One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on September 21, 2014, 01:55:27 PM
-
Yep it's that time of the year for the Yeah or Neah polls ;D.
First up is Matty Dea who is out of contract.
Matty played 7 AFL games in his fifth year to bring his total games tally to 31. All seven matches came between rounds 10 (vs GWS) to 16 (vs Brisbane). His highest possession game came against the Giants with 17 disposals.
Career stats:
Games Kicks Hballs Disp. Marks Tackles G.B Clear. In50 Re50 1%ers
2010: 3 2.3 8.0 10.3 1.7 3.3 0.0
2011: 4 3.8 5.3 9.0 3.0 2.3 0.0
2012: 14 5.6 6.2 11.8 3.8 1.6 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.8 2.4
2013: 3 6.0 4.3 10.3 4.0 1.7 0.0
2014: 7 6.4 6.3 12.7 3.1 1.4 1.0 0.4 0.7 2.6 2.4
http://finalsiren.com/PlayerStats.asp?PlayerID=2005&SeasonID=ALL
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/player_profile?pid=2010044
So do we hold onto Dea or trade/delist him?
-
Very good VFL player, not convinced he will make it but I think it's clear Dimma doesn't rate him so move him on.
-
Yeah.... nah..... trade....
-
Yeah.... nah..... trade....
Trade him?
And you are the one who constantly thinks everyone overrates our playing list ::)
He is barely VFL standard and should be delisted.
-
Yeah.... nah..... trade....
He is barely VFL standard.
That's just flat out wrong. He looks a cut above VFL and regularly shuts down dangerous opponents. He needs a string of games in the seniors before being delisted. I think he can make it.
-
Yeah.... nah..... trade....
Trade him?
And you are the one who constantly thinks everyone overrates our playing list ::)
He is barely VFL standard and should be delisted.
So not rating a player highly and suggesting they be traded is mutually exclusive? Glad that wasn't the school of thought when we traded the likes Graham and Tambling. Try again champ.
-
Neah!!
-
Saw him win 3 one on one contests in a row against parker when we played the swans at ettihad and thought this kid needs a chance
-
have been happy to give him a chance up until now.
hes had 5 yrs and failed to establish himself. he not a tall who could take 5 or 6 yrs to click hes a medium sized defender who really should have delivered by now or at least established himself at afl level.
would delist and move on, one thing i have learnt over the yrs is we hang onto players like matty way too long and limit our ability to find good players.
-
Saw him win 3 one on one contests in a row against parker when we played the swans at ettihad and thought this kid needs a chance
When did we play Sydney at Etihad?
-
Last year and if doesn't become a regular then delist
-
have been happy to give him a chance up until now.
hes had 5 yrs and failed to establish himself. he not a tall who could take 5 or 6 yrs to click hes a medium sized defender who really should have delivered by now or at least established himself at afl level.
would delist and move on, one thing i have learnt over the yrs is we hang onto players like matty way too long and limit our ability to find good players.
you dont think we should have played dea all year instead of newman?
What chance has he had
FWIW i dont think he will make it but gee so many blokes have hardly had a go
-
Yeah.... nah..... trade....
Trade him?
And you are the one who constantly thinks everyone overrates our playing list ::)
He is barely VFL standard and should be delisted.
So not rating a player highly and suggesting they be traded is mutually exclusive? Glad that wasn't the school of thought when we traded the likes Graham and Tambling. Try again champ.
Not at all, is not rating a player and thinking it isn't obvious is mutually exclusive?
Hardly likely, particularly when the people responsible for trading work in the AFL industry and are paid to know that in the first place.
If he goes, it will be delisted and his best hope is to be rookie listed but like JON will be on a hope and pray.
Willy, 31 games in 5 years - the facts speak for themselves.
-
Yeah for me.
Would play him in front of Houli at halfback everyday of the week. Is as hard as a cats head and his kicking and poise with the footy in hand has improved 10 fold.
Remember he was drafted after mainly playing basketball as a junior and was always going to take more time than your normal kid coming out of the TAC.
This may sound stupid but I see a lot of Alex Rance in him. He is a good size and has improved every year and a breakout year next year is in the cards IMO.
Can also play tall or small which is another reason he plays ahead of Houli IMO..
Just play the kid.
-
Dea > houli
-
Dea > houli
By the length of the Flemington straight.
I just cannot understand DH thinking.
How much harder do we look as a side with Houli and Grigg out of the side. They are both just so insipid when they don't have the footy.
-
Want I reckon will happen is he will be put the trade table, no takers and they'll give him another year
As to what I think should happen - not sold on him think he's one of the players I refer to "b-twix and between". Means he's too good for VFL level but I am not sure he is up to AFL level
but as is a constant with some of our younger it's hard to know seeing he is another one who hasn't been given a real crack of multiple games in a row
-
Dea > houli
By the length of the Flemington straight.
I just cannot understand DH thinking.
How much harder do we look as a side with Houli and Grigg out of the side. They are both just so insipid when they don't have the footy.
I agree with you BT. I guess Houli at least attacks a little but doesn't defend very well at all. He averages 2.5 tackles per game which is ok as a forward but very ordinary as a defender. Grigg is even worse. He has played as a tagger and has only averaged 2.4 tackles per game this year. Someone like Brent Macaffer has averaged 4.1 tackles per game this year.
-
We have an embarrassment of riches with quality HBF , most definitely a senior footballer, handles the ball like its on a string, great vision and crisp ball use. A definite keeper :shh
-
Want I reckon will happen is he will be put the trade table, no takers and they'll give him another year
As to what I think should happen - not sold on him think he's one of the players I refer to "b-twix and between". Means he's too good for VFL level but I am not sure he is up to AFL level
but as is a constant with some of our younger it's hard to know seeing he is another one who hasn't been given a real crack of multiple games in a row
What are you concerns with him WP?
I personally think he has improved what I had as a knock on him and that's his poise and ball use. Just needs DH to believe in him and give him games like you say.
I'm not one to talk up players willy nilly but I think Dea is a really good player in the making.
-
Easily on par with batch. A great back up or depth 6/6 option
-
Dea > houli
By the length of the Flemington straight.
I just cannot understand DH thinking.
How much harder do we look as a side with Houli and Grigg out of the side. They are both just so insipid when they don't have the footy.
I agree with you BT. I guess Houli at least attacks a little but doesn't defend very well at all. He averages 2.5 tackles per game which is ok as a forward but very ordinary as a defender. Grigg is even worse. He has played as a tagger and has only averaged 2.4 tackles per game this year. Someone like Brent Macaffer has averaged 4.1 tackles per game this year.
Hard to believe that we cannot draft or develop a decent tagger like Crowley or Macafffer. We seem to just overlook curtain positions/jobs when drafting or trading. (A decent small forward would be nice too, how good would our forward line look if we had Balentine or Betts)
It would make a massive difference to our side against the good sides if we could shut down one of their stars 100%. We would beat Collingwood every time if we could stop Penndlebury.
-
Grigg the tagger
Unbelievable Damien
-
have been happy to give him a chance up until now.
hes had 5 yrs and failed to establish himself. he not a tall who could take 5 or 6 yrs to click hes a medium sized defender who really should have delivered by now or at least established himself at afl level.
would delist and move on, one thing i have learnt over the yrs is we hang onto players like matty way too long and limit our ability to find good players.
you dont think we should have played dea all year instead of newman?
What chance has he had
FWIW i dont think he will make it but gee so many blokes have hardly had a go
not gunna argue that point your right. and yes newman should have been phased out and borderline players like dea given every opportunity.
ive been a fan of mattys almost right thru, but enough is enough. we cant always give players inordinate amounts of time to do nothing more than establish themselves. and in 5 yrs hes failed to even do that.
for the record i would have cut newman im not sure if that would have saved matty or not.
as it is i think hes safe. i dont think we will cut any more players thats just the vibe i get from the club. the only one who may go is mcdonough as he wants to go home i think.
-
MDea should of got a chance
Ahead of. Thomas. Houli. Grigg. Newman. Aedwards. Etc.
Just as Lennon. Donuts. Mcbean. Arnot. Etc. Should have.
-
Think he should be delisted. Nah from me.
-
What are you concerns with him WP?
I personally think he has improved what I had as a knock on him and that's his poise and ball use. Just needs DH to believe in him and give him games like you say.
I'm not one to talk up players willy nilly but I think Dea is a really good player in the making.
His decision making and like you his poise and ball use
Reckon games against lesser teams eg GWS he looks great, good decision making, reasonable poise, above average ball use
Put him a high pressure situation and his decision making is average at best
-
What are you concerns with him WP?
I personally think he has improved what I had as a knock on him and that's his poise and ball use. Just needs DH to believe in him and give him games like you say.
I'm not one to talk up players willy nilly but I think Dea is a really good player in the making.
His decision making and like you his poise and ball use
Reckon games against lesser teams eg GWS he looks great, good decision making, reasonable poise, above average ball use
Put him a high pressure situation and his decision making is average at best
Yer fair enough....but you could say that about 98% of our list. :lol
-
Dea > houli
By the length of the Flemington straight.
I just cannot understand DH thinking.
How much harder do we look as a side with Houli and Grigg out of the side. They are both just so insipid when they don't have the footy.
I agree with you BT. I guess Houli at least attacks a little but doesn't defend very well at all. He averages 2.5 tackles per game which is ok as a forward but very ordinary as a defender. Grigg is even worse. He has played as a tagger and has only averaged 2.4 tackles per game this year. Someone like Brent Macaffer has averaged 4.1 tackles per game this year.
Hard to believe that we cannot draft or develop a decent tagger like Crowley or Macafffer. We seem to just overlook curtain positions/jobs when drafting or trading. (A decent small forward would be nice too, how good would our forward line look if we had Balentine or Betts)
It would make a massive difference to our side against the good sides if we could shut down one of their stars 100%. We would beat Collingwood every time if we could stop Penndlebury.
We had a pretty good one in Jacko before Dimma came. I don't think he believes in playing a full on tagger.
-
Yer fair enough....but you could say that about 98% of our list. :lol
So true :facepalm, so very true ;D
-
Dea >>> Batchelor
But as others have pointed out, Hardwick's pig-headed refusal to give any of the younger players a sustained stint at senior level means we know f-all about their real potential to make it. How much more productive would this season have been if we had taken the opportunity at 3-10 to play Dea, McDonough, Arnott and Elton for the rest of the season so that we could make a much more informed decision on them at season's end. :banghead
-
Saw him win 3 one on one contests in a row against parker when we played the swans at ettihad and thought this kid needs a chance
When did we play Sydney at Etihad?
sry meant the game in Melbourne earlier this season
-
Yeah for me.
Would play him in front of Houli at halfback everyday of the week. Is as hard as a cats head and his kicking and poise with the footy in hand has improved 10 fold.
Remember he was drafted after mainly playing basketball as a junior and was always going to take more time than your normal kid coming out of the TAC.
This may sound stupid but I see a lot of Alex Rance in him. He is a good size and has improved every year and a breakout year next year is in the cards IMO.
Can also play tall or small which is another reason he plays ahead of Houli IMO..
Just play the kid.
:clapping
Big Tone gets it.
-
In the games he played this year, I feel for the first time he took a step backward (or perhaps the year on year growth of prior years just stalled). Either way, that concerns me. I'd let him go now.
-
Did hardwick no give him a massive spray after one game?
One game where he was brilliant for 99% of the game putting his head where angels would not?
And yet never a word on regards to houli/grigg/Chaplin
The problem starts at the top
Too much favouritism
To much faith in poo blokes
Too much invested in the plodders and no eye to the long term
-
And yet never a word on regards to houli/grigg/Chaplin
How do you know that
-
In the press conference he blasted dea after a game
-
Yeah I know that, but the part about not having a dig at the others
-
Maybe privately
And yet they are still picked week after week after week
-
Did hardwick no give him a massive spray after one game?
Likely deserved it.
Dea is one of the coaches favourites of that I have no doubt.
One of the reasons he's lasted 5 years on the list despite only playing a handful of games.
He's been given more opportunities than most.
-
Did hardwick no give him a massive spray after one game?
Likely deserved it.
Dea is one of the coaches favourites of that I have no doubt.
One of the reasons he's lasted 5 years on the list despite only playing a handful of games.
He's been given more opportunities than most.
Coach's favorite ?
Been given more opportunities than most ?
Umm , yeh ok lol. Have a feeling you're watching the wrong player ? Matt Dea wears number 7.
Constantly named in the best few players in the reserves every week. Has more courage in his little finger than half of Dimma's favorites but can't crack it for a game ahead of proven failures , aging over the hill veterans and pea hearts.
Pffft ! What a joke.
-
Did hardwick no give him a massive spray after one game?
Likely deserved it.
Dea is one of the coaches favourites of that I have no doubt.
One of the reasons he's lasted 5 years on the list despite only playing a handful of games.
He's been given more opportunities than most.
Coach's favorite ?
Been given more opportunities than most ?
Umm , yeh ok lol. Have a feeling you're watching the wrong player ? Matt Dea wears number 7.
Constantly named in the best few players in the reserves every week. Has more courage in his little finger than half of Dimma's favorites but can't crack it for a game ahead of proven failures , aging over the hill veterans and pea hearts.
Pffft ! What a joke.
You neglected to mention the 5 seasons on the list.
-
Did hardwick no give him a massive spray after one game?
Likely deserved it.
Dea is one of the coaches favourites of that I have no doubt.
One of the reasons he's lasted 5 years on the list despite only playing a handful of games.
He's been given more opportunities than most.
Coach's favorite ?
Been given more opportunities than most ?
Umm , yeh ok lol. Have a feeling you're watching the wrong player ? Matt Dea wears number 7.
Constantly named in the best few players in the reserves every week. Has more courage in his little finger than half of Dimma's favorites but can't crack it for a game ahead of proven failures , aging over the hill veterans and pea hearts.
Pffft ! What a joke.
Dice, he was given a really good go in 2012 after a strong pre season and didn't set the world on fire.
He's been ordinary since.
I actually agree that there are ordinary players taking his spot in the seniors BUT he hasn't taken his chances since getting games in 2012 like say a Miles.
It's a shifting chairs thing.
-
Did hardwick no give him a massive spray after one game?
Likely deserved it.
Dea is one of the coaches favourites of that I have no doubt.
One of the reasons he's lasted 5 years on the list despite only playing a handful of games.
He's been given more opportunities than most.
Coach's favorite ?
Been given more opportunities than most ?
Umm , yeh ok lol. Have a feeling you're watching the wrong player ? Matt Dea wears number 7.
Constantly named in the best few players in the reserves every week. Has more courage in his little finger than half of Dimma's favorites but can't crack it for a game ahead of proven failures , aging over the hill veterans and pea hearts.
Pffft ! What a joke.
Dice, he was given a really good go in 2012 after a strong pre season and didn't set the world on fire.
He's been ordinary since.
I actually agree that there are ordinary players taking his spot in the seniors BUT he hasn't taken his chances since getting games in 2012 like say a Miles.
It's a shifting chairs thing.
So at the start of 2012 in his 3rd season he had played 7 games of AFL footy and probably 50 games of footy in his life as he was a basketballer. He play 14 games that year which in itself is a massive achievement from where he had come from. Realistically how much would you expect from a kid in his position?
Admitably he needs a big year nect year but IMO has a lot of upside.
Fingers crossed for the kid.
-
Hope you're right BT but history says medium sized players have made it or not by the end of their 5th year - even Irish lads have established themselves by then.
You can't blame Dimma - Miles has proven than performances get you games despite the coach.
Good luck to him, seems like a good kid but I'm not holding my breath.
-
Hope you're right BT but history says medium sized players have made it or not by the end of their 5th year - even Irish lads have established themselves by then.
History also says Brownlow Medal winners can get overlooked in 4 successive drafts before being rookied. Some players just take longer and it would be a folly to make a decision based on such a simplistic generalisation.
-
Hope you're right BT but history says medium sized players have made it or not by the end of their 5th year - even Irish lads have established themselves by then.
History also says Brownlow Medal winners can get overlooked in 4 successive drafts before being rookied. Some players just take longer and it would be a folly to make a decision based on such a simplistic generalisation.
Also using Miles is probably not the correct comparison IMO. Is he an exception not the norm.
-
Hope you're right BT but history says medium sized players have made it or not by the end of their 5th year - even Irish lads have established themselves by then.
History also says Brownlow Medal winners can get overlooked in 4 successive drafts before being rookied. Some players just take longer and it would be a folly to make a decision based on such a simplistic generalisation.
Smokey, longest bow in history to compare Matt Priddis to Matt Dea :lol
So Smokey, what should it be based it on?
How complicated do you want to make it?
We either believe in him or we don't.
30 games over 5 years with a handful this year and none in the back 8 weeks of the year is fairly transparent of the clubas to their belief.
The club might be wrong but I doubt it and keeping it simple is to see the forest for the trees champ.
-
History also says Brownlow Medal winners can get overlooked in 4 successive drafts before being rookied. Some players just take longer and it would be a folly to make a decision based on such a simplistic generalisation.
Perhaps Dea should have been overlooked in 4 successive drafts.
-
Priddis really isn'tmmuch better than dea
-
Hope you're right BT but history says medium sized players have made it or not by the end of their 5th year - even Irish lads have established themselves by then.
History also says Brownlow Medal winners can get overlooked in 4 successive drafts before being rookied. Some players just take longer and it would be a folly to make a decision based on such a simplistic generalisation.
just because priddis was not on a afl list it doesnt mean he wasnt playing great footy. at the lower leve lhe won a sandover medal if i have it right. i keep on saying it, there are many state league players not on lists who perform far better than many who are on lists.
at age 22 and his second yr in afl he went at something like 24 disposals and 5 or 6 tackles a game and since hes basically built on that, his 2011 was exceptional and a better yr than he had this yr.
the knock on his game has been kicking but that has improved a fair bit the last 2 or 3 yrs well not so much the kicking but the decision making.
priddis clearly suffers from being tucked away in the west out of sight out of mind to most in the east.
as for smls by 20 med by 22 talls by 24 ive said its a loose guide and has exceptions.like all things you have processes and criteria that you use to check against that rule.
you guys know processes criteria things that our club hasnt done too well over the yrs.
-
Hope you're right BT but history says medium sized players have made it or not by the end of their 5th year - even Irish lads have established themselves by then.
History also says Brownlow Medal winners can get overlooked in 4 successive drafts before being rookied. Some players just take longer and it would be a folly to make a decision based on such a simplistic generalisation.
Also using Miles is probably not the correct comparison IMO. Is he an exception not the norm.
was miles not performing was he terrible until this yr.
he did play some good games with gws he was playing very good footy in the neafl. miles never played afl earlier because gws had a plethora of #1 draft picks they wanted to play in his stead.
when he did play 7 games first season at age 20 he went at nearly 19 possesions a game 4 tackles won clearances and had plenty of c/ps. that to me is more than enough for a bloke in his first yr.
miles case is simple.
gws had too many good mids of better pedigree and miles was starved of opportunity it had nothing to do with his performances or his ability.
miles is an example to all of us at just how wrong recruiters everywhere get it.
-
Smokey, longest bow in history to compare Matt Priddis to Matt Dea :lol
So Smokey, what should it be based it on?
How complicated do you want to make it?
We either believe in him or we don't.
30 games over 5 years with a handful this year and none in the back 8 weeks of the year is fairly transparent of the clubas to their belief.
The club might be wrong but I doubt it and keeping it simple is to see the forest for the trees champ.
Thanks for the insight champ.
If you apply a simplistic or generalised rule then you do so to your own likely detriment. Some players you will know after 2 seasons, some you will not know until 5 or 6, and a football department that assesses each case without pre-conceived prejudices will most likely make the most correct decisions. Simple.
-
I'd argue guys like Miles and Priddis get overlooked for project players like Dea too often. Recruiters want to complicate the decision making process to justify their jobs and end up with egg on their face. B
-
Miles can kick a bit. Miles wasn't overlookes was he - ala priddis. Was he not removed from the draft via gws , like the other best kids?
Priddus is like Thomas.
Tbh he's rather crap.
Wouldn't really want him at Richmond. Not a massive upgrade on a Thomas or Foley
Imo
I'd argue guys like Miles and Priddis get overlooked for project players like Dea too often. Recruiters want to complicate the decision making process to justify their jobs and end up with egg on their face. B
Don't project players come good occasionally?
Fyfe was not the finished product when draft.
Morabito could be anything bwforw injurt.
Franklin was a project player of sorts. If this is wrong. Then why sis hawthorn choose roughead over him
Nic nat (project) v watts (safe bet)
Sometimes the safest bet isn't the beat
-
Smokey, longest bow in history to compare Matt Priddis to Matt Dea :lol
So Smokey, what should it be based it on?
How complicated do you want to make it?
We either believe in him or we don't.
30 games over 5 years with a handful this year and none in the back 8 weeks of the year is fairly transparent of the clubas to their belief.
The club might be wrong but I doubt it and keeping it simple is to see the forest for the trees champ.
Thanks for the insight champ.
If you apply a simplistic or generalised rule then you do so to your own likely detriment. Some players you will know after 2 seasons, some you will not know until 5 or 6, and a football department that assesses each case without pre-conceived prejudices will most likely make the most correct decisions. Simple.
My pleasure ;D
And if you overly complicate the process you do so to your own likely detriment. The world over is filled with intellectuals who cant execute their theory Smokey, I'm sure you can see that.
-
I'd argue guys like Miles and Priddis get overlooked for project players like Dea too often. Recruiters want to complicate the decision making process to justify their jobs and end up with egg on their face. B
that is a very valid point that I think a lot of people will agree with.
That aside, I still reckon Dea could do with another year on the list - I believe he made genuine progress this season
-
cmon smokey no ones saying its written in stone.
ive repeatedly said smls by 20, mediums by 22 talls by 24 as a loose guide. that is these types should click by that age but there are variables and other processes to go thru.
ffs i look at dea and say how old, right 23 yrs old, had 5 yrs should have clicked by now and been an established player. played just 31 games in those 5 yrs and only 10 in the last 2, why has he not clicked and why has he not established himself.
thee are no if or butts about it when you look at what hes done at the top lebvel it has been poor in anyones language.
i could live with giving him another yr if i could say to myself yep he will become a decent player. i cant say that and after 5 yrs for a player of his type its enough we should move on. now that is process.
we have a time line we set criteria we look at strengths weakness and performance and make a call. matts had his chances time to give someone else a go id say.
we fail as a club because believe it or not we hang onto far too many players just like matt dea and we have done it for yrs. ffs we pay em to make calls on players its time they started to accept their responsibility make the calls or f of out of the club.
-
My pleasure ;D
And if you overly complicate the process you do so to your own likely detriment. The world over is filled with intellectuals who cant execute their theory Smokey, I'm sure you can see that.
;D
If I thought what I believed was over-complicating the process then I would be doing this :bow but I don't so I won't. :thumbsup ;D
-
cmon smokey no ones saying its written in stone.
ive repeatedly said smls by 20, mediums by 22 talls by 24 as a loose guide. that is these types should click by that age but there are variables and other processes to go thru.
That's exactly what I'm saying Claw.
ffs i look at dea and say how old, right 23 yrs old, had 5 yrs should have clicked by now and been an established player. played just 31 games in those 5 yrs and only 10 in the last 2, why has he not clicked and why has he not established himself.
thee are no if or butts about it when you look at what hes done at the top lebvel it has been poor in anyones language.
i could live with giving him another yr if i could say to myself yep he will become a decent player. i cant say that and after 5 yrs for a player of his type its enough we should move on. now that is process.
we have a time line we set criteria we look at strengths weakness and performance and make a call. matts had his chances time to give someone else a go id say.
That's just your opinion on the player and to be honest you are just as likely to be right than wrong. Nothing to do with process because you (or me) don't have access to the 'real' data and info that is required to make the best valued judgement.
we fail as a club because believe it or not we hang onto far too many players just like matt dea and we have done it for yrs. ffs we pay em to make calls on players its time they started to accept their responsibility make the calls or f of out of the club.
Easy to judge the calls in hindsight. I (often) don't always agree with them either but I don't think they are shirking their responsibility, just that they get it wrong every now and then .......... like most humans I know.
-
cmon smokey no ones saying its written in stone.
ive repeatedly said smls by 20, mediums by 22 talls by 24 as a loose guide. that is these types should click by that age but there are variables and other processes to go thru.
That's exactly what I'm saying Claw.
ffs i look at dea and say how old, right 23 yrs old, had 5 yrs should have clicked by now and been an established player. played just 31 games in those 5 yrs and only 10 in the last 2, why has he not clicked and why has he not established himself.
thee are no if or butts about it when you look at what hes done at the top lebvel it has been poor in anyones language.
i could live with giving him another yr if i could say to myself yep he will become a decent player. i cant say that and after 5 yrs for a player of his type its enough we should move on. now that is process.
we have a time line we set criteria we look at strengths weakness and performance and make a call. matts had his chances time to give someone else a go id say.
That's just your opinion on the player and to be honest you are just as likely to be right than wrong. Nothing to do with process because you (or me) don't have access to the 'real' data and info that is required to make the best valued judgement.
we fail as a club because believe it or not we hang onto far too many players just like matt dea and we have done it for yrs. ffs we pay em to make calls on players its time they started to accept their responsibility make the calls or f of out of the club.
Easy to judge the calls in hindsight. I (often) don't always agree with them either but I don't think they are shirking their responsibility, just that they get it wrong every now and then .......... like most humans I know.
so do you agree its a reasonable loose guide and if you like starting point. they arent just numbers plucked out of the air they actuall correspond to what goes on in majority of cases.
smokestar im not sure what real data your on about. i see the stats i see him play i dont need much more to make a decent opinion. and yes
when you set out a time frame look at strengths weakness injury and performance it is a process and we should be judging players by these things and within certain timeframes.apply these things to all players and its a process. i do exactly that why cant the club. its like ticking boxes in a way.
also when they constantly fail to go thru proper processes we need to demand accountability. no hindsight with me smokey its a process and it is a constant one.
-
cmon smokey no ones saying its written in stone.
ive repeatedly said smls by 20, mediums by 22 talls by 24 as a loose guide. that is these types should click by that age but there are variables and other processes to go thru.
That's exactly what I'm saying Claw.
ffs i look at dea and say how old, right 23 yrs old, had 5 yrs should have clicked by now and been an established player. played just 31 games in those 5 yrs and only 10 in the last 2, why has he not clicked and why has he not established himself.
thee are no if or butts about it when you look at what hes done at the top lebvel it has been poor in anyones language.
i could live with giving him another yr if i could say to myself yep he will become a decent player. i cant say that and after 5 yrs for a player of his type its enough we should move on. now that is process.
we have a time line we set criteria we look at strengths weakness and performance and make a call. matts had his chances time to give someone else a go id say.
That's just your opinion on the player and to be honest you are just as likely to be right than wrong. Nothing to do with process because you (or me) don't have access to the 'real' data and info that is required to make the best valued judgement.
we fail as a club because believe it or not we hang onto far too many players just like matt dea and we have done it for yrs. ffs we pay em to make calls on players its time they started to accept their responsibility make the calls or f of out of the club.
Easy to judge the calls in hindsight. I (often) don't always agree with them either but I don't think they are shirking their responsibility, just that they get it wrong every now and then .......... like most humans I know.
so do you agree its a reasonable loose guide and if you like starting point. they arent just numbers plucked out of the air they actuall correspond to what goes on in majority of cases.
smokestar im not sure what real data your on about. i see the stats i see him play i dont need much more to make a decent opinion. and yes
when you set out a time frame look at strengths weakness injury and performance it is a process and we should be judging players by these things and within certain timeframes.apply these things to all players and its a process. i do exactly that why cant the club. its like ticking boxes in a way.
also when they constantly fail to go thru proper processes we need to demand accountability. no hindsight with me smokey its a process and it is a constant one.
Your 'process' got Rance wrong, spin whatever crap you want, you got him wrong. You are doing the same with Matty Dea.
Picking talent in footballers is not about ages or time frames or kicks to advantage, sometimes it's about what you see in a player, if you have an eye for it!
Some take longer than others and some end up better than others, it's not a exact science. Have you ever just seen a player play and say this kid will make it from only a couple of pieces of play? And I'm not talking about the Judd, Selwood types, I'm talking about the kids that have come from a long way back.
Matty Dea is that for me.
I agree 5 years is too long for a normal kid from TAC that plays Matty's roll but when you choose to pick a bloke as a development player you have to be a bit more patient. The upside is worth it when/if it pays off.
-
so do you agree its a reasonable loose guide and if you like starting point. they arent just numbers plucked out of the air they actuall correspond to what goes on in majority of cases.
Yes I do Claw but I would never base a decision on it. Use it to guide me initially, yes, but that's as far as it goes.
smokestar im not sure what real data your on about. i see the stats i see him play i dont need much more to make a decent opinion. and yes
when you set out a time frame look at strengths weakness injury and performance it is a process and we should be judging players by these things and within certain timeframes.apply these things to all players and its a process. i do exactly that why cant the club. its like ticking boxes in a way.
By real data I mean what role the club has envisaged for him, what's instructions they have given him, what development traits they have told him to concentrate on over any given period, what KPI's they have set for him. All the things that you and I as interested, knowledgeable, experienced but ultimately ignorant outsiders would have no clue about.
also when they constantly fail to go thru proper processes we need to demand accountability. no hindsight with me smokey its a process and it is a constant one.
A process is fine and the best way but it is only truly effective when armed with all the facts. You and I aren't.
-
My pleasure ;D
And if you overly complicate the process you do so to your own likely detriment. The world over is filled with intellectuals who cant execute their theory Smokey, I'm sure you can see that.
;D
If I thought what I believed was over-complicating the process then I would be doing this :bow but I don't so I won't. :thumbsup ;D
It's all relative Smoke - remember we are talking AFL but all good.
Out of interest, apart from being given a good run(and he was given 7 games in a row this year so whether punters like it or not that's a decent run of consecutive games to convince the experts on the match committee) what are you looking for from him to cement his spot in the side in 2015?
Also, given he turns 24 next year how much longer would you give him on the primary list if he doesn't make it next year?
-
I would only give him 1 more year because like you said he has had a bit of a go already but I'm just not convinced yet that he can't become a good ordinary player, a depth player that would be a definite improvement on Newman or Batchelor and free Vlastuin up for more midfield time. With all these fringe types that are on the cusp of keep or delist, my method would have been at 3-10 to give these guys a guaranteed run of 6-7 games minimum in their best position and let them have a fair dinkum crack without the fear of being dropped for one bad game or decision. Take some pressure off them by telling them they won't be dropped regardless and they have multiple games to show what they've got. I've seen it work in other grades and sports before and I'm convinced it has a place in this circumstance. Getting those 9 wins in a row was great in a short term emotional way but long term I would much rather have finished 11-12 and found out more definitive information on the fringe players than make the 8 and embarrass ourselves like we did.
-
It looks unlikely that Matt will hold down a regular spot in the back 6 so, I think we should try his as our run with player. Has the size, is accomplished 1 vs 1, is actually very good with his hands in tight and has ok speed. Can he be our Macaffer, Crowley or Langford? Given a chance to train in this role over the break he could have a clear direction and make this spot his own. As a team we need this position filled and filled fast.
-
It looks unlikely that Matt will hold down a regular spot in the back 6 so, I think we should try his as our run with player. Has the size, is accomplished 1 vs 1, is actually very good with his hands in tight and has ok speed. Can he be our Macaffer, Crowley or Langford? Given a chance to train in this role over the break he could have a clear direction and make this spot his own. As a team we need this position filled and filled fast.
Not much worse than priddis :shh
-
It looks unlikely that Matt will hold down a regular spot in the back 6 so, I think we should try his as our run with player. Has the size, is accomplished 1 vs 1, is actually very good with his hands in tight and has ok speed. Can he be our Macaffer, Crowley or Langford? Given a chance to train in this role over the break he could have a clear direction and make this spot his own. As a team we need this position filled and filled fast.
If he can become an elite runner then it's a better option that what we've been trying for the past 5 years.
-
while im not big on pure taggers or stoppers or whatever you want to call them, it would be worth a shot giving him a couple of shut down roles through the middle of the ground or even across half forward.
the problem is, though, he wasnt drafted as a tagger. we would be better off de listing him and drafting a pure tagger.
-
It looks unlikely that Matt will hold down a regular spot in the back 6 so, I think we should try his as our run with player. Has the size, is accomplished 1 vs 1, is actually very good with his hands in tight and has ok speed. Can he be our Macaffer, Crowley or Langford? Given a chance to train in this role over the break he could have a clear direction and make this spot his own. As a team we need this position filled and filled fast.
What's his tank like? I agree it would be worth a go as he's pretty sound defensively and has good athleticism so if he was to follow a player into their forward line (like a lot of players try when getting beat) you could back him in.
while im not big on pure taggers or stoppers or whatever you want to call them, it would be worth a shot giving him a couple of shut down roles through the middle of the ground or even across half forward.
the problem is, though, he wasnt drafted as a tagger. we would be better off de listing him and drafting a pure tagger.
I don't think anyone is drafted as a pure tagger are they? I know Crowley and Macaffer weren't. FWIW I think we need a pure stopper, sick of the oppositions best players destroying us.
-
I would only give him 1 more year because like you said he has had a bit of a go already but I'm just not convinced yet that he can't become a good ordinary player, a depth player that would be a definite improvement on Newman or Batchelor and free Vlastuin up for more midfield time. With all these fringe types that are on the cusp of keep or delist, my method would have been at 3-10 to give these guys a guaranteed run of 6-7 games minimum in their best position and let them have a fair dinkum crack without the fear of being dropped for one bad game or decision. Take some pressure off them by telling them they won't be dropped regardless and they have multiple games to show what they've got. I've seen it work in other grades and sports before and I'm convinced it has a place in this circumstance. Getting those 9 wins in a row was great in a short term emotional way but long term I would much rather have finished 11-12 and found out more definitive information on the fringe players than make the 8 and embarrass ourselves like we did.
Great post. I agree 100% about the Dea comments, agree with your thoughts on season 2014 also Smoke. The evidence on this is Griffiths, for once he had a guaranteed block of 4 games and ended up keeping Vickery, a walk up start, out of the side, and Gordon, who got given a block and while he didn't set the world on fire, has done enough to warrant further consideration as a HFF.
-
cmon smokey no ones saying its written in stone.
ive repeatedly said smls by 20, mediums by 22 talls by 24 as a loose guide. that is these types should click by that age but there are variables and other processes to go thru.
That's exactly what I'm saying Claw.
ffs i look at dea and say how old, right 23 yrs old, had 5 yrs should have clicked by now and been an established player. played just 31 games in those 5 yrs and only 10 in the last 2, why has he not clicked and why has he not established himself.
thee are no if or butts about it when you look at what hes done at the top lebvel it has been poor in anyones language.
i could live with giving him another yr if i could say to myself yep he will become a decent player. i cant say that and after 5 yrs for a player of his type its enough we should move on. now that is process.
we have a time line we set criteria we look at strengths weakness and performance and make a call. matts had his chances time to give someone else a go id say.
That's just your opinion on the player and to be honest you are just as likely to be right than wrong. Nothing to do with process because you (or me) don't have access to the 'real' data and info that is required to make the best valued judgement.
we fail as a club because believe it or not we hang onto far too many players just like matt dea and we have done it for yrs. ffs we pay em to make calls on players its time they started to accept their responsibility make the calls or f of out of the club.
Easy to judge the calls in hindsight. I (often) don't always agree with them either but I don't think they are shirking their responsibility, just that they get it wrong every now and then .......... like most humans I know.
so do you agree its a reasonable loose guide and if you like starting point. they arent just numbers plucked out of the air they actuall correspond to what goes on in majority of cases.
smokestar im not sure what real data your on about. i see the stats i see him play i dont need much more to make a decent opinion. and yes
when you set out a time frame look at strengths weakness injury and performance it is a process and we should be judging players by these things and within certain timeframes.apply these things to all players and its a process. i do exactly that why cant the club. its like ticking boxes in a way.
also when they constantly fail to go thru proper processes we need to demand accountability. no hindsight with me smokey its a process and it is a constant one.
Your 'process' got Rance wrong, spin whatever crap you want, you got him wrong. You are doing the same with Matty Dea.
Picking talent in footballers is not about ages or time frames or kicks to advantage, sometimes it's about what you see in a player, if you have an eye for it!
Some take longer than others and some end up better than others, it's not a exact science. Have you ever just seen a player play and say this kid will make it from only a couple of pieces of play? And I'm not talking about the Judd, Selwood types, I'm talking about the kids that have come from a long way back.
Matty Dea is that for me.
I agree 5 years is too long for a normal kid from TAC that plays Matty's roll but when you choose to pick a bloke as a development player you have to be a bit more patient. The upside is worth it when/if it pays off.
oh dear please tell what did i get wrong with rance. and with rance unlike dea i have never ever called for him to be delisted. i have continually argued his role and his many deficirencies. which i am big enough to admit have improved enormously. it doesnt pay to criticise around here people just dont forgive.imo i havent got too much wrong with rance as each yr has unfolded.mate im moere than happy to stand by just about everything i have said about the bloke.
but ffs where do you get off comparing dea with rance. there is no comparison between the two. matt gea has had 5 yrs and not done a thing.unlike rance who has always done some thing well but had plenty to work on.
dea has had just 31 games in 5 yrs. and stats that read like something i ccould muster up if given a go.. but your right its not just stats its what you see, how often have i had that debate.
heres one for ya entering yr 6 can you categorically say he will make it. development player or not hes had a shedload of time and theres been so little return on our investment.
the touble is if he has another yr lije this you will be saying give him one more geez hes close i see good glimpses.sorry hes past the stage of being kept on good glimpses.he was past that stage two yrs ago.
ffs tone we have lists of just 42 5 yrs is an eternity for a bloke like dea. failure to turn players over who do nothing quickly enough has indeded crucified us for way too long.
oh yeah just bto finish. with dea we are still very much hoping he will make it, and therin lies the problem, 5 yrs in and we still cant categorically say if he will make it or not and that is deplorable.
we could go to the nd and find a kid with a similar pick who in two yrs time will offer heaps more than what dea has to date.at what stage should we demand performances start to be at an acceptable level rather than just the odd glimpse.
when i use the guide mids by 22 it makes me have a look at blokes like dea and ask why he hasnt got there and should we keep him based on what hes done. if honest both answers arent what you want to hear.
and just to finish ive backed dea in for 5 yrs but when do we as a club ask how long is long enough.
i suppose at the end of the day you think hes done enough to be kept whereas i dont. hes shown very little.
-
I would only give him 1 more year because like you said he has had a bit of a go already but I'm just not convinced yet that he can't become a good ordinary player, a depth player that would be a definite improvement on Newman or Batchelor and free Vlastuin up for more midfield time. With all these fringe types that are on the cusp of keep or delist, my method would have been at 3-10 to give these guys a guaranteed run of 6-7 games minimum in their best position and let them have a fair dinkum crack without the fear of being dropped for one bad game or decision. Take some pressure off them by telling them they won't be dropped regardless and they have multiple games to show what they've got. I've seen it work in other grades and sports before and I'm convinced it has a place in this circumstance. Getting those 9 wins in a row was great in a short term emotional way but long term I would much rather have finished 11-12 and found out more definitive information on the fringe players than make the 8 and embarrass ourselves like we did.
Good Post
-
I actually thought he improved a lot this year.
He showed a lot more composure.
He played very little football as a junior and because of this would give another year extension. Needs a big preseason.
-
cmon smokey no ones saying its written in stone.
ive repeatedly said smls by 20, mediums by 22 talls by 24 as a loose guide. that is these types should click by that age but there are variables and other processes to go thru.
That's exactly what I'm saying Claw.
ffs i look at dea and say how old, right 23 yrs old, had 5 yrs should have clicked by now and been an established player. played just 31 games in those 5 yrs and only 10 in the last 2, why has he not clicked and why has he not established himself.
thee are no if or butts about it when you look at what hes done at the top lebvel it has been poor in anyones language.
i could live with giving him another yr if i could say to myself yep he will become a decent player. i cant say that and after 5 yrs for a player of his type its enough we should move on. now that is process.
we have a time line we set criteria we look at strengths weakness and performance and make a call. matts had his chances time to give someone else a go id say.
That's just your opinion on the player and to be honest you are just as likely to be right than wrong. Nothing to do with process because you (or me) don't have access to the 'real' data and info that is required to make the best valued judgement.
we fail as a club because believe it or not we hang onto far too many players just like matt dea and we have done it for yrs. ffs we pay em to make calls on players its time they started to accept their responsibility make the calls or f of out of the club.
Easy to judge the calls in hindsight. I (often) don't always agree with them either but I don't think they are shirking their responsibility, just that they get it wrong every now and then .......... like most humans I know.
so do you agree its a reasonable loose guide and if you like starting point. they arent just numbers plucked out of the air they actuall correspond to what goes on in majority of cases.
smokestar im not sure what real data your on about. i see the stats i see him play i dont need much more to make a decent opinion. and yes
when you set out a time frame look at strengths weakness injury and performance it is a process and we should be judging players by these things and within certain timeframes.apply these things to all players and its a process. i do exactly that why cant the club. its like ticking boxes in a way.
also when they constantly fail to go thru proper processes we need to demand accountability. no hindsight with me smokey its a process and it is a constant one.
Your 'process' got Rance wrong, spin whatever crap you want, you got him wrong. You are doing the same with Matty Dea.
Picking talent in footballers is not about ages or time frames or kicks to advantage, sometimes it's about what you see in a player, if you have an eye for it!
Some take longer than others and some end up better than others, it's not a exact science. Have you ever just seen a player play and say this kid will make it from only a couple of pieces of play? And I'm not talking about the Judd, Selwood types, I'm talking about the kids that have come from a long way back.
Matty Dea is that for me.
I agree 5 years is too long for a normal kid from TAC that plays Matty's roll but when you choose to pick a bloke as a development player you have to be a bit more patient. The upside is worth it when/if it pays off.
oh dear please tell what did i get wrong with rance. and with rance unlike dea i have never ever called for him to be delisted. i have continually argued his role and his many deficirencies. which i am big enough to admit have improved enormously. it doesnt pay to criticise around here people just dont forgive.imo i havent got too much wrong with rance as each yr has unfolded.mate im moere than happy to stand by just about everything i have said about the bloke.
but ffs where do you get off comparing dea with rance. there is no comparison between the two. matt gea has had 5 yrs and not done a thing.unlike rance who has always done some thing well but had plenty to work on.
dea has had just 31 games in 5 yrs. and stats that read like something i ccould muster up if given a go.. but your right its not just stats its what you see, how often have i had that debate.
heres one for ya entering yr 6 can you categorically say he will make it. development player or not hes had a shedload of time and theres been so little return on our investment.
the touble is if he has another yr lije this you will be saying give him one more geez hes close i see good glimpses.sorry hes past the stage of being kept on good glimpses.he was past that stage two yrs ago.
ffs tone we have lists of just 42 5 yrs is an eternity for a bloke like dea. failure to turn players over who do nothing quickly enough has indeded crucified us for way too long.
oh yeah just bto finish. with dea we are still very much hoping he will make it, and therin lies the problem, 5 yrs in and we still cant categorically say if he will make it or not and that is deplorable.
we could go to the nd and find a kid with a similar pick who in two yrs time will offer heaps more than what dea has to date.at what stage should we demand performances start to be at an acceptable level rather than just the odd glimpse.
when i use the guide mids by 22 it makes me have a look at blokes like dea and ask why he hasnt got there and should we keep him based on what hes done. if honest both answers arent what you want to hear.
and just to finish ive backed dea in for 5 yrs but when do we as a club ask how long is long enough.
i suppose at the end of the day you think hes done enough to be kept whereas i dont. hes shown very little.
Has dea ever been giving a chance without being dropped immediately? Like arnot? Like most other kids we have.
Ffs miles was the best player for half a year in vfl - and yet not deemed worthy of a senior game
-
I just posted in another thread that Dea has had something like 5 cracks at 4 consecutive games or more and was given 7 games in a row this year.
Injury impacted his 2013 - I would say he has been given a decent crack at establishing himself over 5 years.
Arnott, not so much
-
I actually thought he improved a lot this year.
He showed a lot more composure.
Thought he went backwards.
-
I actually thought he improved a lot this year.
He showed a lot more composure.
He played very little football as a junior and because of this would give another year extension. Needs a big preseason.
yep first time in his short afl career he actually showed a bit of composure and looked like a footballer - much less of the deer in headlights we saw in his previous seasons.
-
reckon the last 3 yrs he has pretty much stagnated. reckon this is reflected in all things matt dea when you look at em.
besides with dea arnot and a few others didnt we have the exact same threads last yr.
seems nothing changes, theres those who think they should go and then theres those who defend em at all costs and say ffs we have to give em one more yr. then the cycle goes around again.
what odds we will be having this exact same debate next about the same players.
-
at the end off the day no one would want him or Arnott best we do delist and get a pick in the high 80 or 90s they could just be blocking up our list. but do we find a better player then these two at those kinds of picks.. they both have had goes and lets be honest they haven't set the world on fire
-
Is either actually worse than nemwan grigg Thomas types?
If the "no one would want them" is the line then a few senior guys would make that group
-
yep ur right but don't want people going to war with me haha...
id say see yah Arnott, dea, grigg, vickery, Thomas, hampson, (probably would have said newman time to hang them up ) he had a couple of good games at the end when he knew he was playing for his carrier..
what ever happen to Roberts, taylor haha more great recruits