"Big five weeks" for Josh Schache

[The Underdog]

Re: "Big five weeks" for Josh Schache

Schache is a far superior footballer to Josh Bruce.

He’s a more talented footballer. But talent and $5 will get you a coffee.
I’m a huge admirer of Schache, but if he doesn’t play his football with will and intent he’ll be dominating the EFL in 2 years.

[mjp]

Re: "Big five weeks" for Josh

Why would we have offered him a 2 year extension at the end of 2019 and not really have him in the mix by March of 2020?

I can't really comment as to why we would have done that.

I have said I don't understand the moves we made this past offseason and I also didn't understand what we did post 2019...but my most 2019 comments related primarily to the recruitment of Keath who I saw as primarily an interceptor into a squad that already had 3x players (Le Young, Crozier and Wood) who had that as their primary skill.

I don't really understand our recent list management but continue to look forward to the season ahead...missing the footy that's for sure.

[Bornadog]

Re: "Big five weeks" for Josh

the recruitment of Keath who I saw as primarily an interceptor into a squad that already had 3x players (Le Young, Crozier and Wood) who had that as their primary skill.

Those three players are all around 187cm compared to Keath at 197cm. I think that makes a difference, because can can play a bit of one on one as he has done in 2020

[GVGjr]

Re: "Big five weeks" for Josh Schache

Schache is a far superior footballer to Josh Bruce.

Josh needs to re-establish himself as a genuine senior player in the eyes of the selectors and the rest should take care of itself
Bruce was a disappointment last year and has a lot to prove this year but I'm confident he will be a far better contributor

[mjp]

Re: "Big five weeks" for Josh

Those three players are all around 187cm compared to Keath at 197cm. I think that makes a difference, because can can play a bit of one on one as he has done in 2020

Young is 197 and played key back in the 2019 finals.

[GVGjr]

Re: "Big five weeks" for Josh

Young is 197 and played key back in the 2019 finals.

He and Keath are very similar in terms of probably preferring to be tall intercept defenders but often having to adapt to 1 v 1 roles
Keath is a great kick and Young is quicker

Young and Gardner will potentially fight it out to partner Keath and Cordy as key defenders and then we have a number of other options to slot into the side including Williams, Crozier, Daniel, Johannisen, Duryea, Wood and the emerging Butler and Khamis so we are well covered for defenders and even have the option of swinging Naughton or Bruce back there if needed. On paper we have the options but are probably just a bit light on for a quality tall defender to work with Keath

[mjp]

Re: "Big five weeks" for Josh

...we have the options but are probably just a bit light on for a quality tall defender to work with Keath

But as with your comment on Schache we always seem to want it both ways. We keep these players who *could* be the one we want/need...but they never play (alluding to Young here) - and then we need to recruit more players to fill the same role...so then guys get stuck in limbo - getting an occasional one or two game opportunity - but never establishing themselves.

Think of the guys on our list in this same category - probably 8-10 players. Now, I guess there is a simple solution - when they get a chance, 'play better'...but that is super easier said than done. And now, we have a group of running players from JJ to Bont and Macrae and now including Treloar that *SHOULD* be able to compete for a top 4-finish/premiership but we genuinely have no idea how our side looks because there are so many 'uncertain' positions.

To give credit, the club has made a real commitment to English and given him every chance to learn and grow - but that causes an equal level of disquiet amongst members and now we have recruited Martin to 'help' him...does he need help or does he - like Grundy did - simply need to 'play better'?

[Bornadog]

Re: "Big five weeks" for Josh

Young is 197 and played key back in the 2019 finals.

Sorry, I was thinking of La Young - Brain fade

[jeemak]

Re: "Big five weeks" for Josh

But as with your comment on Schache we always seem to want it both ways. We keep these players who *could* be the one we want/need...but they never play (alluding to Young here) - and then we need to recruit more players to fill the same role...so then guys get stuck in limbo - getting an occasional one or two game opportunity - but never establishing themselves.

Think of the guys on our list in this same category - probably 8-10 players. Now, I guess there is a simple solution - when they get a chance, 'play better'...but that is super easier said than done. And now, we have a group of running players from JJ to Bont and Macrae and now including Treloar that *SHOULD* be able to compete for a top 4-finish/premiership but we genuinely have no idea how our side looks because there are so many 'uncertain' positions.

To give credit, the club has made a real commitment to English and given him every chance to learn and grow - but that causes an equal level of disquiet amongst members and now we have recruited Martin to 'help' him...does he need help or does he - like Grundy did - simply need to 'play better'?

Wouldn't you recruit players to fill roles rather than not fill them though? I'm not being funny, as good as Schache or Le Young have shown they COULD be they've also show how BAD they can be at the same time. So if they're guys that have shown a bit and can play senior footy, does recruiting other players who can play senior footy too put us in a worse position?

With both of Schache and Le Young being fairly inexperienced and raw, they're essentially speculative chances to make it. I get that you won't know if they can until you play them a lot, but on the other hand if you can get some years out of others in thinking they're going to better position you for success then I honestly don't see the problem with having both types on the list.

[mjp]

Re: "Big five weeks" for Josh

With both of Schache and Le Young being fairly inexperienced and raw, they're essentially speculative chances to make it. I get that you won't know if they can until you play them a lot, but on the other hand if you can get some years out of others in thinking they're going to better position you for success then I honestly don't see the problem with having both types on the list.

I don't disagree - but surely at some point you need to 'decide' what the plan is. If Young (Le) had played as a key back from his debut and we had ridden the swings and roundabouts of a developing player, then he would have played > 50 games by now. You could say the same thing about Schache who would have played 40x games with us if we had played them...

Yes, you need developing and proven players...but for players to develop they have to actually play. As for Schache being a speculative chance to make it, well - he was a number #2 overall pick in the draft so that is a bit more than a speculative selection. Young I'll agree...but if you think his development was not curtailed by the recruitment of Keath (the way that Schache's was impacted by the arrival of Bruce) then you're crazy. And where does the arrival of Treloar leave West? It might send him to the forwards...so where does that leave Weightman?

I don't think players should be gifted games, that's for sure. They should and need to earn them. But at the same time there is no point spend 100's of 1000's of $'s on talent id and recruiting if the players we select are immediately put at the back of the line...

[EasternWest]

Re: "Big five weeks" for Josh

Sorry, I was thinking of La Young - Brain fade

It's a momentous day on WOOF. I have quoted for posterity.

[Bornadog]

Re: "Big five weeks" for Josh

It's a momentous day on WOOF. I have quoted for posterity.

Getting old

[jeemak]

Re: "Big five weeks" for Josh

I don't disagree - but surely at some point you need to 'decide' what the plan is. If Young (Le) had played as a key back from his debut and we had ridden the swings and roundabouts of a developing player, then he would have played > 50 games by now. You could say the same thing about Schache who would have played 40x games with us if we had played them...

Yes, you need developing and proven players...but for players to develop they have to actually play. As for Schache being a speculative chance to make it, well - he was a number #2 overall pick in the draft so that is a bit more than a speculative selection. Young I'll agree...but if you think his development was not curtailed by the recruitment of Keath (the way that Schache's was impacted by the arrival of Bruce) then you're crazy. And where does the arrival of Treloar leave West? It might send him to the forwards...so where does that leave Weightman?

I don't think players should be gifted games, that's for sure. They should and need to earn them. But at the same time there is no point spend 100's of 1000's of $'s on talent id and recruiting if the players we select are immediately put at the back of the line...

Mate it kinda seems like you disagree a little!

The paragraph prior to the one you quoted sums up my views on this, in that I think we've figured both Le Young and Schache aren't going to be immediately reliable for whatever reason rightly or wrongly (put Trengove in this category as well) and have recruited and favoured others because of that. I also think that Le Young was fighting it out with all of Trengove, Cordy, Gardner and Keath for only two or three spots, with he and Trengove being the guys who regularly missed out. Additionally, just because he was given intercepting responsibilities in his early games it may not mean that's what he's earmarked for, especially given our two mid-sized players in Crozier and Wood who intercept well at times (I mean we may just want the talls in defence to primarily lock it down...but I couldn't say that for sure).

I am crazy, but not because I don't think Young or Schache have had opportunities to develop taken from them. Likewise with West, and possibly Weightman this coming season, it seems we're going for a step forward after a few years of figuring out what we want to be and how we want to play (see GVGjnr's constant rambling about us having been in a rebuild phase these past couple of years ) possibly at their expense.

Sure Schache as a pick two wasn't speculative at the time of being drafted, but his form at Brisbane and the fact we picked him up relatively cheaply suggests that after a couple of years in the system he had question marks on him. Le Young however, was taken early age and with a good mature age year in the unders (if not selected in the draft he was) could have gone higher in the draft or not have been taken at all. I don't like the way the latter of the two has been handled, but it is what it is and I try and think about why his treatment was what it was and maybe I'm too forgiving of the MC on that front - though it's not as if he hasn't been given chances.

[Bornadog]

Re: "Big five weeks" for Josh Schache

At the end of the day, you need backups for all roles in the team. If Schache can get some form up then he will be considered not just a backup but best 22. I am happy to have Schache and Lew Young learning and developing as KPP.

Ultimately it will be up to them and we will see if they are good enough as they grow and mature.

[mjp]

Re: "Big five weeks" for Josh

Mate it kinda seems like you disagree a little!

Yeah maybe - but not really.

I am frustrated because back in 2017 Young played 7 games. And Alex Keath played 6.

Now - Keath has played 48, and Young has played 15. And I wouldn't mind betting that Young was more impressive in 2017 than Keath was...

I get that Keath was coming from another professional sport and uniquely positioned to 'fight his way' through all of the 'stuff' that professional athletes deal with...but these guys started their careers at the same time playing the same role and having similar success...one is now pretty established and the other grasping to find his way (and is in fact listed as a key forward on the club website).

I understand where GVGjr is coming from when he says that we have been in rebuild mode post flag...but how in hell have some of our own developing talls been missed in this rebuild.

I don't know. I agree we need to get good players to the club...yes. But depth for the sake of depth is not good...we need a LEVEL of depth (to me, Gardner was a 'depth' based decision and I think that sort of low cost, mature body recruit who can pinch hit is smart list management) but recruiting like for like under the guise of depth just doesn't make sense...