Article 32: Team of The Century: Defence

[bornadog]

It's what ever you want to do. I figure the most detailed and persuasive posts like this one will get people to reflect on their memories/thoughts of watching these players. From there it's making a personal position about what the TOOC should be like, albeit only 17% in and in its infancy. Personally, I think you make an excellent good point and I will think about my 6 again.

My memory is a lot of supporters bagged Shaggy unfairly. Most of those times it was due to him playing undersized and having to fill a hole due to our inability to draft a CHB (bloody Clayton ) He was a very good player with great ability to read the play and kick the ball long into the F50. He was actually rarely beaten when he played on players his size and was also good at shutting down smaller players.

[1eyedog]

My memory is a lot of supporters bagged Shaggy unfairly. Most of those times it was due to him playing undersized and having to fill a hole due to our inability to draft a CHB (bloody Clayton ) He was a very good player with great ability to read the play and kick the ball long into the F50. He was actually rarely beaten when he played on players his size and was also good at shutting down smaller players.

He gave away too many free kicks and was sketchy over 20-30 metres but you have to crack a few eggs if you want to make an omelette.

[bornadog]

He gave away too many free kicks and was sketchy over 20-30 metres but you have to crack a few eggs if you want to make an omelette.

Most of those frees were for over the shoulder as he tried to reach over the monster forwards.

[bulldogtragic]

My memory is a lot of supporters bagged Shaggy unfairly. Most of those times it was due to him playing undersized and having to fill a hole due to our inability to draft a CHB (bloody Clayton ) He was a very good player with great ability to read the play and kick the ball long into the F50. He was actually rarely beaten when he played on players his size and was also good at shutting down smaller players.

I remember that clearly too. But I remember Shaggy as the latter player that was a near gun defender when he played on guys his own size. As well as a tough bugger off-field (emergency bowel surgery) and on field (as per video on last page). I'm not sure he'll be in the side in 83 years, but right now it's certainly interesting the way you look at the TOOC as best players or best overall defensive 6. Shaggy is probably in on best defensive 6, but the other 6 all have a standout feature/s. I find it interesting trying to weigh up all these club great players.

[bornadog]

I find it interesting trying to weigh up all these club great players.

Yes a very difficult task.

I am reluctant to put in any current players, other than Bob, until they show consistency over a long career. Wood for example has only had a couple of good years, mainly under Bevo, same with JJ. If they can continue on this path, they certainly would be considered under my team, as they are still young.

Over our history, we have had some real champion KPP backman, like Herb Henderson, Merrington, David Darcy, Rick Kennedy. We struggled over the 1990s, until Brain came along and are still struggling in this area. Similar situation with the KPP CHFs. We have had our fair share of gun Full Forwards that I can remember, like Templeton, Beasley, Chris Grant (who was also a CHF, and CHB).

The 2000s, we continue to struggle with a Team of the Century KPPs

[1eyedog]

Yes a very difficult task.

I am reluctant to put in any current players, other than Bob, until they show consistency over a long career. Wood for example has only had a couple of good years, mainly under Bevo, same with JJ. If they can continue on this path, they certainly would be considered under my team, as they are still young.

Over our history, we have had some real champion KPP backman, like Herb Henderson, Merrington, David Darcy, Rick Kennedy. We struggled over the 1990s, until Brain came along and are still struggling in this area. Similar situation with the KPP CHFs. We have had our fair share of gun Full Forwards that I can remember, like Templeton, Beasley, Chris Grant (who was also a CHF, and CHB).

The 2000s, we continue to struggle with a Team of the Century KPPs

The FF position will be vacant until Jake plays 100+ games.

[boydogs]

Ryan Hargrave, Brian Lake, Lindsay Gilbee
Bob Murphy, Dale Morris, Rohan Smith

Interchange: Easton Wood

Wood is the least established of the 7 nominated. He has been AA once, and hasn't performed to quite the same level since. He took several years to establish himself and hasn't yet delivered the same level of play for the same amount of time as others nominated, as yet. This may change as the years go on, or he may again struggle with soft tissue injuries and continuity and have a career more like Will Minson's than Bob Murphy's, punctuated by many years as just a goer for a couple at an elite level

Of the other 6 nominees, Wood's role is most comparable to Ryan Hargrave's. Both could be described as 3rd talls, yet have different strengths and weaknesses. Wood is a better mark, with a better leap, whilst Hargrave was a little taller and known for getting spoils in yet also known for giving away free kicks when undersized. Hargrave was the much better attacking player, comfortable running up the wings with long, accurate kicking. Hargrave's skills were far superior, whilst Wood's kicking is sufficient he tends to go long whilst Hargrave was more damaging and able to pinpoint targets

The team balance is an interesting question, looking at the 6 selected today it seems short but when Morris started there weren't anywhere near as many 195cm+ forwards as there are today, and he was able to handle most of them. There may also be a second tall nominated down the track such as Marcus Adams, which would negate the need for Wood/Hargrave to play tall and bring their other strengths and weaknesses more into focus

[bulldogtragic]

Great post GG. Really good comparison between Shaggy & Easton.

Your observation on height of the defenders in the time they played is a really excellent one, one I hadn't yet contemplated. With the move towards 200cm+ second forwards/rucks what that will do towards selection for our forwards, and our defenders. Teddy Whitten was 184cm CHB as our current TOOC, who stands about the same height as our nominated flankers in Smith & Gilbee. Certainly adds another dimension, and yet another layer of consideration about the players we pick, why we pick them or prefer them and the time they played in and changes over time.

[1eyedog]

Ryan Hargrave, Brian Lake, Lindsay Gilbee
Bob Murphy, Dale Morris, Rohan Smith

Interchange: Easton Wood

Wood is the least established of the 7 nominated. He has been AA once, and hasn't performed to quite the same level since. He took several years to establish himself and hasn't yet delivered the same level of play for the same amount of time as others nominated, as yet. This may change as the years go on, or he may again struggle with soft tissue injuries and continuity and have a career more like Will Minson's than Bob Murphy's, punctuated by many years as just a goer for a couple at an elite level

Of the other 6 nominees, Wood's role is most comparable to Ryan Hargrave's. Both could be described as 3rd talls, yet have different strengths and weaknesses. Wood is a better mark, with a better leap, whilst Hargrave was a little taller and known for getting spoils in yet also known for giving away free kicks when undersized. Hargrave was the much better attacking player, comfortable running up the wings with long, accurate kicking. Hargrave's skills were far superior, whilst Wood's kicking is sufficient he tends to go long whilst Hargrave was more damaging and able to pinpoint targets

The team balance is an interesting question, looking at the 6 selected today it seems short but when Morris started there weren't anywhere near as many 195cm+ forwards as there are today, and he was able to handle most of them. There may also be a second tall nominated down the track such as Marcus Adams, which would negate the need for Wood/Hargrave to play tall and bring their other strengths and weaknesses more into focus

Really enjoying this discussion.

I'm not sure I agree with much of this boydogs. It sounds like you're talking about Wood pre-AA. Wood has been exceptional this season and, more so, last season post-AA and is a player every club would desire. I hear about him from rival fans all the time, more than any other player on our list actually. I think Wood and Shaggy are comparable over 20 metres and both are effective long kicks. Shaggy was more likely to run with the ball and kick long than look for the short option. For me Wood is in the team because it's ridiculous that he's not he's that good and Shaggy is in for team balance. Wood is a superior player but Shaggy was so critical to the structure of our back six for so long he deserves to be there.

Aside from all of this if you break it down Wood has an AA and a Charles Sutton medal to his name and Shaggy doesn't and Wood's leadership is second to none - he led this club on field to its first premiership in 62 years. He simply has to be in that back line now.

Even if he never played another game from now he would take some dislodging from a HBF over the next 25 years for mine.

[always right]

I take the point that Wood has not yet been able to string together the injury free years that Shaggy achieved.....but it's hard to overlook the standard of play he's shown over the last few years. Have we ever seen a defender who spoils so effectively and spectacularly? His ability to get to contests with his own opponent and that of others is extraordinary and he impacts them from seemingly impossible positions. He also launches counter attacks with his intercept play and forces opposition coaches to devise strategies to limit his influence. I don't think we've ever seen a player quite like him.

[boydogs]

For me Wood is in the team because it's ridiculous that he's not he's that good and Shaggy is in for team balance

You've left out Gilbee, possibly the best kick in AFL history and a great defender in the air for his height, and included two third talls. That's fine if you're selecting on merit, but I don't think you could call it a team balance decision

Ultimately with a third tall you want them to be able to defend against talls when needed, but also make them accountable through their own attack. If they don't bring the attack, you may as well play another tall. Hargrave did, Wood struggles to

With Brian Lake in the side, up there with Rance, McGovern and Wood as the greatest intercept markers ever, Wood's intercept marking ability becomes less valuable, and even more so if another tall aside from Morris gets in e.g. Adams, who is a great intercept marker himself. Intercept marking is Wood's point of difference, to put him in the side I think you really need to drive home the value of this attribute in cutting off opposition attacks and turning them into attacks of your own, because Hargrave has him covered when it comes to his work with ball in hand

[soupman]

Hargrave is an easy omission for mine.

A very good player, but never an outstanding player. No where near the attacking threat that half of them are (Smith, Murphy, JJ, Gilbee), not big enough to play KPP (Lake), an excellent lock down player but not in Morris' league, and Easton Wood is elite now and has been pretty much since Bevo has arrived, including an awesome premiership campaign as captain.

[always right]

You've left out Gilbee, possibly the best kick in AFL history and a great defender in the air for his height, and included two third talls. That's fine if you're selecting on merit, but I don't think you could call it a team balance decision

Ultimately with a third tall you want them to be able to defend against talls when needed, but also make them accountable through their own attack. If they don't bring the attack, you may as well play another tall. Hargrave did, Wood struggles to

With Brian Lake in the side, up there with Rance, McGovern and Wood as the greatest intercept markers ever, Wood's intercept marking ability becomes less valuable, and even more so if another tall aside from Morris gets in e.g. Adams, who is a great intercept marker himself. Intercept marking is Wood's point of difference, to put him in the side I think you really need to drive home the value of this attribute in cutting off opposition attacks and turning them into attacks of your own, because Hargrave has him covered when it comes to his work with ball in hand

I think you are underplaying his other point of difference......his ability to impact contests from virtually any position with his courage, leap and agility. How many attacks does he foil?

[westdog54]

I think you are underplaying his other point of difference......his ability to impact contests from virtually any position with his courage, leap and agility. How many attacks does he foil?

Watch the last two minutes of the prelim.

[1eyedog]

You've left out Gilbee, possibly the best kick in AFL history and a great defender in the air for his height, and included two third talls. That's fine if you're selecting on merit, but I don't think you could call it a team balance decision

Ultimately with a third tall you want them to be able to defend against talls when needed, but also make them accountable through their own attack. If they don't bring the attack, you may as well play another tall. Hargrave did, Wood struggles to

With Brian Lake in the side, up there with Rance, McGovern and Wood as the greatest intercept markers ever, Wood's intercept marking ability becomes less valuable, and even more so if another tall aside from Morris gets in e.g. Adams, who is a great intercept marker himself. Intercept marking is Wood's point of difference, to put him in the side I think you really need to drive home the value of this attribute in cutting off opposition attacks and turning them into attacks of your own, because Hargrave has him covered when it comes to his work with ball in hand

I wouldn't necessarily play Wood as a third tall.