Article 32: Team of The Century: Defence

[Twodogs]

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

Well said you've almost convinced me. Given there is more value placed on intercept marking now than 15 years ago (more man on man back then) I wonder if Shaggy could have developed his ability to do it well. I can't really remember how good a mark he was. Whenever I cast my mind back to him all I can remember is him knocking out Simon Black at quarter time at Etihad.

[bulldogtragic]

Great discussion, thanks guys and gals. It seems we have some consensus for 5 of the 6 spots:

B: Murphy Lake Morris
HB: Smith **** Gilbee

That's a very, very handy defence, with a heap of different attributes.

So we're now between Hargrave & Wood for the CHB spot. There seems to be a genuine split, so to everyone who wants to give input of this, who should we go with is this head to head contest and why?

[1eyedog]

There is no competition between Wood and Shaggy and I think that's been detailed above. The only constraint is Wood hasn't played as many games as Shaggy so hasn't got the job done for as long, but the prerequisite is 100+ games and Wood meets that criteria. Wood in Shaggy out if it's between these two. Wood has him covered in every other stat / attribute and award.

[Twodogs]

Have we had any players called Harwood or Woodgrave? Maybe we could compromise and stick them in?

[Twodogs]

There is no competition between Wood and Shaggy and I think that's been detailed above. The only constraint is Wood hasn't played as many games as Shaggy so hasn't got the job done for as long, but the prerequisite is 100+ games and Wood meets that criteria. Wood in Shaggy out if it's between these two. Wood has him covered in every other stat / attribute and award.

You could also argue that Shaggy was much more durable than Wood. Hargrave would have averaged more games each season.

[1eyedog]

You could also argue that Shaggy was much more durable than Wood. Hargrave would have averaged more games each season.

Wood has been very reliable in this area post-hamstring issues. Kudos to conditioning staff for sorting it out.

[bulldogtragic]

Arguments in favour of Hargrave in the thread are his height, and therefore his ability to play on the third tall types, and his kicking skills, plus a bit of mongrel (which is always good).

Wood seems to have support for intercept marking, overall game and leadership.

I wonder if the debate is necessarily between the two players, or an ideological concept of how you pick the TOOC as to just the best players or most appropriate balance of players?

[Twodogs]

Arguments in favour of Hargrave in the thread are his height, and therefore his ability to play on the third tall types, and his kicking skills, plus a bit of mongrel (which is always good).

Wood seems to have support for intercept marking, overall game and leadership.

I wonder if the debate is necessarily between the two players, or an ideological concept of how you pick the TOOC as to just the best players or most appropriate balance of players?

I was wondering about that myself. Should we pick the flat out best six defenders we've had or a balanced ready to walk out on the ground two talls/third tall and three medium/small defenders back six?

[Twodogs]

Wood has been very reliable in this area post-hamstring issues. Kudos to conditioning staff for sorting it out.

Yeah true. We gambled almost exclusively on him providing the leadership we needed last year after Murph went down and he didn't let us down. He came back from injury earlier than originally predicted for the finals.

[bulldogtragic]

I was wondering about that myself. Should we pick the flat out best six defenders we've had or a balanced ready to walk out on the ground two talls/third tall and three medium/small defenders back six?

I think it's an individual choice. Personally, I'm weighing up best and best group of defenders. I want three who can play tall, two great flankers and flexible type. But if there's too good a defender to miss, I'm happy to re-evaluate it. But they've got to hold their place as the best so far first and foremost. But it's interesting to see the reasoning of detailed posts as to how we are looking at it.

I'm still tending to Wood over Shaggy, but we go in a little small (albeit 17% of the way in).

[boydogs]

Wood has him covered in every other stat / attribute and award.

Hargrave is marginally ahead stats wise over their careers

So we're now between Hargrave & Wood for the CHB spot. There seems to be a genuine split, so to everyone who wants to give input of this, who should we go with is this head to head contest and why?

I think there were more posters arguing for Wood than Hargrave

[bulldogtragic]

From the stat sheet, they're very close in deed including playing weight & height. A part from an extra two kicks a game, they're nearly identical in the key areas for a defender (handballs, marks, tackles).

In an aside, getting these two blokes at pick 66 & pick 43 is great going.

[soupman]

The more I think about this the more I am confident it is a no contest.

Easton Wood is a much better player than Hargrave ever was. This isn't to say Shaggy was no good, quite the contrary really, but Wood is awesome.

Hargraves strengths seem to be played up as the following:

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

Arguments in favour of Hargrave in the thread are his height, and therefore his ability to play on the third tall types, and his kicking skills, plus a bit of mongrel (which is always good).

Breaking these down I think they fall as follows:
"Shaggy is known for getting spoils in": Wood wins this one. As good at spoiling he was Wood is elite at both marking and spoiling.
"Hargrave was the much better attacking player, comfortable running up the wings with long, accurate kicking.": Yeah maybe, although I think he tended to just kick it long so would omit the accurate portion of this statement. Honestly I think when Wood goes on his runs he is fairly similar, but I think Hargrave tended to do it more and without checking the stats kicked more goals. In Woods defence he is often the one starting the counter attack which makes it harder to receive the ball up the ground. Still Shaggy gets this one, but I think it's marginal.
"Hargraves skills were superior": Again Wood is not a bad kick and Hargrave didn't have Gilbees leg so I don't think the difference is that pronounced. Shaggy wins this marginally.
"Hargraves height": Not sure you can claim this as a strength when it is continually pointed out he struggled against tall forwards and was better on players his size or smaller. Wood has proven capable of playing on all but the biggest forwards. Hargrave was better on the small forwards (like Milne) however.
"Ability to play on third talls": Wood is AA at this and absolutely elite. Hargrave doesn't come close to Wood on this point.
"Mongrel": Hargrave was keener to hurt than Wood is, but Wood has never shirked a contest or failed to fly the flag so this is marginal at best if it should even be considered.
"Hargrave is more durable": Not sure this matters or is relevant.

Personally I think Hargraves biggest strengths were his one on one ability and capability of being an attacking outlet while still locking down a very good player.

Woods strengths are his one on one ability in any situation and ability to dominate the air.

Wood is also a top 50 player in the league and absolutely elite, as good as Hargrave was I'm not sure he has ever been either of those two things.

I wonder if the debate is necessarily between the two players, or an ideological concept of how you pick the TOOC as to just the best players or most appropriate balance of players?

So far the consensus has us picking 5 defenders with 3 small-mid types, 1 lockdown type for all sizes and 1 key defender. Hargrave is another small-mid type, Wood is a versatile type who can play off the bigger guys. Shaggy's marginally better attacking ability is not very important in a defence that boasts Gilbee, Bubba and Murphy, while Woods ability to play taller and outmark key forwards surely gets him the 6th spot on team balance grounds.

I see no way Easton Wood can miss out for Ryan Hargrave in this team.

[bornadog]

If we are picking a CHB for team of the century, well we don't really have one in the traditional sense.

Having said that, our current team plays without one. If we are talking about playing a team in today's footy environment, with Bevo as the coach then I guess Wood would get the nod, as he has the ability to compete in the air against a taller opponent.

[bulldogtragic]

Great post Soupa and others. Not many footy forums have this quality of thinking, analytical assessment and discussion.

I'm still with my opening assessment of:

B: Murphy Lake Morris
HB: Smith Wood Gilbee

Games Played for the Western Bulldogs: 1,357 and counting.

Intuitively it still feels a little small, and Hargrave was a good player and great servant. But luckily we have 83 years to try to find another gun KPD over 195cm.