Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Recent Posts
91
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Last post by Lods -
And those same 'Navy glasses' have you rating the departing players based on their 2025 form more highly.

At the end of the day this is pretty much a futile debate because no-one is changing their mind.

The bar has been set.
Who is right and who is wrong willl be determined by this time next year.
10+ wins and 10th place and the optimists take it
8 wins or less and a lower than 11th finish and the pessimists take the prize.
9 wins and 11th place...and we'll call it a draw.

This thread topic has probably run its course.
We have 4 players who make the bench

Hollands (6)
Lord (5)
O'Keefe (5)
Evans (4)

(I'm actually happy with that... it's similar to mine

Florent (3)
Motlop (3)
McGovern (3)  are in a contest for the last spot.



92
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Last post by kruddler -
@DJC....
The 'covering the loss of' comments are about exactly what you are describing.
Loss of output in one area is covered by an increased performance in another area. Thats the point i'm getting at.

I've said i'm trying to be simplistic.
I could do a deep dive into statistics and marginal improvements in ability to get open for an easy mark inside 50 to increase likelyhood of shots on goal vs 50-50 contests that we would win with Charlie there instead......but nobody would read it, understand it and/or agree with it, so i'm keeping it simple. Perhaps too simple for some.

In order for team performance to improve SOME areas must get better. Correct?
With some of the players we lost, SOME areas will get worse (Ability to kick goals off 1 step from outside 50 is one nobody could argue with, but there would be others). Correct?
Without going into the minutia of who, where and why each individual area of the performance will change, i'm simplyfying it to a hypothetical number. The number itself is not important. The variation to it is what is important and debateable.
Overall, i say some areas of the ground some numbers will get worse. In others it might stay the same or improve.
Your thoughts on those numbers will be different to mine and different to the next guy.
Overall, i've got no interest in debating the numbers, they are just there as a point of reference to highlight areas where i think our team performance will struggle compared to years previous.

Those same numbers will vary dramtically with injury and confidence....week to week, month to month, year to year.

Its the exact same logic i was using in the 2 ruck debate previously.
Despite 'getting worse in hitouts' by using a SOJ/Cripps/Kennedy as backup ruck compaired to the TDK+Pitto combo....
....around the ground the amount we would improve would more than cover for the loss of a few hitouts.
So its not a like for like, its a 'covering for' to get a benefit elsewhere.

Now perhaps the difference in team performance will be largely made irrelevent if the injuries and confidence of the playing group is superior to what it was last year.....and i hope that is true.
But without knowing how those 2 factors will play out, its best to remove them from the debate.

So with that in mind, this debate is centered around ability and ignoring form and fitness....as the latter may get better or may get worse. Ability, will largely stay the same, with small increases in developing kids and small decreases in senior players as they get older.

So in conclusion....
I think we will get weaker, up forward and in the middle with the changes we've had overall. I accept some areas within that will improve, but you must also concede some areas within that will be down as well.
The debate centers around how much and where.
IMO, Navy glasses are responsible for overestimating some of these areas on your side of the debate.
93
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Last post by kruddler -
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Those numbers are a factor but using the video game analogy ive signed a player with the high rating and then swapped him for another who didnt have as high a rating but had some skills that were more complimentary and most importantly moved in a way that strengthened the whole.

This is where the discrepancy on both sides of the argument begins.  We had skull and kemp.  They will get theor time in the sun. We have a young moir and maybe a wildcard option in Ison. Using Brisbane Logan Morris is a 191 cm key forward. 

Kemp, ison and moir all have him for size. 

We dont know how this goes for them, and skull would be the player you wanted drafted.  Hes 20 years old and 200cm and played 5 games.

Using the Judd into cripps analogy, we all though cripps would do a job for us moving forward but he has gone from strength to strength in a way only thr most optimistic of people expected after his debut season.

Ultimately its the I told you so bit thats tripping you over.  You cant see the clubs attempts because you dont agree with it.  We havent neglected these spots at all, weve just taken alternatives to the types and players you would have.  Thats ok too, but the pudding is still in the oven and you are lamenting the ingredients used.  Thing is the oven could break before we get the pudding out.  We wont know but the change of ingredients wouldnt have likely impacted that.

I understand what you are saying about skill set, and as i said i tried to keep it simplistic as to not go into every attribute, but ultimately the argument remains the same.
A decrease in marking power vs an increase in tackling etc. It balances out somewhat for forwards if you want to play it that way (Personally i disagree, but there is no way for one to be proven right or wrong at this stage).

The area of midfield was the contentious one as there is very little improvement in that area from an incoming point of view, its all about development of those already in the system, largely off the back of the hope that Jagga can add something over and above what we already had to help cover for the tdk downgrade.

As for HOK being 'the guy'....well up until this off-season, he was a ruck. Now he's the answer up forward?
I'd like to hope so, but i think he's a long way off ticking that box at this stage. He averages 8 hitouts and 7 posessions. and 0.6 goals a game. Sure he will get better, but Lewis Young offered us 3 hitouts, 10 touches and .5 goals a game last year and is far from the answer.....and HOK hasn't got to that yet.

Kudos for understanding the analogy though, which is more than i can say for some others.
94
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Last post by DJC -
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: DJC – on


I don’t think you understand your post 🙄

Why mention Dean covering Silvagni, a HF and FP covering Charlie, or ask who will cover TDK if that’s not what you meant?

Is a HF and FPs imrproved output covering for Charlie like for like?? No its not.

I don't know the best way to get this across, but from a really simplistic point of view what i'm saying is this.
Think about it like a video game rating system.
Each player has their own strengths and weaknesses and an overall rating. Charlie might be an 88 / 100.
When you add up our best 2025 6 players in our forwardline, maybe we average 75.

If you simple swap out like for like and replace Charlie with.....HOK, maybe he is a 70. Our overall rating of our forward line goes down because we don't have a charlie replacement - like for like.

Now, let rejig our whole forwardline.
1. Charlie out - Hok in. (for example)
2. Durdin out - Ainsworth in
3. Motlop out - Hayward in.

Now, in a 'like for like' the first 1 is a loss, but the second 2 are a gain. So 'overall' we are covering charlie with the other 2 upgrades. This is your whole argument and one that i am going along with. How much it goes up, who knows. Does it get back to our '75' 2025 forward line base, is up for debate. But lets assume its a break even, even with some natural development of Moir helping that area.

My question is this.
What part of the midfield is improving enough to cover the loss of TDK? In 2025, maybe we were a 84 midfield.
If TDK > Pittonet, then in a like for like, maybe we drop to a 78 midfield in 2026.

What other areas improve to the point to make up for the 'points' we lost from pittonet taking over from TDK?
IS Cripps, Hewett, Cerra and Walsh going to get better? Asking a bit much there IMO, especially since Cerra and Hewett had their best years IMO.
So where is the other improvement coming from to cover for TDK? NOT in a like for like.

Why do you insist on one for one comparisons to "cover the loss of" whoever it may be?  It's a team game and changing structures and gameplans, and improving ball movement and running patterns can result in more scoring opportunities.  More accurate kicks for goal means a more efficient forward line and, combined with forward half defensive pressure, means fewer opposition rebounds and less pressure on our team defence.  Your video game analogy is fine, for understanding video games, but has absolutely no relevance to AFL list management or team performance.

Take our midfield for example.  Last season it was generally seven or eight of Cripps, Hewett, Walsh, De Koning, Cerra, Acres, Lord, Docherty and Pittonet, with Cottrell, Binns and Haynes getting a couple of games there as well.  Cripps was well down on his usual form, Walsh missed games through injury, Acres was struggling with his back.  This season we have Acres and Walsh back to full fitness, Smith ready to debut and Cripps, Hewett, Cerra, Lord and Pittonet from our 2025 midfield.  Then there's Ollie Hollands back from defence, Reidy, who is looking a much better prospect than I expected, and Chesser, the Camporeales with another pre-season under their belts, and Hayward, Ainsworth and Florent all capable of time in the midfield.  Collectively, our midfield cohort is significantly stronger than it was last season.

Swapping three players for three players is not "rejigging our forward line."  Rejigging our forward line is appointing a new assistant coach determined to end our forward line's reliance on one or two players, improving our connection and ball movement inside 50, creating more scoring opportunities, and requiring our forwards to have the complete and unconditional buy-in of successful teams.  Our list managers have given Josh Fraser the cattle he needs to achieve that.
95
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Last post by Thryleon -
Quote from: Lods – on
Quote from: kruddler – on


Is a HF and FPs imrproved output covering for Charlie like for like?? No its not.

I don't know the best way to get this across, but from a really simplistic point of view what i'm saying is this.
Think about it like a video game rating system.
Each player has their own strengths and weaknesses and an overall rating. Charlie might be an 88 / 100.
When you add up our best 2025 6 players in our forwardline, maybe we average 75.

If you simple swap out like for like and replace Charlie with.....HOK, maybe he is a 70. Our overall rating of our forward line goes down because we don't have a charlie replacement - like for like.

Now, let rejig our whole forwardline.
1. Charlie out - Hok in. (for example)
2. Durdin out - Ainsworth in
3. Motlop out - Hayward in.

Now, in a 'like for like' the first 1 is a loss, but the second 2 are a gain. So 'overall' we are covering charlie with the other 2 upgrades. This is your whole argument and one that i am going along with. How much it goes up, who knows. Does it get back to our '75' 2025 forward line base, is up for debate. But lets assume its a break even, even with some natural development of Moir helping that area.

My question is this.
What part of the midfield is improving enough to cover the loss of TDK? In 2025, maybe we were a 84 midfield.
If TDK > Pittonet, then in a like for like, maybe we drop to a 78 midfield in 2026.

What other areas improve to the point to make up for the 'points' we lost from pittonet taking over from TDK?
IS Cripps, Hewett, Cerra and Walsh going to get better? Asking a bit much there IMO, especially since Cerra and Hewett had their best years IMO.
So where is the other improvement coming from to cover for TDK? NOT in a like for like.

No!
Like for like is not the way to go.
And the figures you put on them are arbitrary and have no basis othe than opinion.

So, forwards....add Evans to the mix, Maybe Lij as well.
Harry played 12 games in 2025.
He was actually our most effective KPP with 1.83 goals per game.
Curnow played 18  games at 1.78 goals a game.
They only played 7 games together.
Surely we can cover Curnow's output with a combination of these players plus our existing forwards Motlop, Kemp Williams. We'll run some off the bench.

It'll be more than just O'Keefe

Mids- Lord (watch this space), Jagga, Ben C, maybe even Ison who looks a good size
Some of our mids may have their best days behind them, others have years of improvement ahead of them and will be guided by some experienced players. How quickly they come on is to be determined. But a combination of the youth and experience seems a good mix.
Yep we might even use cripps as a key forward if the midfield gets sorted.

His goal scoring record is quite good for a bloke who doesnt exactly kick them out of a clearance situation and spends so often at thr ball drop.
96
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Last post by Lods -
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: DJC – on


I don’t think you understand your post 🙄

Why mention Dean covering Silvagni, a HF and FP covering Charlie, or ask who will cover TDK if that’s not what you meant?

Is a HF and FPs imrproved output covering for Charlie like for like?? No its not.

I don't know the best way to get this across, but from a really simplistic point of view what i'm saying is this.
Think about it like a video game rating system.
Each player has their own strengths and weaknesses and an overall rating. Charlie might be an 88 / 100.
When you add up our best 2025 6 players in our forwardline, maybe we average 75.

If you simple swap out like for like and replace Charlie with.....HOK, maybe he is a 70. Our overall rating of our forward line goes down because we don't have a charlie replacement - like for like.

Now, let rejig our whole forwardline.
1. Charlie out - Hok in. (for example)
2. Durdin out - Ainsworth in
3. Motlop out - Hayward in.

Now, in a 'like for like' the first 1 is a loss, but the second 2 are a gain. So 'overall' we are covering charlie with the other 2 upgrades. This is your whole argument and one that i am going along with. How much it goes up, who knows. Does it get back to our '75' 2025 forward line base, is up for debate. But lets assume its a break even, even with some natural development of Moir helping that area.

My question is this.
What part of the midfield is improving enough to cover the loss of TDK? In 2025, maybe we were a 84 midfield.
If TDK > Pittonet, then in a like for like, maybe we drop to a 78 midfield in 2026.

What other areas improve to the point to make up for the 'points' we lost from pittonet taking over from TDK?
IS Cripps, Hewett, Cerra and Walsh going to get better? Asking a bit much there IMO, especially since Cerra and Hewett had their best years IMO.
So where is the other improvement coming from to cover for TDK? NOT in a like for like.

No!
Like for like is not the way to go.
And the figures you put on them are arbitrary and have no basis other than opinion.

So, forwards....add Evans to the mix, Maybe Lij as well.
Harry played 12 games in 2025.
He was actually our most effective KPP with 1.83 goals per game.
Curnow played 18  games at 1.78 goals a game.
They only played 7 games together.
Surely we can cover Curnow's output with a combination of these players plus our existing forwards Motlop, Kemp Williams. We'll run some off the bench.

It'll be more than just O'Keefe

Mids- Lord (watch this space), Jagga, Ben C, maybe even Ison who looks a good size
Some of our mids may have their best days behind them, others have years of improvement ahead of them and will be guided by some experienced players. How quickly they come on is to be determined. But a combination of the youth and experience seems a good mix.
97
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Last post by Thryleon -
Quote from: northernblue – on
I think Krudds is disappointed that we don’t have a young KPP to replace trading/losing H or C.
If we did we wouldn’t be looking at restructuring our attack we could replace like for like and plug and play.
I get that.  They arent the much vaunted option but skull, kemp and young are going to be first cabs off the rank to replace Charlie's presence.  Then we will change up to someone like moir, hayward and Ison which will be that smaller setup that is a departure from the way we currently structure up, but im hoping we get more of a return to form from others that were down to help bridge the gap between our worst and our best last season and hopefully our best in 2025 and 2026 look similar.  Again we wont know for sometime.  I think based on some of Chris Davies comments temper the expectations on Jagga for 26.  Thing is I reckon the absence of walsh in 2025 hurt us more than any other single player who wont be with us next year.  If he can. Have a big year then we might actually progress significantly in 2026.
98
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Last post by Thryleon -
Those numbers are a factor but using the video game analogy ive signed a player with the high rating and then swapped him for another who didnt have as high a rating but had some skills that were more complimentary and most importantly moved in a way that strengthened the whole.

This is where the discrepancy on both sides of the argument begins.  We had skull and kemp.  They will get theor time in the sun. We have a young moir and maybe a wildcard option in Ison. Using Brisbane Logan Morris is a 191 cm key forward. 

Kemp, ison and moir all have him for size. 

We dont know how this goes for them, and skull would be the player you wanted drafted.  Hes 20 years old and 200cm and played 5 games.

Using the Judd into cripps analogy, we all though cripps would do a job for us moving forward but he has gone from strength to strength in a way only thr most optimistic of people expected after his debut season.

Ultimately its the I told you so bit thats tripping you over.  You cant see the clubs attempts because you dont agree with it.  We havent neglected these spots at all, weve just taken alternatives to the types and players you would have.  Thats ok too, but the pudding is still in the oven and you are lamenting the ingredients used.  Thing is the oven could break before we get the pudding out.  We wont know but the change of ingredients wouldnt have likely impacted that.
99
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Last post by kruddler -
Quote from: Lods – on
Geelong didn't fight too hard, even though by all reports Charlie was desperate to get there.
So 'many' clubs is a bit of a stretch.

Charlie went for his optimum based, not on his 2025 performance, but on his past performances.
Have a look at some of the Sydney forums and you'll see they're happy to have him, but concerns remain over his injury history.


"Navy Blue Glasses" is getting a bit of  run in some places.
And yes, generally club supporters are optimistic about their chances ahead of a new season.
It's a fresh slate...and usually comes with few injuries and some new talent.

The thing is Navy Blue Glasses work work both ways...In and Out!

If folks are looking at the 'Ins' with Navy Blue Glasses then it's probably fair to say that others are looking at the "Outs" with the same Navy coloured glasses. They rate the players they will miss a little more highly than an opposition supporter might.

I suspect opposition supporters don't rate the 2025 version of Tom, Jack and Charlie as highly as some Carlton supporters...except perhaps the supporters of the clubs they are going to.

Judds first preference was Collingwood back in the day but he didn't fight too hard to get there for the same reason.
In both instances, the club didn't have enough to get the deal done. So they didn't waste anyones time.

Kudos to Geelong. They offered their best deal up front of 3x 1st rounders (if thats not trying then this argument is over). which we knocked back pretty quick. So Cats moved on rather than let it ruin their whole trade period.

Have a look at these very forums and see the consensus on Hayward and Florrent etc.
Look at those same opinions now. Its changed. The only thing thats changed is the colour of the jumper they are wearing.....and nobodys opinion has gotten worse in the meantime.
100
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Last post by kruddler -
Quote from: DJC – on
Quote from: kruddler – on


Tell me you didn't read/understand my post without telling me you didn't read/understand my post.

I don’t think you understand your post 🙄

Why mention Dean covering Silvagni, a HF and FP covering Charlie, or ask who will cover TDK if that’s not what you meant?

Is a HF and FPs imrproved output covering for Charlie like for like?? No its not.

I don't know the best way to get this across, but from a really simplistic point of view what i'm saying is this.
Think about it like a video game rating system.
Each player has their own strengths and weaknesses and an overall rating. Charlie might be an 88 / 100.
When you add up our best 2025 6 players in our forwardline, maybe we average 75.

If you simple swap out like for like and replace Charlie with.....HOK, maybe he is a 70. Our overall rating of our forward line goes down because we don't have a charlie replacement - like for like.

Now, let rejig our whole forwardline.
1. Charlie out - Hok in. (for example)
2. Durdin out - Ainsworth in
3. Motlop out - Hayward in.

Now, in a 'like for like' the first 1 is a loss, but the second 2 are a gain. So 'overall' we are covering charlie with the other 2 upgrades. This is your whole argument and one that i am going along with. How much it goes up, who knows. Does it get back to our '75' 2025 forward line base, is up for debate. But lets assume its a break even, even with some natural development of Moir helping that area.

My question is this.
What part of the midfield is improving enough to cover the loss of TDK? In 2025, maybe we were a 84 midfield.
If TDK > Pittonet, then in a like for like, maybe we drop to a 78 midfield in 2026.

What other areas improve to the point to make up for the 'points' we lost from pittonet taking over from TDK?
IS Cripps, Hewett, Cerra and Walsh going to get better? Asking a bit much there IMO, especially since Cerra and Hewett had their best years IMO.
So where is the other improvement coming from to cover for TDK? NOT in a like for like.