Need to Try More Players Through the Centre

[Plugger12]

What is everyone's feeling, would love to see Hunter, Long, Butler play more time in the centre. Great news that Bytel will hopefully be tried out in the centre.

[skeptic]

Hunter yes - of all the flankers, he looks the most likely to potentially develop into a pure elite mid. The challenge is... he already looks like a near elite HBF and is better there than in the middle
So work in moderation there

Butler... no. He’s perfect in his current role.

Long yes. He’s still a bit of a journeyman. Seems reasonable as a HBF but the back 6 of Coffield, Clarke, Paton, Howard, Wilkie, Carlisle is an incredible 6... hence Long and Clarke are pbly the two alternating from flank to middle.

Don’t know anybody else beyond the alternate mids that could do it in SInclair, Phillips, Byrnes, Hind, Dunstan, Hannebery etc Geary as a tagger

Possibly Savage and Roberton could try reinventing themselves as pure mids.

[The_Dud]

Definitely would like to see Clarke in there, a lot of NDS about him if you ask me.

I wouldn’t mess with Butler’s winning formula tho, I think doing the same thing has hurt Gresh.

[whiskers3614]

How many times does it need to be said- No E in Clark!
Raphael was hounded out about a decade ago!

[saynta]

Definitely would like to see Clarke in there, a lot of NDS about him if you ask me.

I wouldn’t mess with Butler’s winning formula tho, I think doing the same thing has hurt Gresh.

You can at least learn how to spell the players names Chuck. There is no e at the end of Clark ffs.

[The_Dud]

Definitely would like to see Clarke in there, a lot of NDS about him if you ask me.

I wouldn’t mess with Butler’s winning formula tho, I think doing the same thing has hurt Gresh.

You can at least learn how to spell the players names Chuck. There is no e at the end of Clark ffs.

If the ‘e’ isn’t at the end, then where does it go? Huntar Clerk??

[bigcarl]

Definitely in favour of more guys being able to go through the midfield.

With Hannebery, Ross, Dunstan, Jones injured or in Jones’s case “rested”, who are our AFL-hardened in and under players?

Look, I think it’s fantastic that Bytel gets his chance. Not sure I’d throw him into that in-and-under role just yet.

Ratts has made Clark and Coffield serve an apprenticeship in defence to learn the game at the highest level. Maybe one of them gets a chance in the guts.

[Saintmatt]

Hunter yes - of all the flankers, he looks the most likely to potentially develop into a pure elite mid. The challenge is... he already looks like a near elite HBF and is better there than in the middle
So work in moderation there

Butler... no. He’s perfect in his current role.

Long yes. He’s still a bit of a journeyman. Seems reasonable as a HBF but the back 6 of Coffield, Clarke, Paton, Howard, Wilkie, Carlisle is an incredible 6... hence Long and Clarke are pbly the two alternating from flank to middle.

Don’t know anybody else beyond the alternate mids that could do it in SInclair, Phillips, Byrnes, Hind, Dunstan, Hannebery etc Geary as a tagger

Possibly Savage and Roberton could try reinventing themselves as pure mids.

It’s Coffield who will become a phenomenal midfielder. He’s building beautifully - big frame, excellent tank and getting a feel for the tempo & contest at a Senior level. He’ll be the hard running, great kicking big bodied mid we crave. Think Cripps / Fyfe / Bont shape & role.

[skeptic]

Hunter yes - of all the flankers, he looks the most likely to potentially develop into a pure elite mid. The challenge is... he already looks like a near elite HBF and is better there than in the middle
So work in moderation there

Butler... no. He’s perfect in his current role.

Long yes. He’s still a bit of a journeyman. Seems reasonable as a HBF but the back 6 of Coffield, Clarke, Paton, Howard, Wilkie, Carlisle is an incredible 6... hence Long and Clarke are pbly the two alternating from flank to middle.

Don’t know anybody else beyond the alternate mids that could do it in SInclair, Phillips, Byrnes, Hind, Dunstan, Hannebery etc Geary as a tagger

Possibly Savage and Roberton could try reinventing themselves as pure mids.

It’s Coffield who will become a phenomenal midfielder. He’s building beautifully - big frame, excellent tank and getting a feel for the tempo & contest at a Senior level. He’ll be the hard running, great kicking big bodied mid we crave. Think Cripps / Fyfe / Bont shape & role.

Big call. Personally, Coffield strikes as someone that is extremely well suited to the position and role that he plays now.

My concern is that we may try and turn him into something that he’s not with lacklustre results. Richo played him a bit in the midfield and he looked to lose that excellent decision making and dash that he showed early on... though this could be attributed to his level of experience, the all round terrible team performances and a confusing game plan

[saintsRrising]

Against the Cats, as Steele and Gresh need some help:

Billings to play as a mid.

Bytel to play as a mid rather banished to BF or FF flank which is what happens to many debuting mids at the Saints. Bytel missed a year and so is a year older than some in debuting.

Mix it up with Marshall too at some centre bounces to play as a mid to Ryders ruckwork.

Then Sincs and Clark for some rotations too.

And run Battle through occasionally too, but I am not sure he is nimble enough.

[cwrcyn]

When a player is playing really well in a position (eg Clark at half back), moving him will not necessarily guarantee a gain to the team. Will Clark's output as a mid match his value as a creative half back? I've seen teams do this. They are lacking midfield power, so they take a dominant half back and put him in the middle to either bolster rotations or to replace a mediocre mid. The dominant half back becomes an unremarkable midfielder (only marginally better than the player he replaced) and his half back position is taken up by a mediocre player. So instead of having a dominant half back and and a mediocre midfielder, you end up with a mediocre half back and a mediocre midfielder. You get no gain in the midfield, and you lose quality in your defense.

I'm not saying that Clark can't become a great mid, but does a decision to move him to the midfield now actually give us a net gain? Melbourne have done a foolish thing with Tom McDonald. When he played fullback, he was one of the very top key defenders in the game. Since moving him forward, his form has been patchy. So they lost an A grade fullback and gained a B Grade full forward.

Is a better option in the middle giving an under performing small defender (who has the right grit and drive) a tagging role?

[bigcarl]

When a player is playing really well in a position (eg Clark at half back), moving him will not necessarily guarantee a gain to the team. Will Clark's output as a mid match his value as a creative half back? I've seen teams do this. They are lacking midfield power, so they take a dominant half back and put him in the middle to either bolster rotations or to replace a mediocre mid. The dominant half back becomes an unremarkable midfielder (only marginally better than the player he replaced) and his half back position is taken up by a mediocre player. So instead of having a dominant half back and and a mediocre midfielder, you end up with a mediocre half back and a mediocre midfielder. You get no gain in the midfield, and you lose quality in your defense.

I'm not saying that Clark can't become a great mid, but does a decision to move him to the midfield now actually give us a net gain? Melbourne have done a foolish thing with Tom McDonald. When he played fullback, he was one of the very top key defenders in the game. Since moving him forward, his form has been patchy. So they lost an A grade fullback and gained a B Grade full forward.

Is a better option in the middle giving an under performing small defender (who has the right grit and drive) a tagging role?

The plan as I understood it was for Clark to learn the game in defence before an ultimate move to the midfield.

Not sure there has been a big deviation from that, or if there has been I haven’t heard it said.

I can see why coaches often want their best players in the midfield because you want them where the ball is as often as possible.

Now it may be that Clark doesn’t quite have the tank to play midfield. I wouldn’t know. Ratts and the coaches would.

But if his tank is good enough, who is to say he can’t become an A-grade midfielder and what if he is and we don’t give him the opportunity?

A-grade midfielders don’t exactly grow on trees and it is a lot easier to find someone who can hold down a spot at half back.

Thing is, if you try it for a period and it is not a success you can always go back.

Also, most players, apart from a few specialists are effectively mids anyway these days.

[Scollop]

When a player is playing really well in a position (eg Clark at half back), moving him will not necessarily guarantee a gain to the team. Will Clark's output as a mid match his value as a creative half back? I've seen teams do this. They are lacking midfield power, so they take a dominant half back and put him in the middle to either bolster rotations or to replace a mediocre mid. The dominant half back becomes an unremarkable midfielder (only marginally better than the player he replaced) and his half back position is taken up by a mediocre player. So instead of having a dominant half back and and a mediocre midfielder, you end up with a mediocre half back and a mediocre midfielder. You get no gain in the midfield, and you lose quality in your defense.

I'm not saying that Clark can't become a great mid, but does a decision to move him to the midfield now actually give us a net gain? Melbourne have done a foolish thing with Tom McDonald. When he played fullback, he was one of the very top key defenders in the game. Since moving him forward, his form has been patchy. So they lost an A grade fullback and gained a B Grade full forward.

Is a better option in the middle giving an under performing small defender (who has the right grit and drive) a tagging role?

The plan as I understood it was for Clark to learn the game in defence before an ultimate move to the midfield.

Not sure there has been a big deviation from that, or if there has been I haven’t heard it said.

I can see why coaches often want their best players in the midfield because you want them where the ball is as often as possible.

Now it may be that Clark doesn’t quite have the tank to play midfield. I wouldn’t know. Ratts and the coaches would.

But if his tank is good enough, who is to say he can’t become an A-grade midfielder and what if he is and we don’t give him the opportunity?

A-grade midfielders don’t exactly grow on trees and it is a lot easier to find someone who can hold down a spot at half back.

Thing is, if you try it for a period and it is not a success you can always go back.

Also, most players, apart from a few specialists are effectively mids anyway these days.

+ 1