Oh and I don’t count Morgan as a midfield option either, even if the club does hope one day he can spend 10 minutes on the wing every few games. He’s a running back predominantly.
This, although I’d argue Langford as a pure mid. And from that list in the next 1-2 years you can most likely cross off Watson, Howlett, Bird, Hocking, Stanton and Goddard won’t be far behind. Outside of our starting 18 that leaves Mutch and Clarke and a raft of players we have to use as bit parts to help fill in. That’s an indictment on the midfield state.
You just have to watch the VFL and see Howlett and Hocking starting in centre bounces to know just how badly we need young midfielders to be drafted. We have the forward/back set for the most part, now lets dedicate a draft or two to midfielders.
I honestly can’t work out the point of coming into a thread to tell people what they’re arguing/discussing. We know what we’re discussing, but thanks. Ants, myself and co are having a reasoned discussion on the state of our midfield.
Look, I agree that I think some of those guys are unlikely. I don’t think Laverde is a midfielder, and I doubt Walla will be there for long stretches. But I absolutely think Langford is a midfielder (based on what I’ve seen at VFL level), and have no doubt Raz will eventually be 80% midfield. There are absolutely people on Blitz who disagree with both of us on Laverde, and think he’s a great midfield prospect. So its not black and white.
I think this argument about “pure” mids, is kind of ridiculous. Looking at some of the best mids at the moment or last few years, Watson, Rockliff, Zorko, Gray, Ablett all played predominantly or exclusively forward at U18 level. Hell, did Zac play midfield? He certainly started with us up forward. Players are drafted on what they are expected to become, not what they are right now. Its why whoever generally wins the TAC B&F doesn’t get drafted. Its why a heap of the highest possession mids at U18 level don’t get drafted. Because they’re not seen as being able to take it to the next level.
Its not like this is revisionism by the recruiting staff. On the day of the 2016 draft, Dodoro was describing every player taken as going into the midfield.
I also think you’re building a strawman with the comments around having a hole in the midfield if we don’t take pure midfielders. Hardly any draftees are ready to go straight into the midfield. Guys like SPP, Selwood, Oliver and Wines are exceptions, not the rule. Guys who come in and have an immediate impact are usually playing flanks - good examples for us are Heppel and Zerrett who both started their first two seasons outside the midfield. Planning for any draftee to impact next year is a foolish element to assume in an 18 year old kid - it can be the “cream” that they’ll be ready, but should never be the goal. So I just don’t see our 2017 drafting impacting our 2018 midfield. For better or worse, from a drafting point of view, our 2018 and 2019 midfield hopes are resting on the results of our 2012 to 2016 drafting.
Obviously a way around this is via trading/FA, which I am very open to for the right player(s).
It’s just a discussion. No arguing from what i can see. I personally find it great to read different views/perspectives on how everyone see’s our team and it’s future.
Anyway back on topic.
I can understand 100% why you(crazy bomber) would argue Langford might not be a pure mid. I am more stating how i think the club see’s him. I’m not sold on him as a pure mid- but then again i haven’t seen him played enough in that part of the ground when playing in the 1’s.
Gary Buckenara suggesting on the herald sun we could look at Anthony Miles. He’s a more than handy clearance player who is not getting a run at all. Only 25 years old.
Every single player on that list started their career outside the midfield or have spent considerable time playing elsewhere. Bird, Hocking and Howlett are the only ones who’ve never really showed much outside of the midfield and they’re the most limited players in that list.