea if that time played forward was deliberate to improve his forward craft, or if it was because they didn’t rate him ahead of others to play onball. If the former, then it would be a positive to his game (and the side) if he can pinch hit a goal or two for us - while playing as an onballer. It’s what Merrett wanted to add to his game.
Saying 50 to 100 games is 2 maybe 3 or even 4 footy seasons though. I like to think the science of footy can give you a better answer these days than pumping in up to 100 games then cutting your losses.
A lot of talent out there that could also be trialed.
Game - not games.
He was left out for GWS, and has played midfield since he came back, rd 2. Feel free to go through the heat maps on the AFL app, I just have.
I like him, but I’m not sure he’d make up the 10 odd goals…
I reckon that JLT game against FC where Cripps ran riot on Parish & Langford caused their early season demotion. I reckon that they were given more responsibilty to show their wares without a Zac Merrett or Dylan Shiels playing much in the guts to see how they go & they both blew it.
Now in hindsight we can see that the whole team was 2 rounds behind a lot of other teams in terms of fitness & form & can see that our fitness & conditioning staff were the ones to blame (& can assume Paul Turk paid the price) & not these 2 blokes in particular.
But at the time, I thought they both performed poorly when given the extra responsibility.
our only player who could actually land a handball last night.
His kicks were rushed though, same as almost everyone else.
another pretty decent game though from Darcy.
Zero tackles and 13 pressure acts.
Another that contributed to little midfield pressure.
Might be nice if you said the same thing as you did in the Langford thread.
Yep i thought Parish had a shocker. He’s been playing well though so i’d back him in.
I said he was poor like the rest of his mates.
I did and you made excuses for him and said people shouldn’t single out a few players. Which you then proceeded to do to a player you don’t like.
I didn’t want it escalating into the Parish for captain talk again.