Real life wise Hartley is arguably not even in the best 22. If he is, then Ambrose can replace him. if Ambrose also goes down, we look at Hurley playing tighter, or Francis, or Brown, or Dea, or Hooker.
Yes they’re all compromises, but that’s real life, isn’t it?
Yep, that’s what we’d do.
Look, we obviously see it differently, and I do hope that we are looking at tall backs (actually, I’m sure we are). I love Ambrose and Hurley and Gleeson for what they do. But none of them are the kind of player I think we may be short of soon.
It sure sounds like that’s what you’re implying.
Do you need multiple key lock down defenders, 194+, is the question I’m asking, in the modern game? Those guys I listed all did ok as the main KPDs in their respective teams… Did the Tiges need a 194+ ‘lock down’? . Rampe 189, Grundy 192… do the Swans need one?
I hate the semantics of forums.
When you say ‘tall’ or ‘short’ what is the delineation? For the sake of actually making sense, there needs to be same kind of line. It’s not a magical line. It’s a way of categorising for the sake of an argument. Someone 190 who has the physique and abilities to handle a 200cm forward is, in my mind, a key defender.
No - if we actually had those kind of players.
Do we?
I agree, but it was of course, you who brought up the need for 194cm+ options specifically…
arrrgghhh…see above.
If we bring in another tall, I doubt they will be expected to do anything at senior level next year.
It will take time to bulk up, improve the deficiencies in their game (will be a late pick after all).
Senior level action might commence from the start of 2020.
This is like looking at Francis’ draft class of talls and saying that their window opens next year. It takes that long…
For backmen, it’s 99.9% about who they can successfully play on.
Ambrose plays on Taylor Walker and Hawkins: he is a tall.
They tried putting Dea on Jack watts and a few other talls: it didn’t work. So I wouldn’t call him a tall (he’s also not very tall)
Not trying to argue just clarifying that it’s not playing ‘semantics’ when someone calls into question the need for very specific height and age requirements that you, yourself, prescribed.
Well, you are playing semantics.
My post was in response to one about ‘young’ mids.
Tell me - what is a ‘young’ mid?
Specifically any first-half-of-career mid who’s outside the 22. (I don’t disagree with the list you posted). We patched and hoped last year and it didn’t work.
We need to fill 2-3 midfield spots for next year and beyond - we can’t ■■■■ around another year hoping Watson learns how to run, or Myers and Bird learn how to kick.
I’m more worried about the outside-the-22-ness, than the actual age.
I was worried about our mids pre trade but think we’re covered now.
2-3 of the recruits will have capacity to rotate through the midfield.
I’ll acknowledge we’ve got no ‘franchise’ quality mid at present but we’re now loaded with dual position players mid/fwds or mid/backs. So think we’ll try to get teams with weight of above average mids and pace… loads of pace.
I think Goddard and maybe Myers will be our slowest mids throughout the season, barring injury.
They did a pretty good job holding the two main spots last year. It’s just on the coaches to have them play at that level.
I don’t see the second sentence as being contrary to getting a project tall (which they will be given our picks). Any such player will spend years in the VFL anyway.
Deckham, when you start by talking about tall backs under 25, then put a cutoff that removes Francis, I don’t think you can complain about “semantics” when people rightfully point out the cutoff you put in to make an argument is rubbish.
Francis is not a lock down defender.
Also - I didn’t talk about defenders under 25.
I mentioned lock down defenders over 194cm and mids under 25 years old.
You said “young tall backs over 194cm”. No mention of lock down. And your arbitrary cutoff of 194cm removed Francis. So don’t shout semantics when people point out the 194cm cutoff is silly.
Is Ambrose even over 25 yet?
This is why my contribution to forums is a mashup of snide short one-liners.
Everyone looks for some flaw in the way you made an argument so it can be used as a wedge.
You don’t get a bigger ■■■■ for winning forum arguments, ok?
I think we need cover for kinda tall, kinda young, kinda 'lock down ’ defenders.
Everyone else doesn’t.
Cool.