The end is closer than we’d probably like to think for a few blokes so we need to know if Langford is going to be one of the ones to step up and go on with it hence he must be fast tracked to 50 games.
The positives are ,he is a decent mark and kick for goal and he has the size to slot into a couple of different roles which could give us some flexibility.
As expected though there’s still lots to work, particularly if we think he is going to be a key part of a top 4 midfield going forward.
I still think he can become a very good half forward but I’ve never seen anything that indicates midfielder. His best assets are his marking & usually his kicking for goal. I haven’t seen him be able to accumulate big numbers, win a lot of contested ground ball, have the agility to move through packs or break away with pace. His disposal in close by hand doesn’t indicate elite talent either & these days you have to have that quick movement through packs. Other than being the same height & weight I see no reason why anyone could compare him with Fyfe who even at the same age was racking up good midfield numbers regularly. I fear that trying to make him into a midfielder could end up making him nothing.
I think the problem is he trains almost exclusively as a midfielder, but with the quality of our midfield right now he gets very little midfield time. He’s not an impact player like Tippa or Raz, he needs consistent minutes there but he’s not going to get them unless a key midfielder gets injured.
Does not deserve a game right now.
Most over-rated player on our list.
His talent is AFL level but his intensity is deplorable - does not work hard enough when the ball is in the vicinty to either assist his teammates, put on defensive pressure or make his presence felt. He is the opposite of Ambrose who has 1/10 his talent but 100 times his intensity at the contest.
He is the first player i would drop for Bellchambers next week. Daniher can then play the roaming CHF role.
I can’t see what he offers the side at the min.
What he does do well is the minimum any afl standard player should be offering anyway.
Has a long way to go IMO.
Wasn’t a fan of his game last night. That tackle on Rich was so lazy. The grub shot was dumb. The lack of defensive effort is another issue. With Leuey back next week, I’d go Smack as 3rd tall / backup ruck and give Kyle a run in 2s. Once things click for him, I think he’ll be very good, but there’s no denying that last night was sub par.
Young kid. Kicked a clutch goal, not his best two games ever but I’m happy with his progress overall?
He doesnt have speed, so he needs strength. His main attribute is that he doesnt fumble at all. I think once he becomes a bit stronger he could become an inside mid so he is worth persisting with.
Third tall forward is important for structure. Our half backs have to have other options to kick to than the long down the line kick to Joe or the ruckman - otherwise all the opposition defenders just converge at that marking contest.
Kyle is a good alternative marking option. He is mobile makes good position, can mark, and as a 19 year old it is good to keep giving him games to develop.
If Laverde, Francis or Begley were fit and in form (or Myers for midfield role) they could take the spot, but at the moment I think we have to persist with Langers.
Christ there are some reactive, impatient, foot-stampers in our supporter base. Langford is a teenager, has played a handful of games shows class and WILL make mistakes. I didn’t even think he had a bad game last night overall - was involved and kicked a clutch goal. Anyone with half a clue can see he will be very good player - and we just need to get games into him - not drop him for fkg Bellchambers.
Keep him in, has the talent and ability but as most players around the 25 game mark he is up and down.
I think he needs consistency in his position. For mine he’s a forward, his decision making in tight is not quite there and he isn’t Bontempelli.
He isn’t
He’s not.
Still young, looks to have all the building blocks to be a great player, but totally agree that he should be having a spell in the 2’s. Intensity is seriously lacking at critical times, just seems to have total brain fades.
I critique Langford a lot because I don’t think he’ll be the inside midfielder that everyone else sees. I see someone like Caracella, Heffernan or Blumfield in him. He plays midfield very much like Blumfield and Caracella in that he supports. I don’t see him as a Watson replacement as it appears the club is setting him up for.
Having said that…
He is best 22 with a full list His spot isn’t secure as he gets the 19th to 22nd spot on the back of hoping he uses his time to develop into the player he’s hoped to become.
Last night’s game was below average for a footballer bit given he’s played 30 games (I think) that performance wouldn’t be above his average performance. If last night is the worst he ever gets, then we have something here.
I don’t think he should be dropped. There are probably five other players who played just as bad as him last night.
The only guys I see taking his spot in the 18 are Francis or Laverde. If they ever get past their injury woes, they have the gamestyle that’ll surpass Langford purely on determination consistent aggressive tackling and ball winning pressure.
If you havent seen the reserves then there’s little evidence that Langford can be an effective clearance mid.
If you have, then there’s definite signs.
This side of the discussion reminds me a lot of David Myers, of whom the reserve watchers were pointing out that his clearance ability was actually pretty good but if you only saw the seniors you were judging a slightly struggling half back.
However, i think we can already say that at worst, Langford will be a very handy goal kicking forward.
At times, needs the club runner to put an electric cattle prod on his khyber - this may enhance his intensity.
t
h
i
s
It’s kinda the exact opposite of the David Myers situation. Myers was a mid who was struggling in defence. Langford is a forward who is struggling in the middle.
Personally, he looks about 3 levels below Sam Lonergan as an inside mid.
(Virtually) Every good thing he’s ever done, has been inside 50.
He gets involved…just needs to use his brain more…but the best thing is he is actually getting the ball…he doesn’t disappear in games
He’s not 19. Hasn’t been 19 at any point this year. All other points stand, he’s young, developing, etc, but he’s 20.