Of those l would only keep Edwards. Jones however is contracted and can be used for defensive depth, because he is useless anywhere else. Then there is Gerryn who has yet to be played in the seniors. His performance in the VFL finals may well decide his future.
And, from his WAFL Colts videos, quite aggressive too. We need them, partly as protectors.
2 Likes
I disagree on this with Gerreyn. Every time heās played forward heās kicked goals. Is a fantastic kick. Obviously got size on his side. Compare his stats up forward versus Neale in his first two VFL years and theyāre not dissimilar.
I think Blitz gets impatient with young talls and expects too much too quickly.
7 Likes
I see 4 easy delistings there.
4 Likes
Easy cut for mine.
His last game in the seniors he was 4th best of 4 tall/tallish forwards. Heās a nice finisher; but at that size you need real pace, great leap/hands, positional flexibility or some really amazing tricks and he just doesnāt quite. Not sure thereās oodles of improvement left at 26yo.
1 Like
A heads up for you. Jones is also useless as a defender.
A thin pizza base offers more depth than Jones.
4 Likes
I agree on Jones, l was more projecting how the club may see him.
And that, sadly, is the real concern.
2 Likes
Could Fritsch or Gunston work alongside Caddy? Theyāre the type of player I see Edwards and McMahon asā¦ If Caddy needs such specific i50 companions/third talls, something is wrong.
To be clear, I think Edwards is worth persisting with as a Fritsch type. (Scott playing him on the wing was scandalous and really derailed him.)
McMahon is depth, and only then because he reliably kicks 2 goals. We need 2 goals.
Jones can play the ex-AFL player in country footy role.
3 Likes
I like Edwards and Mr McMahon as depth because theyāve shown an aptitude for kicking goals. I like this in my forwards. I donāt need them to be versatile. Keep them away from the wing FKN.
8 Likes
Honestly, Iām not sure Fritsch and Gunston would work that well alongside Caddy.
I think Caddy works best when you open the forward 50 for him and create space for him to out work his opponent. He can also take a pack mark, which is an upside that you donāt often find in that style of forward, but ideally heās not the guy weāre sitting it on the head of to make a contest.
Weāre probably playing 1-2 other talls in the forward line alongside Caddy at a time. If those guys arenāt strong at bringing the ball to ground in a pack, weāre losing the impact of our small forwards, and we become ripe for intercepts when we donāt move the ball quick enough and our forward line gets congested. Itās also very difficult to create leading lanes for more than one player in the forward line at a time, so they end up sacrificing impact to accommodate each other.
I do think an Edwards type could work alongside Caddy if he was comfortable pushing up the ground, and doing the hard endurance running as a connector to the forward line. He didnāt look comfortable in that role though ā he seems much more like an old school full-forward to me.
2 Likes
Nah. Those rookie positions should be used for new players.
Fritsch and Gunston are āgoodā type of players
Edwards and McMahon are ākinda maybe OK as depth, as long as weā¦.ā
Thereās really no comparison
2 Likes
Iām comparing them in type, not in actual output to date.
And like I said, McMahon would be depth at best. IMO Edwards could get to Fritsch level or thereabouts, but should be played as a forward only.
3 Likes
Yeah and I donāt want to beat on a guy who from all reports is doing his level best butā¦ nup.
Heās 25 or 26, heās not some 18 year old whoās going to fill out & get noticeably faster and stronger over the next year. This is about his physical peak.
But Fritsch is like a little boy. Whatever his height/weight is, half of it is hair.
I think they both play with smarts, angles, hands and excellent set shot kicking. Not by winning physical contests.
1 Like