Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Cairnsman wrote: ↑Tue 08 Jan 2019 1:54pm
Apples and oranges comparing DH and NF.
Are you saying the experienced orange was carrying injuries and had niggles or was it the apple that had the physical and mental scarring from years of injury as well as a shoulder that needed surgery?
Personally I think people are quick to come up with meaningless cliches when they can't defend indisputable facts.
If you don't get rated as a player for your marks, goals, possessions, and tackles then what do you get judged on?
Hang on...I know...DH has a stronger voice, years of finals experience, plus he knows how to point and direct traffic better than NF. We are paying him to be a defacto captain coach aren't we?
No! Ok, so we are paying him because Lethlean said so. Let's wait and see how it all works out
Just looking through DHs games from 2018, a lot were injury affected. Plenty with 40, 50, 60% game time. Now obviously he had a down year as well and his stats were well down on previous years, but it's a bit disingenuous to compare his stats to Freemans two games of footy.
2017 he had a down year too but still averaged 28 possessions a game.
I mean to compare the two is quite ludicrous when you really think about it.
It is hard to draw a reasonable conclusion when Freeman was only afforded (less than) 2 games, but if you are going to claim it is unfair for the sake of game time then you are only being disingenuous to Nathan as he actually had less time on ground per game.
Hannebery 15 games - average time on ground 72%
Freeman 2 games - average time on ground 67%
Let's also keep in mind the relative midfield time each player would have had, how many centre bounces did Freeman attend?
Not sure why you would think it is ludicrous unless the comparison doesn't validate your viewpoint.
There is no questioning Hannebery's best, but his recent form is barely ahead of a guy who we delisted after 2 games.
Once again you can spin words any way you like and make countless excuses, but the most recent years stats are all we can go by. I'd claim it's just as ludicrous to think DH will regain the form he had in 2017 or prior
I'd rather a young player with upside (not necessarily NF) than a possibly broken Ex All Australian like DH
If Lethlean believes we are so devoid of leadership then he needs to get rid of the head coach who has been in charge of the playing group for the last five years
lewdogs wrote: ↑Tue 08 Jan 2019 11:45am
When Lethlean reviewed our football club I think a big red-flag for him was the Freeman trade. We gave up a future second for a guy that had never played a game and had chronic hamstring injuries. To put it in perspective we just gave up similar for a 3-time All-Australian. The other red-flag would have been the Logan Austin trade. Realistically we should have gotten both of those players for nothing. Freeman wanted to come to us and his career had hit a huge wall. We should have gotten him for a 5th rounder or not worried about it. The trade turned out to be a disaster as he went on to play 2 games before being delisted.
In terms of Lethlean, I like the fact that he has come in and been critical about these types of moves. It can only improve the football club if we look at our past trading and go 'this should have been better'. The same goes for all areas of the football club - coaching, player development etc. I dare say the same thing happened in coaching and development because if you look at it we have turned over a large number of coaches which suggests we weren't doing our best at least in Lethlean's eyes.
Hannebery has been brought in to address another area that Lethlean identified; Leadership. Also why Slater has come in.
Now is this guy the messiah? Who knows but the fact is he is getting quality people into the club. Hannebery is a quality player and will be a godsend should he get back to his best. Ratten one of the best assistant coaches out there. Slater an Australian sporting legend. To me, that isn't re-inventing the wheel. It's just getting good people through the door.
The Freeman de-listing irked some but it seems obvious enough that he wasn't good enough, and good football clubs need to make hard decisions sometimes.
And so he's pulled a few levers and you have to be careful not to pull too many at once, especially if you want to get accurate feedback on cause and effect.
Incremental improvement is a lower risk approach.
”Incremental”, ha?
Wonder who gave you the idea to use that word! For your future reference, the opposite to incremental in an organisational/innovation context is radical.
BTW, not having a go personally but there’s a difference between blindly trusting the process like you seem to be doing and questioning the process like every thinking St Kilda supporter should be doing. Both dragit and Skeptic appear to be in the later camp, which is a good thing.
Loving reading your corporate gobbledygook though. Here’s the book.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
Cairnsman wrote: ↑Tue 08 Jan 2019 1:54pm
Apples and oranges comparing DH and NF.
Are you saying the experienced orange was carrying injuries and had niggles or was it the apple that had the physical and mental scarring from years of injury as well as a shoulder that needed surgery?
Personally I think people are quick to come up with meaningless cliches when they can't defend indisputable facts.
If you don't get rated as a player for your marks, goals, possessions, and tackles then what do you get judged on?
Hang on...I know...DH has a stronger voice, years of finals experience, plus he knows how to point and direct traffic better than NF. We are paying him to be a defacto captain coach aren't we?
No! Ok, so we are paying him because Lethlean said so. Let's wait and see how it all works out
Just looking through DHs games from 2018, a lot were injury affected. Plenty with 40, 50, 60% game time. Now obviously he had a down year as well and his stats were well down on previous years, but it's a bit disingenuous to compare his stats to Freemans two games of footy.
2017 he had a down year too but still averaged 28 possessions a game.
I mean to compare the two is quite ludicrous when you really think about it.
It is hard to draw a reasonable conclusion when Freeman was only afforded (less than) 2 games, but if you are going to claim it is unfair for the sake of game time then you are only being disingenuous to Nathan as he actually had less time on ground per game.
Hannebery 15 games - average time on ground 72%
Freeman 2 games - average time on ground 67%
Let's also keep in mind the relative midfield time each player would have had, how many centre bounces did Freeman attend?
Not sure why you would think it is ludicrous unless the comparison doesn't validate your viewpoint.
There is no questioning Hannebery's best, but his recent form is barely ahead of a guy who we delisted after 2 games.
Battled through a lot of injuries last year though. The reason it's ludicrous to compare the two is that one is a VFL level player and the other a 3 time All Australian. I guess all will be revealed once the season starts but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone that would rather have Freeman in our round 1 side than Hannebery.
Scollop wrote: ↑Tue 08 Jan 2019 4:42pm
Once again you can spin words any way you like and make countless excuses, but the most recent years stats are all we can go by. I'd claim it's just as ludicrous to think DH will regain the form he had in 2017 or prior
I'd rather a young player with upside (not necessarily NF) than a possibly broken Ex All Australian like DH
If Lethlean believes we are so devoid of leadership then he needs to get rid of the head coach who has been in charge of the playing group for the last five years
17 other clubs didn't pick Nathan up. What do you read into that? Using your logic NF should have been hot property because his VFL form was equal to DH who you claim will be a bust. Still I can't believe 17 other clubs weren't falling over themselves to jump on a massive barging. Not even one club thought his extremely cheap price was worth a punt. Could have snared the next DH for next to nothing. Yep makes sense.
lewdogs wrote: ↑Tue 08 Jan 2019 11:45am
When Lethlean reviewed our football club I think a big red-flag for him was the Freeman trade. We gave up a future second for a guy that had never played a game and had chronic hamstring injuries. To put it in perspective we just gave up similar for a 3-time All-Australian. The other red-flag would have been the Logan Austin trade. Realistically we should have gotten both of those players for nothing. Freeman wanted to come to us and his career had hit a huge wall. We should have gotten him for a 5th rounder or not worried about it. The trade turned out to be a disaster as he went on to play 2 games before being delisted.
In terms of Lethlean, I like the fact that he has come in and been critical about these types of moves. It can only improve the football club if we look at our past trading and go 'this should have been better'. The same goes for all areas of the football club - coaching, player development etc. I dare say the same thing happened in coaching and development because if you look at it we have turned over a large number of coaches which suggests we weren't doing our best at least in Lethlean's eyes.
Hannebery has been brought in to address another area that Lethlean identified; Leadership. Also why Slater has come in.
Now is this guy the messiah? Who knows but the fact is he is getting quality people into the club. Hannebery is a quality player and will be a godsend should he get back to his best. Ratten one of the best assistant coaches out there. Slater an Australian sporting legend. To me, that isn't re-inventing the wheel. It's just getting good people through the door.
The Freeman de-listing irked some but it seems obvious enough that he wasn't good enough, and good football clubs need to make hard decisions sometimes.
And so he's pulled a few levers and you have to be careful not to pull too many at once, especially if you want to get accurate feedback on cause and effect.
Incremental improvement is a lower risk approach.
”Incremental”, ha?
Wonder who gave you the idea to use that word! For your future reference, the opposite to incremental in an organisational/innovation context is radical.
BTW, not having a go personally but there’s a difference between blindly trusting the process like you seem to be doing and questioning the process like every thinking St Kilda supporter should be doing. Both dragit and Skeptic appear to be in the later camp, which is a good thing.
Loving reading your corporate gobbledygook though. Here’s the book.
Careful...
According to some, to question the process makes you a disloyal supporter.
And if you're disloyal, you should barrack for another club.
Scollop wrote: ↑Tue 08 Jan 2019 4:42pm
Once again you can spin words any way you like and make countless excuses, but the most recent years stats are all we can go by. I'd claim it's just as ludicrous to think DH will regain the form he had in 2017 or prior
I'd rather a young player with upside (not necessarily NF) than a possibly broken Ex All Australian like DH
If Lethlean believes we are so devoid of leadership then he needs to get rid of the head coach who has been in charge of the playing group for the last five years
17 other clubs didn't pick Nathan up. What do you read into that? Using your logic NF should have been hot property because his VFL form was equal to DH who you claim will be a bust. Still I can't believe 17 other clubs weren't falling over themselves to jump on a massive barging. Not even one club thought his extremely cheap price was worth a punt. Could have snared the next DH for next to nothing. Yep makes sense.
If I was a member of one of the other 17 clubs that were looking to recruit a player that fit Nathan's profile (so it's pbly not 17)... I would be scared off by the fact that he seemingly played wellin the VFL and wasn't selected after the period of time the club invested in him, then after a pretty good debut he was essentially dumped. It reads as though there was a non-form related issue at play thta the club didn't want to attempt to overcome despite heavy investment into the kid.
Without all the information at play, the order of how things occured looks bad so I would pbly look to the draft instead
Scollop wrote: ↑Tue 08 Jan 2019 4:42pm
Once again you can spin words any way you like and make countless excuses, but the most recent years stats are all we can go by. I'd claim it's just as ludicrous to think DH will regain the form he had in 2017 or prior
I'd rather a young player with upside (not necessarily NF) than a possibly broken Ex All Australian like DH
If Lethlean believes we are so devoid of leadership then he needs to get rid of the head coach who has been in charge of the playing group for the last five years
17 other clubs didn't pick Nathan up. What do you read into that? Using your logic NF should have been hot property because his VFL form was equal to DH who you claim will be a bust. Still I can't believe 17 other clubs weren't falling over themselves to jump on a massive barging. Not even one club thought his extremely cheap price was worth a punt. Could have snared the next DH for next to nothing. Yep makes sense.
If I was a member of one of the other 17 clubs that were looking to recruit a player that fit Nathan's profile (so it's pbly not 17)... I would be scared off by the fact that he seemingly played wellin the VFL and wasn't selected after the period of time the club invested in him, then after a pretty good debut he was essentially dumped. It reads as though there was a non-form related issue at play thta the club didn't want to attempt to overcome despite heavy investment into the kid.
Without all the information at play, the order of how things occured looks bad so I would pbly look to the draft instead
There are posters suggesting his performances in the VFL stacked up against an injured DH's AFL performances over the same period who just happens to have multiple AAs and a flag to his name and many other credits in the bank. One poster even went to the trouble of preparing a matrix in a spreadsheet of DH's stats Vs NF's stats, I'm guessing he's a public servant if it was done during business hours, (insert smiley emoji here), but I digress, I agree there is information we don't know and as I posted earlier, I can see how the decision looked odd and inconsistent against the previous 5 years but clearly NF had run out of time. And I think it's debatable he played well in his debut, the optics of his performance suggested he didn't trust his legs.
No one is putting up a decent argument as to why NF wasn't picked up by 17 other clubs, I mean the comparison with DH cant be taken seriously and only reinforces the point, if he was as good as DH then why didn't a club take a punt, they would have got him on the minimum wage contract, I think that is around the 90k mark this year, chump change for a chance at a DH type.
Scollop wrote: ↑Tue 08 Jan 2019 4:42pm
Once again you can spin words any way you like and make countless excuses, but the most recent years stats are all we can go by. I'd claim it's just as ludicrous to think DH will regain the form he had in 2017 or prior
I'd rather a young player with upside (not necessarily NF) than a possibly broken Ex All Australian like DH
If Lethlean believes we are so devoid of leadership then he needs to get rid of the head coach who has been in charge of the playing group for the last five years
17 other clubs didn't pick Nathan up. What do you read into that? Using your logic NF should have been hot property because his VFL form was equal to DH who you claim will be a bust. Still I can't believe 17 other clubs weren't falling over themselves to jump on a massive barging. Not even one club thought his extremely cheap price was worth a punt. Could have snared the next DH for next to nothing. Yep makes sense.
If I was a member of one of the other 17 clubs that were looking to recruit a player that fit Nathan's profile (so it's pbly not 17)... I would be scared off by the fact that he seemingly played wellin the VFL and wasn't selected after the period of time the club invested in him, then after a pretty good debut he was essentially dumped. It reads as though there was a non-form related issue at play thta the club didn't want to attempt to overcome despite heavy investment into the kid.
Without all the information at play, the order of how things occured looks bad so I would pbly look to the draft instead
There are posters suggesting his performances in the VFL stacked up against an injured DH's AFL performances over the same period who just happens to have multiple AAs and a flag to his name and many other credits in the bank. One poster even went to the trouble of preparing a matrix in a spreadsheet of DH's stats Vs NF's stats, I'm guessing he's a public servant if it was done during business hours, (insert smiley emoji here), but I digress, I agree there is information we don't know and as I posted earlier, I can see how the decision looked odd and inconsistent against the previous 5 years but clearly NF had run out of time. And I think it's debatable he played well in his debut, the optics of his performance suggested he didn't trust his legs.
No one is putting up a decent argument as to why NF wasn't picked up by 17 other clubs, I mean the comparison with DH cant be taken seriously and only reinforces the point, if he was as good as DH then why didn't a club take a punt, they would have got him on the minimum wage contract, I think that is around the 90k mark this year, chump change for a chance at a DH type.
I think you're misrepresenting the DH argument... the only parrellels are the cost of getting them and the number of possessions in different leagues. It's merely there to suggest that in the eyes of some/many Freeman seemed to be showing reasonable form with the suggestion that he should have played more in the AFL.
That's the main sticking point amongst in the argument of misanagement of the situation.
With regards to why 17 other clubs didn't pick him up... I thought that I answered that reasonably well. Not all clubs would have prioritised that type of player in that type of age profile and the fact that he wasn't played more based on the form he demonstrated suggests another issue at play. One could suspect a more sinister one.
I don't think that was the case but again... the way it all happened simply doesn't look good so if you're another club, it makes no sense to take a punt on him despite some promising form when he has a heavy injury history and there's another reason why after investing 2 years of build up time he's given up on when he starts to play
Scollop wrote: ↑Tue 08 Jan 2019 4:42pm
Once again you can spin words any way you like and make countless excuses, but the most recent years stats are all we can go by. I'd claim it's just as ludicrous to think DH will regain the form he had in 2017 or prior
I'd rather a young player with upside (not necessarily NF) than a possibly broken Ex All Australian like DH
If Lethlean believes we are so devoid of leadership then he needs to get rid of the head coach who has been in charge of the playing group for the last five years
17 other clubs didn't pick Nathan up. What do you read into that? Using your logic NF should have been hot property because his VFL form was equal to DH who you claim will be a bust. Still I can't believe 17 other clubs weren't falling over themselves to jump on a massive barging. Not even one club thought his extremely cheap price was worth a punt. Could have snared the next DH for next to nothing. Yep makes sense.
If I was a member of one of the other 17 clubs that were looking to recruit a player that fit Nathan's profile (so it's pbly not 17)... I would be scared off by the fact that he seemingly played wellin the VFL and wasn't selected after the period of time the club invested in him, then after a pretty good debut he was essentially dumped. It reads as though there was a non-form related issue at play thta the club didn't want to attempt to overcome despite heavy investment into the kid.
Without all the information at play, the order of how things occured looks bad so I would pbly look to the draft instead
There are posters suggesting his performances in the VFL stacked up against an injured DH's AFL performances over the same period who just happens to have multiple AAs and a flag to his name and many other credits in the bank. One poster even went to the trouble of preparing a matrix in a spreadsheet of DH's stats Vs NF's stats, I'm guessing he's a public servant if it was done during business hours, (insert smiley emoji here), but I digress, I agree there is information we don't know and as I posted earlier, I can see how the decision looked odd and inconsistent against the previous 5 years but clearly NF had run out of time. And I think it's debatable he played well in his debut, the optics of his performance suggested he didn't trust his legs.
No one is putting up a decent argument as to why NF wasn't picked up by 17 other clubs, I mean the comparison with DH cant be taken seriously and only reinforces the point, if he was as good as DH then why didn't a club take a punt, they would have got him on the minimum wage contract, I think that is around the 90k mark this year, chump change for a chance at a DH type.
I think you're misrepresenting the DH argument... the only parrellels are the cost of getting them and the number of possessions in different leagues. It's merely there to suggest that in the eyes of some/many Freeman seemed to be showing reasonable form with the suggestion that he should have played more in the AFL.
That's the main sticking point amongst in the argument of misanagement of the situation.
With regards to why 17 other clubs didn't pick him up... I thought that I answered that reasonably well. Not all clubs would have prioritised that type of player in that type of age profile and the fact that he wasn't played more based on the form he demonstrated suggests another issue at play. One could suspect a more sinister one.
I don't think that was the case but again... the way it all happened simply doesn't look good so if you're another club, it makes no sense to take a punt on him despite some promising form when he has a heavy injury history and there's another reason why after investing 2 years of build up time he's given up on when he starts to play
I'm not the one trying to suggest NF's VFL form was comparable to DH's AFL form over a sustained period of time, no misrepresentation needed on my behalf.
Cairnsman wrote: ↑Tue 08 Jan 2019 8:55pm
I'm not the one trying to suggest NF's VFL form was comparable to DH's AFL form over a sustained period of time, no misrepresentation needed on my behalf.
No-one is.
It must be hard to keep up at times? No wonder the concept of a process seems so exciting.
Rain in Sydney where watching Pattinson was of interest given an Ashes tour
I see the same circles are being run around on here
The delisting of Freeman was unfortunate given his history and perseverance - but he is still s very young man so now has the incentive of displaying his skills and potential at VFL level and again come onto the AFL radar
St Kilda have recruited from the SANFL
Hannebery brings reputation and experience - and it is experience we lack on the back of the recent loss of Fisher then Roo, Montagna and Dempster - then Roberton
My opinions have not changed - and this supports Hannebery and his recruitment - in that as long as Geary is the Captain of the Club we have a problem
Honest, a trier no doubt but when the opposition want to see the ball in his hands and do not mark him for that reason after a behind is scored and otherwise there is the problem - particularly in a game where effectiveness of disposal and the ability to run and carry to break lines is a given requirement
So by concentrating on the issues on this thread I reckon you are all on the wrong track
Hopefully Hannebery and the return to fitness of some who had injury impacted seasons last year - starting with Roberton, Carlisle, McCartin and Acres - plus natural development of those now 3/4 years into their careers plus some input from those we have Drafted will see the improvements required
Cairnsman wrote: ↑Tue 08 Jan 2019 8:55pm
I'm not the one trying to suggest NF's VFL form was comparable to DH's AFL form over a sustained period of time, no misrepresentation needed on my behalf.
No-one is.
It must be hard to keep up at times? No wonder the concept of a process seems so exciting.
Enjoyed that spread sheet you put together btw, can you do pie charts? DH and NF in the same sentence...is that you Con.
.... - but he is still s very young man so now has the incentive of displaying his skills and potential at VFL level and again come onto the AFL radar
that’s about the reality of it
(in a footy context) his task is to prove us wrong
though i’m sure the medico’s learnt plenty
which our current ‘n future stock
will be well served by
could even be a medical tick towards our mature age recruitment ... not thrashed as kids allowing strengthening through maturity its natural course
(a bit medical/moneyball-ish)
our medics , sinners n saints like the rest
of the organisation
... they’d also have their fingers in plenty
of footy matters management you’d think
.name the ways , thought manipulates the State of Presence away.
Cairnsman wrote: ↑Tue 08 Jan 2019 8:55pm
I'm not the one trying to suggest NF's VFL form was comparable to DH's AFL form over a sustained period of time, no misrepresentation needed on my behalf.
No-one is.
It must be hard to keep up at times? No wonder the concept of a process seems so exciting.
Enjoyed that spread sheet you put together btw, can you do pie charts? DH and NF in the same sentence...is that you Con.
Can't wait for round 6.
Spreadsheets, matrices, pie charts... it's all very bamboozling isn't it?
Cairnsman wrote: ↑Tue 08 Jan 2019 8:55pm
I'm not the one trying to suggest NF's VFL form was comparable to DH's AFL form over a sustained period of time, no misrepresentation needed on my behalf.
No-one is.
It must be hard to keep up at times? No wonder the concept of a process seems so exciting.
Enjoyed that spread sheet you put together btw, can you do pie charts? DH and NF in the same sentence...is that you Con.
Can't wait for round 6.
Spreadsheets, matrices, pie charts... it's all very bamboozling isn't it?
To the top wrote: ↑Tue 08 Jan 2019 10:16pm
Rain in Sydney where watching Pattinson was of interest given an Ashes tour
I see the same circles are being run around on here
The delisting of Freeman was unfortunate given his history and perseverance - but he is still s very young man so now has the incentive of displaying his skills and potential at VFL level and again come onto the AFL radar
St Kilda have recruited from the SANFL
Hannebery brings reputation and experience - and it is experience we lack on the back of the recent loss of Fisher then Roo, Montagna and Dempster - then Roberton
My opinions have not changed - and this supports Hannebery and his recruitment - in that as long as Geary is the Captain of the Club we have a problem
Honest, a trier no doubt but when the opposition want to see the ball in his hands and do not mark him for that reason after a behind is scored and otherwise there is the problem - particularly in a game where effectiveness of disposal and the ability to run and carry to break lines is a given requirement
So by concentrating on the issues on this thread I reckon you are all on the wrong track
Hopefully Hannebery and the return to fitness of some who had injury impacted seasons last year - starting with Roberton, Carlisle, McCartin and Acres - plus natural development of those now 3/4 years into their careers plus some input from those we have Drafted will see the improvements required
But all the other sides will improve also
So, feast on that and enjoy
Cricket finished
Can't stay retired?????
Another 'Last Post'?????
'Cause StoneCold Said So'!!!!! We will be great again once Billy is back playing!!!!!
Cairnsman wrote: ↑Tue 08 Jan 2019 8:55pm
I'm not the one trying to suggest NF's VFL form was comparable to DH's AFL form over a sustained period of time, no misrepresentation needed on my behalf.
No-one is.
It must be hard to keep up at times? No wonder the concept of a process seems so exciting.
Enjoyed that spread sheet you put together btw, can you do pie charts? DH and NF in the same sentence...is that you Con.
Can't wait for round 6.
Spreadsheets, matrices, pie charts... it's all very bamboozling isn't it?
Cairnsman wants to appeal to the intellectually challenged and he knows most of them like things simplified - hence the argument turns into DH's AFL career and AA awards versus NF's career stats and VFL form. Yep...that's exactly what skeptic, dragit and I were arguing
The average supporter doesn't usually look at long term salary cap issues, opportunity cost (i.e. paying overs for DH and perhaps being impacted on who you might be able to bid for in future years) physical health and longevity, list management and team balance. I didn't specifically talk about the impact of all these factors however I also didn't exclude all these factors and just focus on past performance as the criteria when comparing the 2 players
No one is suggesting that you should compare the 2 players as though St Kilda should have made a decision to keep or recruit only 1 of them. Once again this is how the argument is turned into a simplified DH versus NF debate by those who don't want to discuss the merits of each decision the football club has made and discussing who makes the decisions and whether we have the right people making these decisions
I don’t understand how the 17 clubs thing is a valid point? I don’t even get the argument.
How does the fact that Freeman wasn’t picked up validate us extending his contract, then not playing him, then playing him once and then only playing him a half after he played a game that many... and I would say the majority forumites here (anecdotally of course) thought was at least as good as regular games that many more seasoned players play.
Player isn’t developed well... then delisted... then not picked up by other clubs that have less information and can’t make sense of it.
The argument isn’t whether Freeman was/is good enough? I think the majority of us contrarians here didn’t/don’t particularly rate him... I don’t.
That doesn’t mean that the last 18 months of Freeman’s time with us was handled well.
I’ve repeated many times why it looks flawed. I’ve yet to hear one person provide a decent rationale for how things happened or why.
The best we have is that everybody possibly got more competent all of a sudden due to non-specified structural dangers and all agreed to write him off quickly undoing the decision that was made 6 months prior in a way that wouldn’t take his form into consideration
The club likes to speculate with its recruiting, so here's some speculation of my own (to be taken with a grain of NaCl):
Maybe the club asked Freeman - maybe even gave him an ultimatum - to demonstrate his zip and outside running ability, in the 2 games he played, and he may have fallen short (in their estimation)?
The thing is we do need to inject pace and outside run, it was one of our main objectives - and after it became clear that Freeman wasn't going to provide this, and as we couldn't attract/recruit any proven AFL players, we recruited a number of mature-age, pacy, outside players ( playing at lower levels), in the hope that one or more might make it.
We rolled the dice once again - having given up on Freeman.
Last edited by samoht on Wed 09 Jan 2019 5:11pm, edited 1 time in total.
samoht wrote: ↑Wed 09 Jan 2019 5:02pm
The club likes to speculate with its recruiting, so here's some speculation of my own (to be taken with a grain of NaCl):
Maybe the club asked Freeman - maybe even gave him an ultimatum - to demonstrate his zip and outside running ability, in the 2 games he played, and he may have fallen short (in their estimation)?
The thing is we do need to inject pace and outside run - it probably became clear that Freeman wasn't going to provide this, and as we haven't been able to attract/recruit any proven AFL players, we recruited a number of mature-age, pacy, outside players ( playing at lower levels), in the hope that one or more might make it.
We rolled the dice once again - having given up on Freeman.
Cairnsman wrote: ↑Tue 08 Jan 2019 1:54pm
Apples and oranges comparing DH and NF.
Are you saying the experienced orange was carrying injuries and had niggles or was it the apple that had the physical and mental scarring from years of injury as well as a shoulder that needed surgery?
Personally I think people are quick to come up with meaningless cliches when they can't defend indisputable facts.
If you don't get rated as a player for your marks, goals, possessions, and tackles then what do you get judged on?
Hang on...I know...DH has a stronger voice, years of finals experience, plus he knows how to point and direct traffic better than NF. We are paying him to be a defacto captain coach aren't we?
No! Ok, so we are paying him because Lethlean said so. Let's wait and see how it all works out
Just looking through DHs games from 2018, a lot were injury affected. Plenty with 40, 50, 60% game time. Now obviously he had a down year as well and his stats were well down on previous years, but it's a bit disingenuous to compare his stats to Freemans two games of footy.
2017 he had a down year too but still averaged 28 possessions a game.
I mean to compare the two is quite ludicrous when you really think about it.
It is hard to draw a reasonable conclusion when Freeman was only afforded (less than) 2 games, but if you are going to claim it is unfair for the sake of game time then you are only being disingenuous to Nathan as he actually had less time on ground per game.
Hannebery 15 games - average time on ground 72%
Freeman 2 games - average time on ground 67%
Let's also keep in mind the relative midfield time each player would have had, how many centre bounces did Freeman attend?
Not sure why you would think it is ludicrous unless the comparison doesn't validate your viewpoint.
There is no questioning Hannebery's best, but his recent form is barely ahead of a guy who we delisted after 2 games.
Games played is an interesting point of difference though. One played 15 games and was the team's best player in a final. The other played 2 for a bottom 4 side. Both injury affected seasons but that suggests the difference between the players.
Comparing Hannebury and Freeman - lol. Unfortunately Nathan hasn't got back the assets that made him a top draft pick - speed and power, which is why the Saints picked him up, trying to fill the need for speed. However did not work, we have plenty of his current type who have got some runs on the board, so the hard decision to delist. Maybe he might yet get it back - I hope so. But over the next 2-3 years Hannebury will provide far more value with leadership and experience which is lacking, and as a bonus may even get back to near his best.
