Comments on: Blooding Youngsters Against Stars – When is it too Much?

By: Jermayn

Jermayn — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 07:06:43 +0000

I heard an interview from Knights and he answered about the Fevola and Darcy contest after a few interviewers mentioned it and he did say that Fev’s bad kicking did help him to stick with Daniher.

By: aussierulesblog

aussierulesblog — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:55:25 +0000

Danny, I'd love to believe that Darcy learned that quickly. The fact is that Fevola's supply was somewhat strangled after about halfway through the second quarter. Even I could have caught the ball on the lead with the supply he was getting in the first! Jermayn, you may be right. Think of all of the high draft picks that never reach even 20 games. . . On leaving Daniher on Fevola, if the kid can take it, if your gameplan can take it, and if your plan for the year can take it, playing on the best has to be a great lesson. Terry Wallace, for instance, doesn't have the runs on the board to be able to negotiate the second and third conditions. Knights, on the other hand, had a more successful 2008 than many had predicted, so has some goodwill banked that he can spend on experiments like Daniher/Fevola and Neagle. aussierulesblogs last blog post..Of Emperors and clothes . . .

By: Jermayn

Jermayn — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 04:57:12 +0000

@AussieRulesBlog – I understand that you need to blood players in positions so they can grow, learn and hopefully take over the ‘ageing’ established players (Fletcher etc) but I wonder if sometimes they could learn on a 2nd or 3rd tier defender as for most players it takes a handful of games for them to get used to the pace and grow in confidence they can play at the level. For example Hill (Freo) took 2 games before he showed anything.

Daniher definitely showed a lot as the game went on (as Danny said) but I just wonder (out loud on Kick2Kick) if sometimes some coaches tend to burn and ruin players by blooding…

Thanks AussieRules and Danny for your input.

By: Danny

Danny — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 03:38:43 +0000

Yes, Fev had 12 shots at goal, but 5 of those came in the first quarter, and 4 in the second. If anything ever showed when to leave a developing defender on a key forward it's those stats - 5,4,1 and 2 shots on goal quarter by quarter. By those numbers Daniher was well on his way to understanding more about playing on the second best forward in the AFL (on last year's stats) in just his 5th game. Dannys last blog post..Wine Week 117: You’d have to be a bunny to ignore these bargains.

By: aussierulesblog

aussierulesblog — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 03:23:44 +0000

Presumably the coaches know the youngster’s state of mind and can assess whether they’ll be mentally scarred by the experience.

In the Fevola-Daniher example, I’m quite sure that Fletcher wouldn’t have made a whole lot of difference. Take into account Fletcher’s age and succession planning demands that a potential replacement full-back be tested to see if he has the mettle. Darcy’s old man was a champion full-back, so perhaps he has a genetic advantage over the likes of Zac Dawson?

The Bombers will do the same with Neagle at the other end of the ground, which in part is why Lloyd has been playing more up the ground. The same will happen at CHF with Gumbleton ever he ever gets fit enough to survive two games in a row.

It’s much easier to introduce new midfielders or flankers since they can be rotated on and off the bench. Key position players are different. You expect them to be there most of the game and up-and-comers can only get experience by playing.

aussierulesblogs last blog post..Of Emperors and clothes . . .

By: Jermayn

Jermayn — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 03:05:41 +0000

Yes Fevola did not hurt the Bombers on the scorecard (which is what I said) but Daniher was dominated. On top of the 7 behinds Fev also kicked one out of bounds, so that is 12 shots at goal for a full forward and even 10+ years ago when key forwards were more common, that is domination!

By: Danny

Danny — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 02:59:25 +0000

Fevola only missed one shot on goal from within the 45 degree angle arc - every other miss happened outside this - near to the boundary lines. The fact that Fevola was restricted to marking out wide almost all game is in part due to the delivery from further up the ground, but also due to the defensive pattern that Essendon were running. Playing Daniher on Fevola allows Fletcher to work 'in the hole' for a lot of the time, forcing Fevola to lead wide. Not only did this restrict Fevola's percentages in front of goal when he did mark, it also allowed Essendon's defence to rebound with speed and accuracy if the ball did turn over as Fletcher is a highly potent attacking defender with fine foot skills. So at no stage did Knights need to contemplate moving Daniher, as Fevola wasn't hurting Essendon due to restricted scoring percentage possessions and at the same time Daniher's taking the key Carlton forward provided an ideal defensive rebound setup. If Fevola had been 'on fire' and kicked 8 rather than 4 goals then the change would have been necessitated, but not until then. Dannys last blog post..Wine Week 117: You’d have to be a bunny to ignore these bargains.