2025 Starting Line-Up

[mjp]

Happy to agree to disagree on this; however wanted to confirm
Are you referring to wingmen as outside midfielders and all midfielders as Inside midfielders?

Midfielders who win most of their ball on the inside (extractors, Matt Rowell). Players like this who, aside from that skillset and who are not great ball users, not great defensive runners, can't push forward, etc, are the players I am referring to that have a limited scope going forward in AFL footy as teams crave flexibility. You need to be really, really good at that to still exist.

The very best players or midfielders can extract the footy, can be 1st or 2nd receive, and are damaging when getting out the front of the clearane or going inside 50, can push forward, hit the scoreboard and or take a contested mark, as well as push back to help with defensive running.

Wingman (and in some cases High Half forwards) = Outside.
Players who start in the centre square = inside.

That's the terminology - it just is. "Extractor" is just not a term. It might be something you use to describe what a player does, but it's not a role designation. Could Cripps play 'outside'? No - he couldn't. It would take away from his strengths (clearance and contest ball savant) and maximise his weaknesses (leg speed and endurance). In the same team, could Blake Acres play inside? Sure - and he has done it. BUT - he has an ability to hold width from the stop that is rare so to maximise his value they keep him outside...he's most often the on-ball winger in contested situations and Hewett switches in/out to the open side/off-ball side/call-it-what-you will side.

Are you trying to say Matt Rowell isn't a good player? Because if you are I'm kind of lost...guys who can't kick the ball and find a target have no role in the game in 2024 - but they never did. Being a poor kick basically means you don't play in a high possession role as the cost of turnovers will quickly outweigh the benefit of position. Back to the 'hit a target' question - where is that target. Everyone who plays at the stop is going to have times when they have to grab the footy and force it forward...hitting a target isn't actually the goal - taking territory and getting it to the position on the field (skinny? hot-line? etc) is all they are asked to do. In those circumstances, keeping the ball on the hot-line to maximise the team structure IS hitting the target regardless of what the CD numbers say,

Back to the hypothesis that some players are on their way 'out' - let's be clear - If you can win stops at a high rate, there is a place for you in ANY team. Clearance wins change games - then again, taking simple marks and hitting simple 25m switch kicks change games as well...

Who isn't there a place for? Players who accumulate possessions by looking (over and again) to be that 20m receiver and 'stopping' the ball when they get it. Then doing 'that' 20x more times. Those little receiving players who used to be able to get 35x touches per game (and the Crouch brother example isn't terrible) are struggling to find a place...but they ARE reasonable kicks of the footy...what they can't do is transition to a more dynamic game-plan where maintain possession and 'getting the ball' are seen as positives. Watch Brisbane in the GF and how predictable they were to each other taking that 40m kick into the corridor - to a player under pressure. If you are looking to be a 20m receiver, you can't survive in that game-plan and it's hard for players to 'change' the playing style they starting perfecting at age 8.

As with anything though, if you are elite at what you do, there is a place for you (hence those same Crouch brothers carving out 10+ year careers).

When you say AFL teams crave flexibility...well - they kind of say they do. But they also don't. Players train and play in their "line". And they pretty much don't move between lines...unless of course they can't get a game in which point they get thrown around trying to find 'something' to do with them.

[GVGjr]

I hate, hate, absolutely hate the idea of playing Bontempelli anywhere else other than as an inside mid.

It makes no sense to me moving our best player out of his best position because of other players limitations.

We need to play as much in the midfield as we can with the occasional management options of throwing him forward when we have games won. We did that a couple of times last year and it worked.

[NAUGHTY100]

That ability to drive out of stoppage and create overlap is where the elite guys thrive. Draw a crowd and open up exits.

Agree completely , the Bont summed up extremely well , great observation Gantysghost .

[Go_Dogs]

I hate, hate, absolutely hate the idea of playing Bontempelli anywhere else other than as an inside mid.

It makes no sense to me moving our best player out of his best position because of other players limitations.

Hundy per. It’s why I’m petitioning for Treloar to spend time in the back half. (Don’t tell mjp I named
him at half back). We need some others to add versatility. Bont will absolutely spend time forward too but we are going to be at our best with him spending 75% of his game inside (then outside, kicking into 50, taking grabs and defending the whole ground…!).

[mjp]

Hundy per. It’s why I’m petitioning for Treloar to spend time in the back half. (Don’t tell mjp I named
him at half back). We need some others to add versatility. Bont will absolutely spend time forward too but we are going to be at our best with him spending 75% of his game inside (then outside, kicking into 50, taking grabs and defending the whole ground…!).

I saw it.

I think it's fine if it's a permanent move to extend his career. I'm unclear why we would turn an all-australian level inside mid into an average half back but ultimately if there's a bigger plan in place I can get behind it.

I would have no issue with Bontempelli spending time across half-back either fwiw.

[Go_Dogs]

I saw it.

I think it's fine if it's a permanent move to extend his career. I'm unclear why we would turn an all-australian level inside mid into an average half back but ultimately if there's a bigger plan in place I can get behind it.

I would have no issue with Bontempelli spending time across half-back either fwiw.

You probably saw my half baked rationale too then. My memory is he was productive as a defensive player when he had to spend time there a couple of years ago. He’s a senior head, a playmaker and dynamic enough to cause headaches for opposition sides. I think he could be better than “average” but maybe not elite albeit as a sum of parts maybe it helps our collective move the needle.

It’s absolutely true he’s also coming off his best midfield season and why would we move one of our best players back at this stage - maybe it’s part of his rotations this year and something that becomes a more permanent move in 2025. I guess I’m also troubled by the age of our midfield and our need to get some more exposure to the next crop / tier to work out if they’re viable options or not moving forward. If we suddenly had Libba and Treloar succumb to injuries I suppose we throw some players in the deep end and find out, but would be good to manufacture a level of meaningful minutes for 3 or 4 others where we can, and realistically Treloar is the one who may be best placed to find a good or better contribution in another line.

[Rusty12]

Wingman (and in some cases High Half forwards) = Outside.
Players who start in the centre square = inside.

That's the terminology - it just is. "Extractor" is just not a term. It might be something you use to describe what a player does, but it's not a role designation. Could Cripps play 'outside'? No - he couldn't. It would take away from his strengths (clearance and contest ball savant) and maximise his weaknesses (leg speed and endurance). In the same team, could Blake Acres play inside? Sure - and he has done it. BUT - he has an ability to hold width from the stop that is rare so to maximise his value they keep him outside...he's most often the on-ball winger in contested situations and Hewett switches in/out to the open side/off-ball side/call-it-what-you will side.

Are you trying to say Matt Rowell isn't a good player? Because if you are I'm kind of lost...guys who can't kick the ball and find a target have no role in the game in 2024 - but they never did. Being a poor kick basically means you don't play in a high possession role as the cost of turnovers will quickly outweigh the benefit of position. Back to the 'hit a target' question - where is that target. Everyone who plays at the stop is going to have times when they have to grab the footy and force it forward...hitting a target isn't actually the goal - taking territory and getting it to the position on the field (skinny? hot-line? etc) is all they are asked to do. In those circumstances, keeping the ball on the hot-line to maximise the team structure IS hitting the target regardless of what the CD numbers say,

Back to the hypothesis that some players are on their way 'out' - let's be clear - If you can win stops at a high rate, there is a place for you in ANY team. Clearance wins change games - then again, taking simple marks and hitting simple 25m switch kicks change games as well...

Who isn't there a place for? Players who accumulate possessions by looking (over and again) to be that 20m receiver and 'stopping' the ball when they get it. Then doing 'that' 20x more times. Those little receiving players who used to be able to get 35x touches per game (and the Crouch brother example isn't terrible) are struggling to find a place...but they ARE reasonable kicks of the footy...what they can't do is transition to a more dynamic game-plan where maintain possession and 'getting the ball' are seen as positives. Watch Brisbane in the GF and how predictable they were to each other taking that 40m kick into the corridor - to a player under pressure. If you are looking to be a 20m receiver, you can't survive in that game-plan and it's hard for players to 'change' the playing style they starting perfecting at age 8.

As with anything though, if you are elite at what you do, there is a place for you (hence those same Crouch brothers carving out 10+ year careers).

When you say AFL teams crave flexibility...well - they kind of say they do. But they also don't. Players train and play in their "line". And they pretty much don't move between lines...unless of course they can't get a game in which point they get thrown around trying to find 'something' to do with them.

Yep, agree to disagree. We can both just go off on tangents and not directly address what each other are saying.

Yes, I am focused on a players primary function not where their their magnet sits like an under 12s coach. It is function not position that matters.

Wingmen have a separate function, you can call them outside mid if you like, their function is still different. Not all midfielders have the same function, it is a fact some extract more, some receive more, and some do both. The best players in the comp do both.

Matt Rowell is a good role player for GC. and is a great ball winner. However because of his limitations (One paced, cant kick, cant mark, does not hit the scoreboard) you only have room for 1-2 of his type, hence, less list spots for this type of player.
If you pay this kind of player a huge chunk of your salary cap, you are going in the wrong direction, you can find players to perform this role without early picks or big money.

[Uninformed]

Wingman (and in some cases High Half forwards) = Outside.
Players who start in the centre square = inside.

That's the terminology - it just is. "Extractor" is just not a term. It might be something you use to describe what a player does, but it's not a role designation. Could Cripps play 'outside'? No - he couldn't. It would take away from his strengths (clearance and contest ball savant) and maximise his weaknesses (leg speed and endurance). etc.

Thanks for the great insight. It is really enjoyable reading people who know something about the game discuss it. Some great insights for the likes of me.

It is a bit unrelated though still connected, but if you could have just one of these four players which do you think would make the greatest difference and improve us the most.

Would you choose Gulden, Warner, Butters or Marra and why?

Same question to Rusty and others.

[mjp]

Yes, I am focused on a players primary function not where their their magnet sits like an under 12s coach. It is function not position that matters.

I honestly have no words right now.

Not sure why you think:

1/. Throwing darts is called for.
2/. There is anything wrong with coaching the u12's? Pretty important job if you ask me...

If you want to invent labels and call players extractors or whatever - have at it. But that's not a thing. It just isn't. Yes - players are better at some elements of the game than others (I mean of course) but to suggest guys are designated extractors or whatever word you want to use in AFL Coaching boxes you are simply wrong. The are called inside or outside, their individual strengths and weaknesses are openly discussed, they will be getting continuously challenged to emphasise their strengths/remediate their weaknesses etc.

[mjp]

Thanks for the great insight. It is really enjoyable reading people who know something about the game discuss it. Some great insights for the likes of me.

It is a bit unrelated though still connected, but if you could have just one of these four players which do you think would make the greatest difference and improve us the most.

Would you choose Gulden, Warner, Butters or Marra and why?

Same question to Rusty and others.

Gulden: We are an outside runner short. Yes, he would help us.
Warner: Would add to our inside logjam. Would help but would have to spend time forward.
Butters: Perfect replacement for Liber if he retires at the end of 2025. Otherwise, we just don't have the inside minutes.
Marra: Well, we already have him and he was our leading goal-kicker last year (which everyone seems to have forgotten). Yes, he does (and would) help us.

So - in order:

1/. Marra - Maximising him should be our #1 priority right now.
2/. Gulden - Sydney academy, don't think he's gettable.
3). Butters - Not sure why he would leave Port, but playing for us is certainly within hitting distance of family and schoolboy friends.
3). Warner - Applecross boy, think if he leaves Sydney it's Freo or West Coast...

I have noted Butters ahead of Warner as one is a Darley boy and the other is from Applecross so I think one is more 'gettable'...but take your pick.

[Uninformed]

Gulden: We are an outside runner short. Yes, he would help us.
Warner: Would add to our inside logjam. Would help but would have to spend time forward.
Butters: Perfect replacement for Liber if he retires at the end of 2025. Otherwise, we just don't have the inside minutes.
Marra: Well, we already have him and he was our leading goal-kicker last year (which everyone seems to have forgotten). Yes, he does (and would) help us.

So - in order:

1/. Marra - Maximising him should be our #1 priority right now.
2/. Gulden - Sydney academy, don't think he's gettable.
3). Butters - Not sure why he would leave Port, but playing for us is certainly within hitting distance of family and schoolboy friends.
3). Warner - Applecross boy, think if he leaves Sydney it's Freo or West Coast...

I have noted Butters ahead of Warner as one is a Darley boy and the other is from Applecross so I think one is more 'gettable'...but take your pick.

Gulden is the one for me. I think his attributes would make us a lot better. Unpopular perhaps, but I would swap Marra for Gulden if Sydney were interested. Not sure I would swap him for Warner, but maybe Butters.

I think we would gain more from Gulden's transition and delivery than we would lose in Marra's scoring. Particularly considering Croft, I would see Marra as replaceable.

It is not really a gettable or not scenario that I am posing. That is projection and fantasy. More whether, hypothetically, a Gulden would make us a better side than a Marra given our forward riches?

[mjp]

Unpopular perhaps, but I would swap Marra for Gulden if Sydney were interested.

As a lifelong Bulldog fan, I'm not trading a 200cm key forward who just led our goal-kicking age 22 for a 180cm outside mid who touches it 20x per game.

BUT.

I do see what you're saying.

[Uninformed]

As a lifelong Bulldog fan, I'm not trading a 200cm key forward who just led our goal-kicking age 22 for a 180cm outside mid who touches it 20x per game.

BUT.

I do see what you're saying.

Yep. It would be very hard to lose a talent like Marra even though some quality delivery would be Christmas for the others.

As a long, long, long term Bulldog follower it is hard to get used to the idea of having multiple key position options.

Even when we had Dempsey, Round, Sandilands and Welsh as ruck and resting rucks at either end, we were still short of a key position or two.

Now it is 'What do we do with them all?'

[GVGjr]

As a lifelong Bulldog fan, I'm not trading a 200cm key forward who just led our goal-kicking age 22 for a 180cm outside mid who touches it 20x per game.

BUT.

I do see what you're saying.

While I wouldn't do that trade either but to me Gulden offers a lot more to a club than being an outside mid and he will prove that in the coming seasons.
His ability to stay on the ground for long periods of time, the quality of his kicking and his absolute focus on being the best footballer he can be is quite a contrast in this trade scenario.

[Uninformed]

While I wouldn't do that trade either but to me Gulden offers a lot more to a club than being an outside mid and he will prove that in the coming seasons.
His ability to stay on the ground for long periods of time, the quality of his kicking and his absolute focus on being the best footballer he can be is quite a contrast in this trade scenario.

I think he is one of the elite few who can individually influence the outcome of a game. In a different way to Bont., being more outside, but a massive influence. Sounds like he has the right attitudes too.