Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Poll

Who is the best 5 bench players to go with the existing lineup below?

*** currently vacant
*****Backline group*****2 - Lachie Cowan
3 - Jesse Motlop
4 - Oliver Hollands
*****Midfield group*****5 - Adam Cerra
*****Forwards group*****6 - Zac Williams
*****Midfield group*****7 - Jagga Smith
8 - Lachie Fogarty
*****Midfield group*****9 - Patrick Cripps
*****Forwards group*****10 - Harry McKay
11 - Mitch McGovern
*****Forwards group*****12 - Ben Ainsworth
13 - Blake Acres
14 - Ollie Florent
15 - Billy Wilson
16 - Ben Camporeale
*****Forwards group*****17 - Brodie Kemp
*****Midfield group*****18 - Sam Walsh
*****Forwards group*****19 - Will Hayward
***20 - Elijah Hollands - currently not on our list
21 - Lucas Camporeale
*****Backline group*****22 - Harry O'Farrell
*****Backline group*****23 - Jacob Weitering
*****Backline group*****24 - Nick Newman
25 - Liam Reidy
*****Backline group*****26 - Nick Haynes
*****Midfield group*****27 - Marc Pittonet
28 - Harry Charleson
*****Midfield group*****29 - George Hewitt
30 - Jack Ison
31 - Campbell Chesser
32 - Matthew Carroll
33 - Lewis Young
34 - Rob Monahan
35 - Harry Dean
36 - Cooper Lord
37 - Jordan Boyd
***38 - Will White - currently not on our list
39 - Talor Byrne
40 - Hudson O'Keeffe
41 - Matt Duffy
*****Backline group*****42 - Adam Saad
*****Forwards group*****43 - Ashton Moir
44 - Francis Evans
45 - Flynn Young
46 - Matt Cottrell
Topic: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench (Read 488 times) previous topic - next topic
bricky and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench

Reply #15 –
Jack Silvagni was never clearly in everyone's best 23.  He was often the one that missed out, and Im one of the people who would select him more often than not.

Thing is, last year was arguably his best output for a season.  13 games, in which he was subbed early at least twice, and was influential in only about 2 of them.  He was otherwise very good, but not the difference.  He's joining a pretty defensive unit so I expect he will look good at the Saints, but I wonder how much of him looking like an elite defender, was as much to do with the players around him and how we defended as a team as it was him.   We certainly didnt get pummelled without him, and he played in our worst loss for the year before succumbing to injury (vs Port).
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench

Reply #16 –
Quote from: Lods – on
Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on

Given TDK, Charlie and Jack were/are now classified as spuds/navy blue infidels and the players we have brought in are vastly superior you wouldnt be able to include the afore mentioned three in your best 23 for next season if they were still on the list and the new recruits were also available?

I don't think anyone is saying these players we lost were 'duds'
They were obviously best 23
All three would probably make most folks selctions.
They'd make mine.

But their 2025 form was sub par, except perhaps for Jack who showed some promise as a KPD....before he was injured ::)
So in determining whether we improve from 2025 to 2026 we don't look at their best, we look at what they gave us in 2025 and that gap, if it exists, isn't that large.

The whole list debate centres around the difference between 2025 and 2026
Whether we finish about the same, 11th, whether we drop...or progress.
Some think we'll slide based on the loss of the three amigos.
Some think we'll stay about the same.
Others see us progressing.

We don't know the future.
In a lot of respects the list won't be a determining factor....it will be a better run with injuries, how the new players gel, no issues like player mental health, no division, a totally committed group... and a big change in luck, which hasn't been our friend the last two years.

Can't see how they make your best team if you and others have said their loss would be negligible in effect and say we have a better improved team without them.
You can't have it both ways...if we are a better team without them why would you pick them in your best 23?
TDK isn't as a good a ruckman as Pittonet, HOk ,or Reidy, JSOS is slow and Injury prone and Charlie isnt productive enough with a poor attitude...that's what I have been reading. Surely they would be VFL players and backup only...

Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench

Reply #17 –
That's the whole point.
I'm sorry these guys are not there.
Fully fit they would be in everybody's best team.
They would enhance our side.
If we were doing this exercise and they were still on the list they get a game in most people's sides.

Why? Because the ground rules Kruddler laid down said they were "fully fit" (even O' Farrell is in the mix and he might not even play a game next year.)

I think some have forgotten the 'ground' rules for this List Management debate, and the key question.
"Higher ladder position in 2025 or 2026"
Some are having difficulty grasping why we won't slide.

That debate question spreads over a number of threads, is ongoing, and also applies here... Will we perform better in 2026 than we did in 2025 given the changes to the list?

And that debate centres around the three main players we have lost, and the players coming in through trade and draft.
Don't think Coleman Charlie 2023, think Charlie 2025.

Charlie's contribution 2023 would be near impossible to cover
Charlie 2025...not so much.
There is every chance they will blossom at their new clubs and regain their best form, but early indications for 2026 are not great with both Jack and Tom missing some significant pre-season. Jack in particular seems to have an ongoing injury issue...and I suspect for some time has had a fair bit on his plate, which may go some way to explaining his decision to move.

Tom has had the distraction of the big money move. Charlie and Jack have had ongoing injury problems, all these impacted on their form the past year.

And that's why if you ask me the question... Will we be better in 2026 than we were at 11th place in 2025?...I'm guessing, yes.
Will we finish higher than we did in 2023...I'm guessing, no....2027 for that target. ;)

Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench

Reply #18 –
Quote from: Lods – on
That's the whole point.
I'm sorry these guys are not there.
Fully fit they would be in everybody's best team.
They would enhance our side.
If we were doing this exercise and they were still on the list they get a game in most people's sides.

Why? Because the ground rules Kruddler laid down said they were "fully fit" (even O' Farrell is in the mix and he might not even play a game next year.)

I think some have forgotten the 'ground' rules for this List Management debate, and the key question.
"Higher ladder position in 2025 or 2026"
Some are having difficulty grasping why we won't slide.

That debate question spreads over a number of threads, is ongoing, and also applies here... Will we perform better in 2026 than we did in 2025 given the changes to the list?

And that debate centres around the three main players we have lost, and the players coming in through trade and draft.
Don't think Coleman Charlie 2023, think Charlie 2025.

Charlie's contribution 2023 would be near impossible to cover
Charlie 2025...not so much.
There is every chance they will blossom at their new clubs and regain their best form, but early indications for 2026 are not great with both Jack and Tom missing some significant pre-season. Jack in particular seems to have an ongoing injury issue...and I suspect for some time has had a fair bit on his plate, which may go some way to explaining his decision to move.

Tom has had the distraction of the big money move. Charlie and Jack have had ongoing injury problems, all these impacted on their form the past year.

And that's why if you ask me the question... Will we be better in 2026 than we were at 11th place in 2025?...I'm guessing, yes.
Will we finish higher than we did in 2023...I'm guessing, no....2027 for that target. ;)


So TDK, Charlie and Jack are in fact better players when fully fit than those we have acquired?
Im not thinking what a player did in what particular year or how fit they were last year or the year before, Im selecting on ability and the presumption those players will be fit at some stage in the future if our medical/fitness staff can get their act together.
If we are building a list based around fitness first then Sam Walsh would have to be a candidate to be traded out next season if he is injured again for a long period if thats now a large part of our list management decision making for the future?
If Harry McKay had another mental health episode and took a break would that also place him in the trade basket?...
Are you willing to trade out all our A grade talent on the basis they may never be fully fit and replace them with players with less ability..?
 

Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench

Reply #19 –
I just said similar in another thread.
All outgoing players are now no good.
All incoming players have never played a bad game or missed a game through injury.
Its hypocrisy.

Take them all at 'average' levels and go from there.
You'll come up with the same conclusion if you are honest.

Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench

Reply #20 –
You guys have gone completely off track. ::)

The original question was posed "Will we be better in 2026 than we were in 2025?"
You guys are saying ..No!
I'm saying....Yes ! because what these players delivered in 2025 can be more than covered by the current list.
That is the sole basis for all I'm arguing across multiple threads.
I think we're in better shape going forward than you seem to think.
But who knows how it will turn out.

It's not about the list long term.
It's not about past list management errors.
It's a comparison in years.
2025 vs 2026

If you want me to say we'll miss them, and at their best they are more talented than the player's we've brought in you're not going to get an argument.
But I'm not so sure about their future...that's a story to be written.

And just as a final point...Those players left of their own accord. We would have kept them if they wanted to stay. The reasons for some of those moves are obvious, some we'll find out about down the track.