We have too many dual role players

[skeptic]

The concept of players having multiple roles on the field is hardly a new revelation. Going through our list though, I think we've got the philosophy wrong.

It seems as though under Alan Richardson many players on the field are expected to have two good qualities that they are meant to bring to game day. IMO this is somewhat in contrast to the more traditional set up where a player has one function that they are meant to excel at and another role/function to contribute to e.g.
Stephen Milne was meant to create goal scoring opportunities for himself and or others... Which he excelled at... But was also expected to provide pressure to stop the opponent from easily running the ball out.
Kosi was meant to take contested marks and kick goals... But he was also there to both take the heat off Roo and bring the ball to ground

Obviously there were exceptions to this rule ala Max Hudghton who was there purely to spoil the key forward... But if you look at the 2009 Grand Final list all of those players had a very specific quality that they were particularly good at... Of the top:
Contested ball: Hayes, Ball
Tap outs: King Gardiner
Disposal: Dal Santo, Goddard, Monty
Contested Marks: Roo, Kosi
Goal Sneaks: Milne, Schnieder
Tagging: Baker, Jones
Drive: Gram, Fisher
Spoiling: Dawson, Blake, Raph

I look at the team from Saturday night and there are a number of players in the team that seem to be there to do two specific functions and they don't excel at either...

Here are a few examples... Now bare with me because there are a number of players on this list that are good players more than capable of playing good/great games and I'm not suggesting that they be cut.
Roberton and Gilbert- expected to play both as a tall defender/third man up and to provide run and carry
Savage - has to be a play maker and be accountable to his opponent
Bruce - a marking forward, an up the ground target, and a makeshift ruck
Wright/Minch - a pressure player up forward and a goal sneak
Billings - seems to need to be both strong in the contest and be a great outside runner
Webster - Medium sized defender and play maker
Armitage/Dunstan - contested ball machines both criticised for not providing enough drive

Outside the best 22
Lonie - Goal sneak midfielder
Murdoch - tough defensive mid that supposed to make plays off HBF
Pierce - Ruck forward
Lee - tall defender that needs to tackle/pressure and set up play with his disposal

If you have a look at that first group of players, there's a pattern. IMO they're the bulk of the players in this team that look great some weeks and are being heavily criticised at other times.
This week it's Minch, Billings and Savage that have copped a bit.

Everybody is singing Roberton's praises at the moment but several months ago he was public enemy number one for a patch.

This to me is where our inconsistency largely comes from. Sometimes our backline looks functioning... At other times we're willing to sell the farm for a guy like Hurley. We have a lot of players there IMO who are not primarily defenders. Same deal with our midfield... We expect a lot of run and carry / play to be set up by guys like Roberton, Gilbert, Savage, Webster, Murdoch at times who aren't primarily play makers or get exploited in their other functions... That being said, at other times when things click, they look a million dollars too.

I think a lot of time... We have too many players in the team that aren't consistent enough at a particular function they're in the team to fulfil. As a result we often lack depth on the field.
An example is that we don't have a clear play maker across halfback... Yes we have Roberton, Savage, Webster, Monty at times, and Gilbert that can do it on occasion... But we have too many games where all of those guys fail in that role.
Medium sized defenders... Webster, Gilbert, Roberton, Dempster - many a game those players feature amongst the best... Many a game they come under heavy scrutiny.

It seems that this is especially a problem over the midfield and HBF where players and roles seems to have merged somewhat. Personally I'd like the coaches to be a little clearer in what they want from players.

[saintspremiers]

You need players that have multiple roles due to rotations. Unless you have a Noah's Ark team. Comparing to 2009 is not ideal as the game has changed a lot since then and changes every season with new rules in place. Flexibility is the key, so I'm an advocate for multiple roles as you can't easily get players whenever you want.

Our main issue is not enough A grade quality mids IMO. Fix that up and you don't need the worlds best forward or defensive structures to dominate.

[Johnny Member]

The 2009 team would get torn apart in 2016.

Too predictable in terms of which players are doing which roles/functions, and no flexibility to change it.


Having a team full of guys who are their to do just one thing, is a fad that worked for about 1.5 seasons until it was worked out.

Now you can have 2 or 3 guys in a team at once who are their to perform one role and one role only.

[wally]

I thought on sat night for the first half it was man on man football. In the third qtr we lost the centre eveness and they got a run on (umpires helped)
I think it showed why we need 2 competitive rucks and another mid or 2
That takes pressure off the backline

[Wombat15]

You need players that have multiple roles due to rotations. Unless you have a Noah's Ark team. Comparing to 2009 is not ideal as the game has changed a lot since then and changes every season with new rules in place. Flexibility is the key, so I'm an advocate for multiple roles as you can't easily get players whenever you want.

Our main issue is not enough A grade quality mids IMO. Fix that up and you don't need the worlds best forward or defensive structures to dominate.

yeah youve hit the nail on the head there. you need flex players like Wright, Minch, McKenzie and others purely because they can give a chop out to others. but yeah the glaring problem is the lack of A grade talent.
i.e when minch goes mid it allows wright to go forward and defence to structure itself differently and vice versa.
same for when we go forward when rooey rests up forward it pushes paddy to the bench. when he pushes up it allows paddy and bruce to run the forward line and members to be a link and 3rd option (even though hes kicked 40). You really do need these flex players. Adding to the midfield issue i think the other glaring problem is a second ruck and by 2018 it really needs to be sorted out.

[skeptic]

I'm not arguing that players shouldn't have multiple roles... Just that at the moment we have too many players that aren't good enough at their primary function.

Use Shane Savage as an example...
He's essentially in the team to be Aussie Jones... Neither of them were/are great defenders but with Aussie his offensive ability usually outweighed his weaker defensive game. Before somebody points it out, yes the 05 prelim is the glaring exception but Sydney identified what a threat he was and worked hard /planned specifically to shut him down.

Savage seems to be a bit better in defence, not nearly as good at attack... And is in no man's land. Half ok at both roles, not really good at either

[Jacks Back]

I'm not arguing that players shouldn't have multiple roles... Just that at the moment we have too many players that aren't good enough at their primary function.

Use Shane Savage as an example...
He's essentially in the team to be Aussie Jones... Neither of them were/are great defenders but with Aussie his offensive ability usually outweighed his weaker defensive game. Before somebody points it out, yes the 05 prelim is the glaring exception but Sydney identified what a threat he was and worked hard /planned specifically to shut him down.

Savage seems to be a bit better in defence, not nearly as good at attack... And is in no man's land. Half ok at both roles, not really good at either

So we are a team of a jack of all trades and a master of none?

[skeptic]

In too many cases. Not all, but too many.

[saintsRrising]

Personally I think we just lack enough true elite talent.

At present it is just Steven and arguably Roo still.

That is way too little to be a Top 4 team.

Our "bottom" six is probably better than when we had our last finals tilt, but our "top six" is way worse.
.

We have rebuilt the team ans structurally it is ok, or will be once Carlisle slots into the defence. But we lack cream. Hopefully some of youngsters will become elite.

[WellardSaint]

Personally I think we just lack enough true elite talent.

At present it is just Steven and arguably Roo still.

That is way too little to be a Top 4 team.

Our "bottom" six is probably better than when we had our last finals tilt, but our "top six" is way worse.
.

We have rebuilt the team ans structurally it is ok, or will be once Carlisle slots into the defence. But we lack cream. Hopefully some of youngsters will become elite.

Hickey;
Weller;
Skunk;
Seb Ross;
Blake Acres...
Arguably on the road to being elite. Better than B Grade for me

[Bluthy]

I wouldn't describe the issue as too many "dual role" players they way you are describing Skeptic. I mean half backs have to defend as well as provide rebound and attack, inside mids do need to able to get around the ground well enough to get to a lot of contests and help link up play. I've always said that Billings needs to learn to win his own ball or like Dal Santo he'll find it hard to impact in prelims and grannies where you have to win your own ball. My issues with Dempster and Gears is that they are too "one role" - very good cover defenders but don't provide enough penetrating attack.

It seems more what you are getting at is some of the players at the moment lack real weapons or the necessary polish. Savage has always been a bit of an enigma to me - great line breaking run and long kicking but doesn't lower his eyes and hit up targets enough and can be very flightly minded under pressure. Webster's kicking can be pretty erratic - I thought he would be more of a weapon coming out of the back than he has shown so far and is he going to be a good enough defender to hold his place over guys with good kicking like Rice and White (if they come on).

I think its a case of players are still developing so are pretty erratic and haven't perfected their AFL level abilities or ability to really take the game on - that can come with experience and confidence. I would have said that about Roberton previously but I thought he's now going to another level at that 100 game mark - looking stronger as a defender, reading the play better with marking, and taking the game on, pushing forward, scoring goals. Some will become genuine weapons on the field, but some will find they just can't impact the game enough as they just don't have a real asset that can differentiate them at AFL level.

Are you worried that Richo is trying to make the players too well rounded and lose their strengths? Lonie and Sinclair may be a good example of that where they seem to be paying the price for not being tackling beasts. That may be a consequence of Richo's style of footy he is developing (yes he does have a style you know). It is a worry of mine with this harrassing/pressuring style that it doesn't favour the more skillful guys and favours those who can bring more pressure even if they have less skill. I'm still a big believer in that being able to keep the footy gives you a big advantage in the long run. If everyone is putting so much energy into pressuring all over the field, do they have less energy to execute their skills? There can be that trade-off.

Some of this may also be as you get near the top of the ladder you start to specialise and lock down your team more. Your team is much more of a weapon than when you are just developing, and you unleash that in a more attacking way. You have a better structure and more developed players to pull it off.

[Johnny Member]

Personally I think we just lack enough true elite talent.

At present it is just Steven and arguably Roo still.

That is way too little to be a Top 4 team.

Our "bottom" six is probably better than when we had our last finals tilt, but our "top six" is way worse.
.

We have rebuilt the team ans structurally it is ok, or will be once Carlisle slots into the defence. But we lack cream. Hopefully some of youngsters will become elite.

Concur.

[Johnny Member]

It is a worry of mine with this harrassing/pressuring style that it doesn't favour the more skillful guys and favours those who can bring more pressure even if they have less skill. I'm still a big believer in that being able to keep the footy gives you a big advantage in the long run.

Keep the footy??

Don't you have to get it first before you can keep it?

[Bluthy]

It is a worry of mine with this harrassing/pressuring style that it doesn't favour the more skillful guys and favours those who can bring more pressure even if they have less skill. I'm still a big believer in that being able to keep the footy gives you a big advantage in the long run.

Keep the footy??

Don't you have to get it first before you can keep it?

http://pandawhale.com/post/9247/why-don ... h-gif-meme

[Johnny Member]

Lonie and Sinclair may be a good example of that where they seem to be paying the price for not being tackling beasts. That may be a consequence of Richo's style of footy he is developing (yes he does have a style you know). It is a worry of mine with this harrassing/pressuring style that it doesn't favour the more skillful guys and favours those who can bring more pressure even if they have less skill.

Jack Lonie (Career):
Disposal Efficiency: 60.8%
Effective Disposals per Game: 6.8
1%ers per Game: 0.9
Tackles per Game: 2.2

Jack Sinclair (Career):
Disposal Efficiency: 74.6%
Effective Disposals per Game: 8.5
1%ers per Game: 0.7
Tackles per Game: 2.7

Nathan Wright (Career):
Disposal Efficiency: 70.2%
Effective Disposals per Game: 7.5
1%ers per Game: 1.2
Tackles per Game: 2.9


I think you're overrated the skillfulness of the two you mentioned. Certainly in terms of them delivering on it.

We just don't have the talent. Wright has more effective disposals per game throughout his career, and his disposal efficiency is only marginally lower than Sinclair's, but much higher than Lonie's.

I think I understand where you're coming from, but I just don't think you're correct.

I felt Lyon 'coached' the instinct and natural flair out of players, to our detriment. But I don't see any evidence that Richardson is doing that. There is no one in the 2s that really warrants a spot based on their skill. I don't think Lonie and Sinclair can be used as examples of highly skilled players being pushed aside to make way for grunt players with no skill.

I don't think we have anyone who has really shown any skill to get us really excited.


FWIW....

Jade Gresham (Career):
Disposal Efficiency: 71.4%
Effective Disposals per Game: 10.4
1%ers per Game: 0.2
Tackles per Game: 3.2

An example of a young, skillful guy who gets a game, even though his 1%ers are lower than both Sinclair and Lonie. Only has 0.5 more tackles than them too.

So I'd argue that he's not a grunt player, but gets a game because he's a good player that gets the pill and uses it quite well. Considering they're are harder bodied, better tackling 'grunt' players such as Curren, Saunders and others in the 2s that going on your theory, would be getting a game ahead of him.

I just think it comes down to balance.

Some players with skill, some players with grunt. Ideally, all players would have skill and grunt - but they don't. So we seem to be picking a team that balances between the two.
Shane Savage (Career):
Disposal Efficiency: 84.6%
Effective Disposals per Game: 17.4
1%ers per Game: 2.4
Tackles per Game: 2.2