2023 List Management
Collapse
X
-
Pretty sure he played 95% as a forward. He did the odd good thing, especially in his first year, but moving him to defence was at the time a bit of a desperate attempt to try and make him work, as by the end of his time as a forward he was playing pretty crapComment
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
According to Tom Morris on SEN, the industry view is that he will re-sign with the Bombers.
Tom Morris’ mega trade, contract and free agency update on 25 AFL players
If the suggestion made by a couple of people on here that Longmire craves a "big-bodied" midfielder, I doubt Parish would be high on the club's wish list. We already have Sheldrick, Papley, Gulden likely to rotate through the midfield in seasons future, plus the possibility of recruiting Cleary, who also isn't tall.Comment
-
There's another name on that SEN page linked to us - James Jordon. Although he is tall-ish at 187cm I've always looked at him as a outside mid rather than an inside mid. Perhaps he could be the Stephens replacement if Dylan goes somewhere else this offseason.Comment
-
Thanks for the explanation, the original comment had me scratching my head, but all clear now.
- - - Updated - - -
+1Comment
-
Response to Roadrunner. Comment with Quotes not working.
I was wondering whose place Parish would take in our midfield. I though he was most like Chad, so I figured that if we recruited Parish, it would be to replace Chad. Personally, I think Parish is very good, but prefer Chad.Comment
-
I think Parish is more of a first possession kind of midfielder, and more of a high-energy accumulator. His kicking is better than Warner's has been this year, but in previous seasons I reckon Chad's has been more impactful, more penetrating. I reckon he finds his space by ducking and weaving and running hard rather than by using power in his legs.Response to Roadrunner. Comment with Quotes not working.
I was wondering whose place Parish would take in our midfield. I though he was most like Chad, so I figured that if we recruited Parish, it would be to replace Chad. Personally, I think Parish is very good, but prefer Chad.Comment
-
I agree with your assessment, which is why I question the value of adding Parish to our midfield. Chad is our main inside ball winner now and I don't know how it would work with Parish in the midfield as well. And we have also seen the Sheldrick has it in hm to be a big time inside ball winner as well.I think Parish is more of a first possession kind of midfielder, and more of a high-energy accumulator. His kicking is better than Warner's has been this year, but in previous seasons I reckon Chad's has been more impactful, more penetrating. I reckon he finds his space by ducking and weaving and running hard rather than by using power in his legs.
We actually have a lot of inside mids on our list now, and all except Parker are young, co It's hard to see the need to add another, regardless of how good he might be.Comment
-
I don't think Warner is especially good as a first possession midfielder unless it gets tapped straight towards him by a ruckman (not necessarily ours). His best value is as a first receiver. I do think we lack a player consistently able to collect the first possession once it has hit the ground, or to shark a tap in traffic and get it out to someone in a tiny bit more space. But I hope Sheldrick and Roberts will be a large part of the solution to that once they become established in our midfield rotation. Gulden can win the ball on the ground, but it's not the best use of his talents or stature. Ditto Papley.I agree with your assessment, which is why I question the value of adding Parish to our midfield. Chad is our main inside ball winner now and I don't know how it would work with Parish in the midfield as well. And we have also seen the Sheldrick has it in hm to be a big time inside ball winner as well.
We actually have a lot of inside mids on our list now, and all except Parker are young, co It's hard to see the need to add another, regardless of how good he might be.Comment

Comment