Stanley in for Patterson next week.....

[Armoooo]

Lynch, Heyne and Stanley are all in their second years, round 2 in their second years also. Jack Steven was still going to school in his first year, so essentially this will only be his second proper season, and I think he would clearly be in our top 25 players battling for a spot if it were not due to his injury.

It's very early to be making any comments on their apprenticeship, how do we know that they are physically ready for the challenges of AFL?

Sure Stanley might be a better prospect but if Pattison is that 5% better is it worth playing him over getting games under Stanley's belt? you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't. If we play Stanley that 5% we lose off Patto might lead to us losing a final, or if we play our best side it might lead to blokes like Stanley and Steven stagnating or even going elsewhere for greater oppertunities.

RL has a system in place and I am in complete support of it, let the players earn their stripes, let them build up the strength and commitment required, make sure they understand that you have to EARN EVERYTHING in AFL footy...


As for Collingwood they have a habit of having young players dominate early and then fade away, it's easy to get jealous but apart from Pendlebury they haven't had too many youngsters really develop into very good players...

Cloke - Was dubbed the best player to come into Collingwood since Buckley. He is a mentally weak inconsistent forward who appears to have already peaked.

Thomas - Was a fantastically exciting first year player, was a real match winner. However that consistency that usually comes with age is yet to be seen.

Goldsack - Played some great stopping roles in his first year, now is hardly in their best 22.

Nathan Brown - See Goldsack.

[markp]

Yup... we won by 100 points, but we need to shyte bag someone.

He'll do.

You're right. We should rest on our laurels and not look for ways to improve. Way to go.

Yup, hopefully the coaches read this forum and realise that Patterson is crap... even though he's only played one game and we dont know what his instructions were or what was expected of him... and we won by a record margin.

Or, maybe the road to improvement is to show a little patience occasionally?

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Can't have a player in the team who hasen't spent 8 years in the VFL....wouldn't want to ruin them....this is perhaps why we haven't developed any NEW player in the system under ross who have entered our top ten...

F*** me
Riewoldt
Kosi
Ball
Clarke
Dal
Raph
BJ
L.Fisher
Mini

all played few games in the VFL before spending developing years in the AFL....Sam G and Sam F played 1 full season at Casey first and hardly one since

After 4 years they had all played between 40 and 80 AFL games and were bonafide players....i'd be comfortable right now if Armo had 50+ games regardless of his output off the pine rather than winning a VFL best and fairest....would it have been any different to Dempster, Birss etc.....who were never going to improve...

Lynch, Stanley, Heyne, Steven (if he was so good why did Dempster come off a reco and surpass him or Eddy play above him) might rot in the VFL until they are 24 and IMO that is not good for their development, spending years in a lower standard whilst other kids (D.Beams, Sidebottom, Thomas) are getting used to the real thing....Collingwood do it well....

Apprentiships can be served in the AFL....if one is good enough...regardless of age

On a skill basis, the above might be fair enough, if one disregards the natural advantage in fitness that guys in their mid 20s will have.

IMO, a lot of guys "serving apprenticeships" in the AFL aren't "good enough" to crack the best 22 of the better teams - including some of the very highly touted picks of the last few years.

There are a few who are/have been:
Rich, Hill, Niknat, Barlow, Rioli, Palmer at the time he cracked it Selwood clearly was, given there ladder results, one has to give the nod to the Collingwood youth who get played. Of the list of players the Saints threw straight in, there's a clear difference: the Saints weren't very good at the time.

The natural question is: what is the purpose of playing these very talented kids in the VFL? Surely the answer is to not only give them time to develop their bodies and avoid injury, but also to learn the ever increasingly quick AFL systems which a promotion will put them into.

The truth is, love it or hate it, the "4 year apprenticeship" philosophy is still a philosophy; we're only seeing it start to deliver finished products now. For mine, I'm watching Jarryn Geary not just as a fan of the jumper, but evaluating whether the result of the lenthy apprenticeship is indeed a fully fledged AFL player - capable of pushing the top 10.

It's also worth noting that Lyon hasn't been hard and fast with the rule. Gilbert was in year 2 and Lyon was giving him plenty of game. Zac Dawson served his apprenticeship elsewhere to an extent, but he got his chance, did well, and Lyon ran with him in favour of one of the club's favorite sons.

So, yes, if they're good enough. The suggestion being that:
1) they aren't right now.
2) that doesn't mean they never will be.

But the proof will be in the playing.

[saintsRrising]

I think the other factor is where the Saints are at present: that is with a pretty mature team with only a few chinks that is a genuine flag contender.

So there is a limit as to how many fringe/young players can be tried out at any one time.

If you look at the teams over Lyon's tenure there actually has been a pretty large turn-over of players through the seniors culminating in 2009 when things were stable.

Players were put in and tried...and if not ready tried again later, or discarded.

Gwilt has had several extended runs...and is only this year looking at ease as a footballer.

Geary had 10 games in 2008 and 15 in 2009 and is now just 21.
His body was a bit light on last year, and he looks a lot bigger and stronger now.

Armo should have perhaps played a bit more..but in 2009 he basically lost the preseason and had a few injuries...without which I suspect he needed more game time.

Ben a young ruckman is probably about where you would think he would be game-wise.

Steven was looking good to perhaps start this year, but got injured.

We have already seen Ball walk because he felt his days where number by the oncoming young-mids.

The Cats have been finishing off games well..and mature hard bodies are part of the reason.

Right here and now I would be disappointed in the coaches where not mainly focused on preparing the players that they believe will be, or are a strong chance to be part of this September action.

That to me means:
* Maximum gametime in Ben as he is now ripe for development. Come last in the year you then choose who is best to be our Sept rucks.

* Games into Armo for a similar reason.
* Ditto with Steven...
* Geary looks fine..his bigger bods makes him looked more suited to AFL.

Test will come though with Raph pushing for selection and if Peake holds form. Peake IMO will be given an extended chance to make it as he offers us a something that no other player apart from Gram and CJ have..and Cj is needed as a tagger.

After these 3 younger players I think that there is a bit of a development gap.

Stanley is in a special class because he has that raw excitement and exudes class and talent. But in games he is still inconsistent and goes missing. A point that many are overlooking. Whether he would bloom more in the seniors or with Sandi is a mute point. But if he goes missing in the seniors it will increase the dependency o Roo. So Kosi will be the FF this year unless Stanley really comes on.

Lynch. Heyne and others like Smith (probably needs a few more kilos) show promise..but are still raw and lack hard bodies and are very much still learning the game. No doubt we will see a game or two here from this group. But I don't think this group is aserious part of our 2010 final's plan.

Jesse is the wildcard....lots of talent, but remember he has played just 27 games and not one game of Saints Footy.

[saintsRrising]

Intetresting post from BigFooty..

I went and watched Stanley and the young'uns at Port Melbourne the other day. As I stated in our Sandy thread, Port Melbourne are a stand-along team, and thus is playing their best side. Sure, they're VFL, but they were men, good solid, adult, players. they were not a bunch of AFL-team rookies being dumped onto a VFL side for them to blood. With that in mind, it was interesting to watch Stanley play a full game against big bodies that tackedl like men. He was diligent and often exciting and talented, but Sandy still went down rather badly, and Stanley was a factor in that. Great young player, full of potential, but boys against men.


He's not ready. I'd love him to be, I really, really would - I've voiced my frustration with Kosi and my lack of hope for him in the long term future. I think Kasak is going to allow us to have 2 Roos in the forward line. BUT, if we try to rush him, we will find he becomes more like a Kosi than a Roo - full of talent but physically destroyed by having been thrown amongst wolves before he was ready.



I could see Cahill maybe coming in, because he's already built quite well. But really, just let the boys grow up a little.

I had a mate watch game. His thoughts were similar.

[Bernard Shakey]

To me Cahill has the build and the skills to play now.

[Dr Spaceman]

Yup, hopefully the coaches read this forum and realise that Patterson is crap... even though he's only played one game and we dont know what his instructions were or what was expected of him... and we won by a record margin.

[St Fidelius]

Yup, hopefully the coaches read this forum and realise that Patterson is crap... even though he's only played one game and we dont know what his instructions were or what was expected of him... and we won by a record margin.

lol

and maybe the resident ruck critique who just happens to mention that his numerous posts and raiding a non existent coaches box was a joke, but his post on ruck stats and rucks to advantage should take a back seat and let this Pattison play more than one game before his precious critique on rucks can be taken seriously...

Or if you can take this ruck critique seriously at all...

One game FFS

Round One Draft Pick (when drafted to Richmond) and only just turned 25..

I am not convinced, but I am not going to suggest that after just one game he is not worth persisting with...

Needs more time to assess and I hope the Club does so...

Again, far better player than Rix would ever be and still has a future...

[barks4eva]

Yup, hopefully the coaches read this forum and realise that Patterson is crap... even though he's only played one game and we dont know what his instructions were or what was expected of him... and we won by a record margin.

lol

and maybe the resident ruck critique who just happens to mention that his numerous posts and raiding a non existent coaches box was a joke, but his post on ruck stats and rucks to advantage should take a back seat and let this Pattison play more than one game before his precious critique on rucks can be taken seriously...

Or if you can take this ruck critique seriously at all...

One game FFS

Round One Draft Pick (when drafted to Richmond) and only just turned 25..

I am not convinced, but I am not going to suggest that after just one game he is not worth persisting with...

Needs more time to assess and I hope the Club does so...

Again, far better player than Rix would ever be and still has a future...

+1

Agree 100%

[bozza1980]

For what it's worth I agree that Pattison and McEvoy weren't great on Friday night.

That said I wouldn't be quick to drop either.

I don't believe McEvoy will play all 22 home and away games but unless King had a belter for Sandy last weekend I wouldn't be quick to bring him back in.

At the end of the day we can be too quick to burn some players and too quick to bestow superstar labels on others. Pattison did not have a great start but I'd give him this week aswell if the only other option is Stanley. Stanley will get his chances this year but I don't think this week is the week.

[gringo]

Rix was to short for a real ruck-man but he was tryer. Pattison at least has height and age on his side but is always going to be back up. He is there to develop along side Mc evoy as 2nd ruck. Not all ruck men are great around the ground but if he can contest the ruck he has done his job, these days stats for rucks don't matter as much as denying clean first possession. If he denies an opposition clearance that would benefit the team also. We don't rely on first touch from the ruckman down to the mids as much as other teams, we seem to let Lenny or Armo scrag and contest for the disputed ball in the pack. It is a negative and a positive in that we make teams accountable but have to work harder for the ball. Geeelong seems to have more guys that can hang just of the main pack for quick clearances IMO.

[saintsRrising]

Rix was to short for a real ruck-man but he was tryer. Pattison at least has height .

Rix was actually taller...though not by much.

Rix 198cm
Patto 197cm

Still Patto is being playe, if selection again, as a key forward...so is not lacking in height for that role.

Agility and pace perhaps, but not height.