Dyer'ere said:
I'm very surprised at this ranking Jack.
Whilst Bling has plenty yet to prove, that appears overly harsh and you have some questionable names ahead of him.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Rank the list
- Thread starter Tigers of Old
- Start date
I'm very surprised at this ranking Jack.
Whilst Bling has plenty yet to prove, that appears overly harsh and you have some questionable names ahead of him.
Tigers of Old said:
2 N.G.Brown
6 M.Coughlan
14 K.Kingsley
16 T.Knobel
19 W.Thursfield
21 C.Newman
24 G.Polak
26 R.Tambling
The seven players I have rated above Bling did not play in the side in 2006, well some played a few games. Admittedly Stafford, Chubba, Rodan and Chaffey are missing but I would have rated, at most, two of those above him. Probably only Chubba.
So I've got him in the best 22. BUT I'll admit that I might have Patto a bit high. ;D
My bias is that I reckon Bling was getting some easy roles in 2006 and that an average HFF is not as valuable as an average FB or #2 ruck. And he was only showing glimpses of what he can do as high small forward often with the weakest opponent. Not fit for a lot of the games too. Much better when he got some match fitness and got on ball. FWIW I reckon he's probably a star in the making but has not played many valuable games for us yet.
I've been a bit tough on Foley and Hyde. Foley is nowhere near mature as a player and Hyde is a HFF without polish and IMO not showing enough hustle albeit that he's not been a hundred percent.
Aside from Krakouer and Patto, who do you reckon he's shown more than?
Dyer'ere said:
I guess my criteria was that all players were fit.
I do recognise Bling's weaknesses to date & I do not overate him just yet despite the fact I think he'll improve markedly this year.
From my list on page 1 you can see the players I'd have him in front of who we seem to differ on.
In retrospect though I'd probably have Foley just ahead of him at this stage.
It's quite hard to judge many of our youngsters at this point.
We'll get a far clearer indication of how they are travelling at the end of '07 and Bling will be one of those.
I checked your list, ToO. I was hoping for a controversial naming. :hihi BTW, brilliant avatar.
I guess my bias is that I think an average key defender is a miles better player than an average HFF (dime a dozen).
eg- Ray Hall was injured for much of last season. He's done some good jobs when right. At his best he did give the Pav a power of a hiding. Tambling may be able to flog All Austs one day, but for 2006, at his best, he shaded the opposition's HBF. He's not been matched up on the guns- key forwards and midfielders.
I have Hall ahead of Kingsley because he can beat better opponents IMO. And I have Kant Kicklsey a bit lower than I might have because we're not sure about the significance of his 2006 form. In the four preceding seasons he aggregated 200 AFL goals. How many players do we have with that many? Four fit years would yield similar numbers for Richo and NGB and I have them 1 and 2 on my list. And I think they are a cut above the rest.
Another example is Gaspar who is not the player he was but he is a KPP. That's why he's still on the list. A HFF in that form would be taking tickets at the dodgem cars.
I'm not dagging Bling. I think he's been played out of position most of the time. I'm a big fan and I expect him to have a very good year. I just don't think he's done much yet and I've rated the players more on my impressions of their best form than on potential.
I guess my bias is that I think an average key defender is a miles better player than an average HFF (dime a dozen).
eg- Ray Hall was injured for much of last season. He's done some good jobs when right. At his best he did give the Pav a power of a hiding. Tambling may be able to flog All Austs one day, but for 2006, at his best, he shaded the opposition's HBF. He's not been matched up on the guns- key forwards and midfielders.
I have Hall ahead of Kingsley because he can beat better opponents IMO. And I have Kant Kicklsey a bit lower than I might have because we're not sure about the significance of his 2006 form. In the four preceding seasons he aggregated 200 AFL goals. How many players do we have with that many? Four fit years would yield similar numbers for Richo and NGB and I have them 1 and 2 on my list. And I think they are a cut above the rest.
Another example is Gaspar who is not the player he was but he is a KPP. That's why he's still on the list. A HFF in that form would be taking tickets at the dodgem cars.
I'm not dagging Bling. I think he's been played out of position most of the time. I'm a big fan and I expect him to have a very good year. I just don't think he's done much yet and I've rated the players more on my impressions of their best form than on potential.
On a slightly different note, if we take the players' names out of it, how would you rate the positions on the field?
The reason I ask this is the further comparison of how we collectively see the ranking of the positions on the field against the ranking of those names filling these positions.
When picking a side, my order usually is:
1. CHF
2. C
3. CHB
4. FF
5. FB
6. W1
7. W2
8. Rk1
9. RR
10. Rr
11. bp
12. Rk2 -> FP/Int
13. RR2 -> hff/hbf
14. Rr2 -> fp
15. HFF
16. HBF
17. hbf/hff
18. BP
19. Rk3 -> Int/FP
20. RR3 -> Int
21. Rr3 -> Int
22. W3 -> Int
My thinking is governed by my experiences in football. Others may have a differing viewpoint.
For me, I astound myself that 3 of the defensive lateral positions are the last 3 of the first 18 that I pick. Maybe that is a Richmond legacy?
If anyone had a differing view on the order of which teams might be picked, it would be interesting to see.
The next step would be to fill the order of possies up with players' names and see if the ranking of the name justied the ranking of the position, and vice-versa.
The reason I ask this is the further comparison of how we collectively see the ranking of the positions on the field against the ranking of those names filling these positions.
When picking a side, my order usually is:
1. CHF
2. C
3. CHB
4. FF
5. FB
6. W1
7. W2
8. Rk1
9. RR
10. Rr
11. bp
12. Rk2 -> FP/Int
13. RR2 -> hff/hbf
14. Rr2 -> fp
15. HFF
16. HBF
17. hbf/hff
18. BP
19. Rk3 -> Int/FP
20. RR3 -> Int
21. Rr3 -> Int
22. W3 -> Int
My thinking is governed by my experiences in football. Others may have a differing viewpoint.
For me, I astound myself that 3 of the defensive lateral positions are the last 3 of the first 18 that I pick. Maybe that is a Richmond legacy?
If anyone had a differing view on the order of which teams might be picked, it would be interesting to see.
The next step would be to fill the order of possies up with players' names and see if the ranking of the name justied the ranking of the position, and vice-versa.
Dyer'ere said:
ilike your list dyer ere; very good. i'd drop pat bow futher down the order but that's just my opinion
Dyer'ere said:
Fair enough. Hopefully he's a bit higher in your rankings leading into the '08 season.
Ta re the av. BTW who's 'Swampfox'?
Phantom said:
Interesting idea Phantom.
Certainly it would be a vastly different list based on that premise.
Anduril said:
Yep.
Although the original Swampfox was an American revolutionary patriot named Francis Marion.
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Swamp+Fox&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
I remember watching about him on The Wonderful World Of Disney / Frontiersland, when I was a kid.
Tigers of Old - "Rank the List" - for a minute there I thought you had become a darksider and were implying our List had a certain bad aroma about it! 
:
;D
: ;D
Mike "Swamp Fox" Patterson was a battling, unathletic ruckman for the Tiges over ten years.
Neville Crowe was unjustly suspended for the 1967 GF. Patterson stepped into the breech quelling Polly Farmer in the the big game. Polly is regarded by some as the best ruckman of all time.
Swampy had an endearing habit of ironing opposition players. Polly still bleats about the umpiring in that game. Maybe Dean Cox will be snivelling in years to come.
Of course, there's no place for ruggedness in the modern game.
Excuse me, ladies. Swamp Fox coming through.
Like the positional idea, Phanto. I'm giving it some thought. Reckon we all are. The best lab for testing footy theory was state footy. You got sides like the Vics that had everything against say, SA with a fantastic ruggedness but often beaten in the key slots. They got too close or won without a traditional structure.
These games raised many questions but one thing they proved beyond doubt IMO is that if you win the collisions your team can perform beyond the mainstream expectations of skill. Win contests- win.
On theory, FWIW, I would rather a prime Duncan Kellaway in my side than a prime Buckley or Ricciutto. Duncan routinely humiliated each of those champions. My conclusion- a ball winning checking player is better than a vulnerable star. One of the unsung heroes of the modern game was Brett Ratten. Duncan gave him a lesson or two and learned some.
IMO, it's about how you go against the best opponents.
Neville Crowe was unjustly suspended for the 1967 GF. Patterson stepped into the breech quelling Polly Farmer in the the big game. Polly is regarded by some as the best ruckman of all time.
Swampy had an endearing habit of ironing opposition players. Polly still bleats about the umpiring in that game. Maybe Dean Cox will be snivelling in years to come.
Of course, there's no place for ruggedness in the modern game.
Excuse me, ladies. Swamp Fox coming through.
Like the positional idea, Phanto. I'm giving it some thought. Reckon we all are. The best lab for testing footy theory was state footy. You got sides like the Vics that had everything against say, SA with a fantastic ruggedness but often beaten in the key slots. They got too close or won without a traditional structure.
These games raised many questions but one thing they proved beyond doubt IMO is that if you win the collisions your team can perform beyond the mainstream expectations of skill. Win contests- win.
On theory, FWIW, I would rather a prime Duncan Kellaway in my side than a prime Buckley or Ricciutto. Duncan routinely humiliated each of those champions. My conclusion- a ball winning checking player is better than a vulnerable star. One of the unsung heroes of the modern game was Brett Ratten. Duncan gave him a lesson or two and learned some.
IMO, it's about how you go against the best opponents.
Are there any darksiders left? :-\RemoteTiger said:Tigers of Old - "Rank the List" - for a minute there I thought you had become a darksider and were implying our List had a certain bad aroma about it!
Tigers of Old said:Are there any darksiders left? :-\RemoteTiger said:Tigers of Old - "Rank the List" - for a minute there I thought you had become a darksider and were implying our List had a certain bad aroma about it!
Oh, you're just asking for trouble!
RROFO said:Tigers of Old said:Are there any darksiders left? :-\RemoteTiger said:Tigers of Old - "Rank the List" - for a minute there I thought you had become a darksider and were implying our List had a certain bad aroma about it!
Oh, you're just asking for trouble!
Thanks for pointing that out RR.
;DI meant it in terms because there's so much sun coming out of Punt Road recently, perhaps they've all gone into hiding.
Well at least until Round 1. :hihi
Phantom said:
I’ll give the positional ratings a fling.
1. CHB
2. RK 1
3. CHF
4. C
5. Rr
6. FB
7. FF
8. RR
9. W1
10. W2
11. HBF
12. HFF
13. BP
14. Rr2 – fp
15. RK2 – FP / int
16. hbf / hff
17. bp
18. RR2 – hff / hbf
19. Rr3 – int
20. RR3 – int
21. W3 – int
22. Rk3 – int / fp
My choices of favouring backmen over forwards is predicated on the belief that a good CHF can be the architect of the movement of the ball into the forward line as well as providing coverage of a CHF. Forwards, even a great CHF, do not have the same influence over the game when it is going in the other direction.
In addition, there are very many ways of manufacturing gaols without a great CHF/FF but not a lot of ways to stop one without a great CHB/FB. Therefore, the defensive roles get the nod.
I would also rate the HFF and your resting rover as the third / fourth tier forwards respectively above your resting ruckman in the FP.