#47 James Kelly - #BackIn


#1

Leader, 3 time premiership player, tough, still has it.

Welcome James. Will guide our young mids and provide protection. Parish and Zerrett will know have the ability to flourish without the extreme added pressure of being the best and only mids.


#2

Would rather Kelly off the halfback than Goddard next yr.


#3

He’s my tip for B&F too.
I’m for giving kids a go in the square, but when we were being completely smashed would have liked to see Kelly in the middle. .

My ideal centre bounce set up would be Leuey/Kelly/Zaka/Zerrett
then rotate the others through and rest him in defence.

His ability to win 1-1’s is great in defence and hes a general back there, but after great starts to the year zaka & zerett need a little help inside, especially with Bird concussed.

Send him to the midfield, send experienced guys like Demps and baguley back.


#4

Rookie listed player coach


#5
He's a freak. Its great to watch a genuinely top-flight footy player ply his trade, even allowing for him being a couple of seasons past his best.

Could legit win the B&F if he can get through the season. Not sure what that says in general but would be a remarkable finale.

I actually think he will win it, certainly at this stage.

It would be a pretty fitting way for him to go out.

Of all the ‘past their best’ players that joined our side over the last 10 or so years, he is by far the most impressive.

I reckon you might be right.
I think Chappy had a very good first year. Kelly has been more consistent and given the current circumstances of the team, it’s even more extradonary.

#6
He's a freak. Its great to watch a genuinely top-flight footy player ply his trade, even allowing for him being a couple of seasons past his best.

Could legit win the B&F if he can get through the season. Not sure what that says in general but would be a remarkable finale.

I actually think he will win it, certainly at this stage.

It would be a pretty fitting way for him to go out.

Of all the ‘past their best’ players that joined our side over the last 10 or so years, he is by far the most impressive.


#7
He's a freak. Its great to watch a genuinely top-flight footy player ply his trade, even allowing for him being a couple of seasons past his best.

Could legit win the B&F if he can get through the season. Not sure what that says in general but would be a remarkable finale.

Oozes poise under pressure . Sounds a bit revolting, but in fact its so good.

A Saints fan behind me was saying “whos that ■■■■■■ 47 guy”


#8

He’s a freak. Its great to watch a genuinely top-flight footy player ply his trade, even allowing for him being a couple of seasons past his best.

Could legit win the B&F if he can get through the season. Not sure what that says in general but would be a remarkable finale.


#9

I knew I’d regret this, but I’ll respond.

Is his leadership so important next year that you keep him for that purpose?
I’ve already said this was the cherry, not the cake.

Is his play so important that he is obviously better than the list I made, Who is he better than, why and what are the consequences of this?
IMO, he’s is the best half back we’ve had since Bomber. And I’d don’t see any detrimental consequences in playing guns, and IMO, he’s a gun. He is strong, disciplined, has decent toe,chooses good options, gets heaps of the ball, delivers well into the 50, doesn’t panic, has a great sense of positioning and actually improved as the year progressed.

Does he playing help or hinder player retention, on field senior football development?
Not sure what you mean by “player retention” but I’ll go for help and the reasons why have been put forward over and over again even though you may not accept them.

What clubs are retaining as many old players as us who are not in the “premiership window” next year? We have Watson, Stanton and Goddard. Who are GC, Lions, Tigers, Blues, Norf, Port and Pies (they think they are having a crack) keeping on who fit that age bracket. Kelly would make 4 for us. Who else has 4?
No idea but of the 3 players mentioned I’d only have Watson in front of him in the 22 order and I personally don’t see those 4 as an issue because they clearly look after themselves. I don’t see any of those 3 playing a half back general role as successfully as Kelly either,.

Do even premiership contenders have 4 or more next year? Who? Is this not Cats issue, old blokes still doing the heavy lifting? Hawks do - we criticise them for it. They were the 2 worst performed finals teams except WCE.
As above.

OK I’m done, starting to feel too much like homework. I’ll withdraw from future debate on this thread.


#10

L2L gone full yaco

Theres nothing surer he will go around again with us.


#11

James Kelly is a EFC player in 2017


#12
I accept that going forward everything must be viewed through the prism of the Doggies' victory, so I will too. I reckon the Doggies were pretty pleased that one of Kelly's OLDER former teammates, who happened to kick 43 goals for GWS this year (same as Joe?), was suspended from the Prelim they won narrowly. Oh well, I guess his younger replacement received valuable game time experience...is that right?

If you say one of the kids you are doing it wrong, that list of players needs and deserves games and you are jeopardising their development for what? The romance of giving some old bloke another year because he seems like a great guy and is a leader?

This discussion is crazy because he ain’t gonna be on the list and I don’t know how that is gonna dissapoint or surprise 75% of people in this thread…

I suspect I'll regret this, but I'll respond. Firstly, do you have inside information that Kelly isn't going on? All I've heard is what I've read here, namely that a process is being worked through. Even 33 year olds get offered contracts, believe it or not. How does that qualify as "crazy"? So is it hyperbole or inside info?

Further your comment “The romance of giving some old bloke another year because he seems like a great guy and is a leader” is classic straw man fallacy (“a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position”). The advocates of Kelly’s retention first and foremost have focused on his on field contributions, contributions that earned him a high position in the B/F. I marveled at his finish to the year, which was reflected in the late season votes where he flew home to finish second. The fact that he has been lauded for temperament and leadership is a cherry, not the cake.
I don’t know what will happen but I hope we pick him up and I actually believe his presence on the field will help and not hinder our development, and I think players like Ambrose and Gleeson have already improved as a result of his leadership and example on the field. His positioning and anticipation is IMO better than anyone on our list. The younger players have a bar in front of them they need to clear, that’s how it should be IMO.

I will respond to you GRR because you have placed an argument (you have good points) on the table not just “Kelly is great, keep Kelly, Kelly must play blah blah”

However I would note that nobody who wants to keep Pops is ever answering my questions because they are hard questions to answer. I would love to read your answers to the questions.

So I will answer yours though.

Firstly, do you have inside information that Kelly isn’t going on?

  • No. I am just extremely confident. Equally there are those supremely confident he would stay. Not once has Woosh mentioned that Pops should go on. Ever.

How does that qualify as “crazy”?

  • Hyperbole

Further your comment “The romance of giving some old bloke another year because he seems like a great guy and is a leader” is classic straw man fallacy (“a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position”). The advocates of Kelly’s retention first and foremost have focused on his on field contributions, contributions that earned him a high position in the B/F. I marveled at his finish to the year, which was reflected in the late season votes where he flew home to finish second.

  • Fair point and I agree with you. He had a great year. No denying he had a great year. Could he play well next year. Absolutely.

The fact that he has been lauded for temperament and leadership is a cherry, not the cake.

  • with the players and list we have next year I would be very dissapointed if we needed his on-field leadership next year. We have better leaders than him who in fairness probably inspire there teammates more (subjective). Pops seems a good on-field support / coach and probably has good IP in terms of game plans etc but is that needed and would we prefer that leadership be fulfilled by someone else. I think so.

I actually believe his presence on the field will help and not hinder our development

  • I believe it hinders if A) he takes a deserving young players spot, B-) if other players show less leadership because he is taking charge

I think players like Ambrose and Gleeson have already improved as a result of his leadership and example on the field.

  • I agree. Hooker, Hurley etc will do the same.

The younger players have a bar in front of them they need to clear, that’s how it should be IMO.

  • I bet if this happened and was cleared he would retire. Immediately. And that would have been a wasted list spot.

So please answer my questions. I would like to be swayed. But as of yet nobody has been clear on accepting or considering the other consequences of him continuing on.

Is his leadership so important next year that you keep him for that purpose?
Is his play so important that he is obviously better than the list I made, Who is he better than, why and what are the consequences of this?
Does he playing help or hinder player retention, on field senior football development?
What clubs are retaining as many old players as us who are not in the “premiership window” next year? We have Watson, Stanton and Goddard. Who are GC, Lions, Tigers, Blues, Norf, Port and Pies (they think they are having a crack) keeping on who fit that age bracket. Kelly would make 4 for us. Who else has 4?
Do even premiership contenders have 4 or more next year? Who? Is this not Cats issue, old blokes still doing the heavy lifting? Hawks do - we criticise them for it. They were the 2 worst performed finals teams except WCE.

To MODS. If I am wrong and he is retained, please ban me from Blitz until March 17. I’m serious, I mean it. I am so confident on him not being there that I would have deserved it. But I struggle how lots of people can’t see it.


#13
I rate your post L2L

But surely Trav is a certainty

100% agree. I personally have other certainties too but I didn’t want to push my personal bias too far.


#14
"Junior Merrett" is Zerrett, not Jerrett. L2L all credibility gone.

Haha. Simple mistake. I am aware Jerret is older but if that is my credibility gone then that’s fine dambuster.


#15

“Junior Merrett” is Zerrett, not Jerrett.
L2L all credibility gone.


#16

James Kelly = F*cking Gun


#17

Id play Kelly, because he’s a good player. I like good players playing for the football club i support


#18

I rate your post L2L

But surely Trav is a certainty


#19
I accept that going forward everything must be viewed through the prism of the Doggies' victory, so I will too. I reckon the Doggies were pretty pleased that one of Kelly's OLDER former teammates, who happened to kick 43 goals for GWS this year (same as Joe?), was suspended from the Prelim they won narrowly. Oh well, I guess his younger replacement received valuable game time experience...is that right?

Why are we comparing our list mgmt strategy with contenders again. People are comparing apples with oranges.

We are not contenders. If we are not contenders you play the kids whenever in doubt. We have got plenty of kids who have shown enough to deserve games (they wouldn’t be gifted).

Should prioritise the following (some are obvious because they are our best players but still they are young so I put them on the list);
Langford
LAverde
Parish
Francis
Fantasia
Tippa
Daniher
Zerret
Gleeson

That’s 9 spots.

Their development is paramount. And I don’t care what people say these particular players development is best served in the AFL not VFL. As for Morgan, Redman, Long and our new draftees they probably need more time being in the bests in the VFL before I would say there development is better served in the AFL (unless we unearth another Parish in the draft) but I would not be surprised if Redman makes that jump next year. McKenna I am 50/50 on.

So let’s say that’s 9 spots in the side taken.

Then you have as certainties;

Hepp
Watson
Goddard
Hurley
Hooker
Leuenberger
Baguley
Zaharakis

So we are already up 17 players you would say should be playing senior footy if they are fit.

And then you have the following who would be selected based on form / structure (some of which in my opinion should be certainties but others may disagree);

Bellchambers
McKenna
Hartley
Ambrose
Stanton
Colyer
Myers
Bird
Hocking
Howlett
Dea
Hams (if kept)
JErret (thanks Dambuster!)
Long
McKenna
Redman
Morgan
McKernan

Then Our draftees, trade etc.

So let’s say our best side has 5 spots available out of the above list. When you pick your team who are you gonna leave out for Kelly and the 2nd question is for what purpose?

If you say one of the kids you are doing it wrong, that list of players needs and deserves games and you are jeopardising their development for what? The romance of giving some old bloke another year because he seems like a great guy and is a leader?

This discussion is crazy because he ain’t gonna be on the list and I don’t know how that is gonna dissapoint or surprise 75% of people in this thread…


#20
I accept that going forward everything must be viewed through the prism of the Doggies' victory, so I will too. I reckon the Doggies were pretty pleased that one of Kelly's OLDER former teammates, who happened to kick 43 goals for GWS this year (same as Joe?), was suspended from the Prelim they won narrowly. Oh well, I guess his younger replacement received valuable game time experience...is that right?

If you say one of the kids you are doing it wrong, that list of players needs and deserves games and you are jeopardising their development for what? The romance of giving some old bloke another year because he seems like a great guy and is a leader?

This discussion is crazy because he ain’t gonna be on the list and I don’t know how that is gonna dissapoint or surprise 75% of people in this thread…

I suspect I'll regret this, but I'll respond. Firstly, do you have inside information that Kelly isn't going on? All I've heard is what I've read here, namely that a process is being worked through. Even 33 year olds get offered contracts, believe it or not. How does that qualify as "crazy"? So is it hyperbole or inside info?

Further your comment “The romance of giving some old bloke another year because he seems like a great guy and is a leader” is classic straw man fallacy (“a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position”). The advocates of Kelly’s retention first and foremost have focused on his on field contributions, contributions that earned him a high position in the B/F. I marveled at his finish to the year, which was reflected in the late season votes where he flew home to finish second. The fact that he has been lauded for temperament and leadership is a cherry, not the cake.
I don’t know what will happen but I hope we pick him up and I actually believe his presence on the field will help and not hinder our development, and I think players like Ambrose and Gleeson have already improved as a result of his leadership and example on the field. His positioning and anticipation is IMO better than anyone on our list. The younger players have a bar in front of them they need to clear, that’s how it should be IMO.