Best 22 2021

[Nico]

Hey, I'm just wondering where people see COR's future? I don't think anyone (not even Ludwig) has him in their best 22. Most people don't even have him as one of those next in line. Despite this I think he is a great chance of adding to his games total this season (although I am less confident about him cementing a regular spot in the 22). If he does play this year does this mean the people who don't consider him in the 22 or among the next in line were wrong? Or can the two be reconciled (apart from through an extensive injury list)?

My thoughts are that, at this stage, COR is in front of Ling and Fox. I wonder whether he could be leapfrogged by Gould or Campbell and a club desire to fast-track their development due to their higher ceilings. Colin consistently impresses as a lovely and determined bloke and I wish him success. I think he's a great influence to have around the club.

Quarterback, lol.

[Nico]

Your so called Quarterback has been a role I footy since I can remember. We did not steal the role from American football people like you just stole the term. But what actually does an American Quarterbackk do? He picks the ball up and throws it to other players. What does an Australian rules player do who plays the intercept role? He intercepts, he dished the ball of. But an American Quarterback does not intercept. His only role is to pick the ball up and throw it to a teammate without getting sacked. The roles are not the same.

OK. Let's examine if this role was stolen from American football. Have there been intercept players in the past? Indeed there have. Our own Paul Roos was very good at it so was Leo Barry. Alax Jesulenko was also very good. Garry Ayers was superb in that same space. Adelaide's Ben Hart and Andrew McKeodwere very good at the intercept mark. They constantly got intercept marks and set up play. McLeod was so good he won 2 Norm Smith Medals.

So the intercept mark is not a new thing. In fact at one stage the extra player, especially in a Terry Wallace team became that player.

Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

Turn it up Wolfy. In the history of the game the word was never used until recently. Even "Intercept Player" is a more modern term. It was always the ruckman who dropped back across half back or the ruck rover or rover who roamed the ground, and was at times an extra defender. Skilton bobbed up everywhere. Some will remember when Skilton was at the end of his career there was talk of him being able to continue on a for a season or two as a back pocket. He was having none of that.

[Ludwig]

I would love for COR to hold down a spot in the side. I think he's in a close race with Fox for the last defensive spot. And with Gould, Ling and Campbell also vying for similar roles, we may just have to wait until the practice match to see who's in the best form for the season opener.

I think COR could also play through the midfield, but there's even more competition for spots there. My projection of having too many good players and not enough spots is panning out and the worry is going to be providing enough opportunities to retain some of our good young prospects.

[wolftone57]

Turn it up Wolfy. In the history of the game the word was never used until recently. Even "Intercept Player" is a more modern term. It was always the ruckman who dropped back across half back or the ruck rover or rover who roamed the ground, and was at times an extra defender. Skilton bobbed up everywhere. Some will remember when Skilton was at the end of his career there was talk of him being able to continue on a for a season or two as a back pocket. He was having none of that.

I am not talking about the word quarterback. I hate that word. What I was talking about is the action. The action of placing a player back who can intercept. The action. Why do you not read the bloody post properly. I never said anything about the word being used but about the actions they were describing attributed to the word.

In fact I stress how much I hate Americanisms and soccer terms being used in an Aussie game

Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

[Ludwig]

There's nothing wrong with tradition, but the devotion to traditional position nomenclature is way overblown. The game changes, and with it the roles of its players. Borrowing terminology from other sports shows there's a need to find a better label for what a player's role is. The traditional names may no longer provide an adequate description.

The AFL cares little about tradition. They change the rules every year. Why can't names of player positions change as well?

As Wittgenstein would say:"the meaning of a word is its use in language."

If we find a word that helps elucidate something about footy, then why not use it? The origin of the word doesn't really matter.

Like the rules of footy, society and language are continually changing. Why should RWO be forever mired in the dark ages?

[dejavoodoo44]

There's nothing wrong with tradition, but the devotion to traditional position nomenclature is way overblown. The game changes, and with it the roles of its players. Borrowing terminology from other sports shows there's a need to find a better label for what a player's role is. The traditional names may no longer provide an adequate description.

The AFL cares little about tradition. They change the rules every year. Why can't names of player positions change as well?

As Wittgenstein would say:"the meaning of a word is its use in language."

If we find a word that helps elucidate something about footy, then why not use it? The origin of the word doesn't really matter.

Like the rules of footy, society and language are continually changing. Why should RWO be forever mired in the dark ages?

I have nothing but fulsome praise for both sides of the debate.

In regards to O'Riordan, in 2019, I would have said he was destined for a distinguished Swans career. He was on a long and gradual improvement curve. He seemed that little bit better each season, while he shared the same hard nosed attitude, with his countryman, Kennelly; where they both seemed to treat being beaten in a contest, as a personal insult. However, last season, he seemed to stagnate, and didn't seem to get much of the ball, in the few games that he played. Maybe injury and the lack of a NEAFL affected him?

So I'm less confident about his future, than I was; but hopefully he will get back on that upwards projection.

[Auntie.Gerald]

i suspect we just need to get games into a backline that can challenge for the top8 in 2021 and beyond. Gould, McCartin, Ling, Campbell etc moving in bit by bit and trying to find a spot along with COR, Melican and Fox etc. For me Dawson, Rampe, Lloyd and probably Harry a lock

Mills to the mids will be a fascinating experiment in 2021 which will be great for us supporters to observe from a far

[Bloods05]

There's nothing wrong with tradition, but the devotion to traditional position nomenclature is way overblown. The game changes, and with it the roles of its players. Borrowing terminology from other sports shows there's a need to find a better label for what a player's role is. The traditional names may no longer provide an adequate description.

The AFL cares little about tradition. They change the rules every year. Why can't names of player positions change as well?

As Wittgenstein would say:"the meaning of a word is its use in language."

If we find a word that helps elucidate something about footy, then why not use it? The origin of the word doesn't really matter.

Like the rules of footy, society and language are continually changing. Why should RWO be forever mired in the dark ages?

When were the dark ages? When Wittgenstein was a boy?

[The Runner]

I am not talking about the word quarterback. I hate that word. What I was talking about is the action. The action of placing a player back who can intercept. The action. Why do you not read the bloody post properly. I never said anything about the word being used but about the actions they were describing attributed to the word.

In fact I stress how much I hate Americanisms and soccer terms being used in an Aussie game

Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

That's not the quarterback role. That's the role of the marking intercept defender, like Nick Haynes.
The quarterback can be used in two ways. The first is at clearances as the quick dump handball out the back to a player who can create or kick long. Tom Mitchell is a king at winning the footy and getting out to a player to create.
The other is in setting up play from the back half. Getting the ball in a bit of space to help break lines and open play up.

The former is the more used form, particularly as a really simple structure in lower grade football.

Whether you like the name or not, I don't really care. But the roles exist. And a lot of strategies coaches implement are inspired by US sports. Zone defence is a great example from the NBA.

[Velour&Ruffles]

There's nothing wrong with tradition, but the devotion to traditional position nomenclature is way overblown. The game changes, and with it the roles of its players. Borrowing terminology from other sports shows there's a need to find a better label for what a player's role is. The traditional names may no longer provide an adequate description.

The AFL cares little about tradition. They change the rules every year. Why can't names of player positions change as well?

As Wittgenstein would say:"the meaning of a word is its use in language."

If we find a word that helps elucidate something about footy, then why not use it? The origin of the word doesn't really matter.

Like the rules of footy, society and language are continually changing. Why should RWO be forever mired in the dark ages?

I have nothing but fulsome praise for both sides of the debate.

In regards to O'Riordan, in 2019, I would have said he was destined for a distinguished Swans career. He was on a long and gradual improvement curve. He seemed that little bit better each season, while he shared the same hard nosed attitude, with his countryman, Kennelly; where they both seemed to treat being beaten in a contest, as a personal insult. However, last season, he seemed to stagnate, and didn't seem to get much of the ball, in the few games that he played. Maybe injury and the lack of a NEAFL affected him?

So I'm less confident about his future, than I was; but hopefully he will get back on that upwards projection.

Not sure if it was intentional DJV44, but your use of "fulsome" there was amusingly apt in the context of the Wittgenstein quote about the use of a word becoming the meaning. "Fulsome" is perhaps the single greatest (recent) example of that very phenomenon, having changed its meaning through perennial misuse after PM John Howard first began compulsively misusing it as a synonym for "comprehensive", "thorough" or "generous" about 20 years ago. The Canberra Times has described it this way:

Thus the word ''fulsome'', which, strictly, means something foul, smelly and completely distasteful, as something from an open sewer. It was originally ''foulsome''. It came to have a second meaning of ''cloying, insincere and flattering'' and one giving ''fulsome praise'' originally was one laying on fake absurd compliments with a trowel. But chronic misuse by people such as John Howard, who seemed to think that it meant ''generous'', has had its effect.

As a result, the general meaning of fulsome is now recognised by the more descriptive dictionaries to be almost exactly the opposite of the original meaning. It is probably no longer wrong to use it in this way, though no educated person would, of course.

And yes, I think this does belong on a Best 22 thread.

[dejavoodoo44]

Not sure if it was intentional DJV44, but your use of "fulsome" there was amusingly apt in the context of the Wittgenstein quote about the use of a word becoming the meaning. "Fulsome" is perhaps the single greatest (recent) example of that very phenomenon, having changed its meaning through perennial misuse after PM John Howard first began compulsively misusing it as a synonym for "comprehensive", "thorough" or "generous" about 20 years ago. The Canberra Times has described it this way:

Thus the word ''fulsome'', which, strictly, means something foul, smelly and completely distasteful, as something from an open sewer. It was originally ''foulsome''. It came to have a second meaning of ''cloying, insincere and flattering'' and one giving ''fulsome praise'' originally was one laying on fake absurd compliments with a trowel. But chronic misuse by people such as John Howard, who seemed to think that it meant ''generous'', has had its effect.

As a result, the general meaning of fulsome is now recognised by the more descriptive dictionaries to be almost exactly the opposite of the original meaning. It is probably no longer wrong to use it in this way, though no educated person would, of course.

And yes, I think this does belong on a Best 22 thread.

Totally intentional. And I would like to continue the discussion about the meaning of language, but I've had a few beers, so my language might be a whole lot less meaningful.

[bloodspirit]

I'm completely on board with the "languages move with the times, that's life, deal with it" camp. If languages don't change, they're dead.

I suppose the reason we are especially resistant to footy terminology changing is because not only is the terminology changing but the game is also changing, partly due to the insidious and pervasive American influence, especially in the media. But it's not only the media. Every off-season (ok, perhaps not the most recent) the coaches head over to the USA to learn what they can from NBA and NFL. The changes are not necessarily for the better and many footy fans feel they are not improving our game - hence all the rule changes to "save" the game.

As for COR, he injured his hip last year in Round 8, against the Suns, he missed nearly a month of footy and wasn't the same when he returned. Hopefully he can return to his erstwhile trajectory of improvement.

[Velour&Ruffles]

Totally intentional. And I would like to continue the discussion about the meaning of language, but I've had a few beers, so my language might be a whole lot less meaningful.

Well played Deja.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

[SIZE=3]The AFL cares little about tradition. They change the rules every year. Why can't names of player positions change as well?

I am neither pro not against at the moment - I'm just trying to get through the rest of preseason without using any of these foreign terms, to see whether I can.

Leaving aside one's views on the topic however, I can't see how a position can be strengthened by the inclusion of the AFL on it's side.

Their performance is so heavily criticised that if they didn't hold a monopoly on top level Australian Rules in this country, they'd have gone out of business years ago.

[Mr Magoo]

Positional naming in every sport changes with time.

When I played soccer (sorry "football") as a kid there were three lines of essentially backs, halves and forwards. Halves became midfielders over time and forwards strikers and wingers changed etc , now so much that when I tell my 17 year old that I played centre half , he doesnt even know what that position is and equates that to what I would have called a centre back.

Same in rugby league , the concept of inside and outside centre doesnt exist anymore. Lets face it, hooker as position doesnt exist anymore as there is no "hooking" of the ball in scrums. Scrums are uncontesed so I imagine over time that role will be renamed something else to reflect the real role which is essentially a pivot .

In aussie rules , almost no one my sons age refers to anyone as centre, rover and ruck rover. Its just midfielders. I do object to the term quarterback though , it is a little like referring to our full forward as a striker. It bears some resemblance to the role but really isnt the same. If you were to modernise that role it would be playmaking half back or intercept defender but for me that really just describes an atrtibute of that person in many ways rather than a role that may or may not exist on the field.