Best 22 2021

[Rod_]

What I like about the squad is that we have 25-30 options ready to go or nearly ready to go. We can change up or adjust teams week to week to suit the opposition, game plan as required for each match day. (assuming most a fit to play*)

Robust options to swing forward or back and tall or short, attack or defend. Tempo footy I call it. What I have noticed is that attacking sides only have 3-5 weeks up then then fail. Only attack is not sustainable as at some stage defence is required.

I would rest buddy, Reid, Rampe and Kennedy from R1 as we normally blood kids in early rounds and give them a go.

Best on the paddock by round 6.

Settled team by round 18 (and it is to early to call a round 18 team)

Push hard to the finals and give the other top 7 sides a shock is 21.

This season we missed Buddy, Hewett (Rampe for 30% of the year) and a ruck.

We hopeful the new kids push hard and get a few games out of the aging players

Swan to be 5th - 7th on the rise is my prediction and hopes!

* Hopefully the new fitness coach is on his A game and we keep the squad ready to go all year! (Thanks Richmond and as reported in the media somewhere, he may be the recruit of the year!)

Rod_

[Velour&Ruffles]

My personal opinion is Naismith's impact is over rated. His mobility around the park is poor and will be even worse with his injuries and age. I've mentioned it before but I remember a couple of finals where he was blown away by McEvoy and Zac Smith, neither of whom are what would be considered elite.

Given our struggles in the ruck and him being constantly injured, many have held him out as the saviour - the mythical "tap ruckman" who's just going to present it on a platter to our mids. I don't think he is as:
1) doubt he can stay fit for long enough.
2) doubt he is actually good enough.

I remember a grand final when the only time we looked vaguely competitive was when he was in the middle.

[Ludwig]

Worst 22

As an alternative to the usual best 22, I thought I would post my worst 22. Naismith has been excluded due to injury. O'Riordan and McInerney are also in my best 22 (since we only have 42 fit players), with Fox just marginally behind O'Riordan (the hardest choice for me).

It gives some indication of those vying for spots in the senior team and is a fair reflection of team depth.

My apologies to those not familiar with my team format, which has 3 midfield lines and no bench.

FB: O'Connor Brand Gould
HB: Fox Carruthers O'Riordan
CB: Clarke McInerney Ling
MI: Bell Warner Taylor
CF: Sheather Ronke Campbell
HF: Wicks McDonald Gulden
FF: Gray Amartey McLean
Ruck: Sinclair

[Bloods05]

What's CF and CB?

[TheBloods]

If the above worst 22 is intended to fill us with confidence in the depth we have, then it has had the opposite effect on me. I would not miss any one of those named if they weren't in our best 22.

Although our three recent draftees look incredibly promising.

[Ludwig]

What's CF and CB?

Centre Forward and Centre Back

If the above worst 22 is intended to fill us with confidence in the depth we have, then it has had the opposite effect on me. I would not miss any one of those named if they weren't in our best 22.

Although our three recent draftees look incredibly promising.

It wasn't intended to fill anyone with confidence. It was simply as I said, it shows who will be pushing for spots and is a reflection of our depth.

I think it's a strong worst 22, with Gray the only player I see as a near certain delisting next year. The rest are reasonable backups and developing players, some with a lot of promise.

It's worthwhile looking at team delistings and retirements for all the clubs just to see how many ordinary players were being carried across the competition. In that respect, I think our depth looks good.

[TheBloods]

Centre Forward and Centre Back

It wasn't intended to fill anyone with confidence. It was simply as I said, it shows who will be pushing for spots and is a reflection of our depth.

I think it's a strong worst 22, with Gray the only player I see as a near certain delisting next year. The rest are reasonable backups and developing players, some with a lot of promise.

It's worthwhile looking at team delistings and retirements for all the clubs just to see how many ordinary players were being carried across the competition. In that respect, I think our depth looks good.

Most of them could be delisted and wouldnt be missed.

[Ludwig]

Most of them could be delisted and wouldnt be missed.

Does this make the future look a bit more cheery?

24 and Under team

FB Gould Melican O'Connor
HB McInerney Dawson Ling
CB Sheather Mills Stephens
MI Warner Rowbottom Gulden
CF Florent Bell Heeney
HF Hayward McCartin Blakey
FF Papley McDonald Campbell
Ruck Amartey
EMG McLean Wicks Clarke Carruthers

[Bloods05]

Centre Forward and Centre Back

What positions are they? Never heard of them.

[Ludwig]

What positions are they? Never heard of them.

They're not positions. Just part of The Player Matrix, a system that won't become widely used until after 2030. I'm just giving RWO a special sneak preview.

[The Runner]

Our list at the moment is great for building towards the next 4-5 years. The reality is we have maybe one player, Rampe, in the competitions best 50 players. You could mount an argument for Lloyd, but if you put every player against a wall, he wouldn't be in the first 50 selected to win you a game.

When we were contending we have 6-7 players that you could mount an argument for at any given moment.

We'll have that again in a few years, but not right now. So, be prepared to be wow'd and also disappointed next year, as consistency will become our issue. That margin between our best and worst will begin to close in time, but it will be most apparent over the next two years, as our best gets better. Just remember to step back and look at the bigger picture and what we're building towards - not a given game or a 4 week block of matches.

[MightyBloods]

If the above worst 22 is intended to fill us with confidence in the depth we have, then it has had the opposite effect on me. I would not miss any one of those named if they weren't in our best 22.

Although our three recent draftees look incredibly promising.

Interesting comment seeing that you have named three of them (worst 22) in your starting 22.

[TheBloods]

Interesting comment seeing that you have named three of them (worst 22) in your starting 22.

Indeed. There are plenty in our starting 22 who I would not miss.

Though I should correct myself. Saying 'I wouldn't miss' them feels callous considering they are still Bloods who are giving their all to improve our fortunes. I simply mean there are a lot on our list that I don't think are quite good enough to take us where we need to get to.

[The Runner]

Indeed. There are plenty in our starting 22 who I would not miss.

Though I should correct myself. Saying 'I wouldn't miss' them feels callous considering they are still Bloods who are giving their all to improve our fortunes. I simply mean there are a lot on our list that I don't think are quite good enough to take us where we need to get to.

Good thing you aren't a list manager

[Ludwig]

Interesting comment seeing that you have named three of them (worst 22) in your starting 22.

The number was 2 (the 3 came from rating Fox and COR equally). The reason for this is that, excluding Naismith, we have a list size of 42, so after making a best or worst 22, there will remain only 20 players for the other list, so 2 have to be shared with both lists.

Indeed. There are plenty in our starting 22 who I would not miss.

Though I should correct myself. Saying 'I wouldn't miss' them feels callous considering they are still Bloods who are giving their all to improve our fortunes. I simply mean there are a lot on our list that I don't think are quite good enough to take us where we need to get to.

We typically turn over 8 or 9 players a year. There are many clubs doing more. So it's normal, you might say, to have around 8 or 9 players that won't make it, just over a period of 1 year, and obviously more over a period of several years. Some label these players as unproven. Sometimes using the word pejoratively, as if they've already failed, when it's more typically the case that the player simply hasn't played enough games at AFL level to indicate if that player can develop to an AFL standard. It's more statistical than actually picking out specific players who will definitely not make it.

For example, if I think both Amartey and McLean are each a 50-50 chance of succeeding to become regular AFL players, but there's not enough time or game experience to be more precise, it's reasonable to say that one will make it one will not, without knowing which one it will be. Statistically speaking, one will surprise and one will disappoint. I believe one will be delisted, but I'm not sure which it will be.

There are a lot of these 50 percenters on every list. A couple of years ago I would have thought an unproven Stoddart had a better chance of AFL success than an unproven McInerney. Time has passed and it's McInerney who became the one that rapidly improved to become a regular in the senior side. Our current list has a number of these players. How can we make any judgment about Carruthers or O'Connor at this point in time. With any luck, the picture will clarify after next season. There is also likely to be a player like Ling, who you think should be a very high chance of making the grade, but has several injury setbacks that cloud the picture.

Sorry for being so long-winded about this, just to make the point of not confusing lack of information with lack of value. I often say that it's more the weight of numbers that best indicate the chance of future team success. I see a list that has a lot of young players that are very talented, but may not be ready for much AFL footy next year. I see this as a good thing. There will be unproven players on the list, because the proven players are not giving up their spots too easily to these upstarts, but the overall picture is looking positive.