The Tyrant wrote:
Good post showbag. Obviously the claim that Chambers' talent is comparable to the amount in Murphy's testicle is a subjective one, and I don't have access to a crystal ball. There are a lot of examples of players in the system for a while, turning it around and coming good. Obviously I don't know Chambers is always going to be a poor player. Josh Mahoney was spat out and has comeback to be a good player.
Personally, I believe the club erred in bringing them (him and Longmuir) onto the list, and don't hold much value in the club's claim, but again, its just a personal belief. Chambers was a first round pick a few years back, and was obviously reasonably highly rated when he entered the system...
.... I think the assumption in the "footy community" is that the system is the ultimate test, and that ability can be found wanting when they have gone through the system for a few years, at least until they reach physical maturity. Its entirely possible that Murphy is a dud player who never comes good, and is delisted in 3-4 years.
Everything is a gamble. Statistically, given Murphy's percieved level of ability (as reflected but not endorsed by his draft selection), and given Chambers/Longmuir/or even Prendergast time and output within the system, it would be STATISTICALLY more likely that Murphy eventually outshines those 3 players, and possibly by a long way. My own personal belief is that as soon as next season he will have overcome them, just as DeLedio is much more accomplished player than Chambers now (well... I would argue anyway).
Ultimately it comes down to faith.. faith based on sheer statistics of a Chambers being a less vital part of our future (and even our present) than Murphy. Obviously faith and statistics don't provide any guarantees, or course.
But with any faith-based-assumption, you have to back your judgement and do what you believe to be right to attain the best outcome: ie, one or more of our recruits being a regular performer, and potentially a star performer.
I believe that Murphy is more likely to be that player in future than Chambers. Therefore, thats why I want to see Murphy put forward as the option so long as he wants it (ie puts in the effort). I believe he has far superior talent to Chambers, in other words. Its a belief, which statistically is more likely to be correct.
Lets not forget that this argument is being used for this squad for this season. If we had the Sydney list I wouldn't necessarily be forwarding this. But I have so little "faith" in our mid-tier players (like Chambers etc) that forward planning needs to start now, and that has to be the pushing of talent over mid-tier plodders.
(which, as discussed, is dependant on "effort", and my personal belief in the relative abilities of Murphy and guys like Chambers).
Cheers Tyrant, i'm obviously not arguing that Murphy is never going to be the player that Chambers is, it is just a question of development. I'd like to see Murphy play as many games as he is capable of playing, but i'm not sure it's always in his best interest to play him just for the sake of it. With the playing lists being less in number over recent times we don't have the luxury of saying that 12 of our players are duds so they won't get a game. We need to manage the whole list, and to me that entails getting the best out of each player in the short term - as well as with a long term view firmly in our sights.
Cooney, Griffen, Delidio have all embraced the opportunity to play regular football, Luke Ball took a year in school footy as will Xavier Ellis ...and i know that Ball is certainly not a dud in any way. Is Ray not the player he could have potentially been at this stage because he hasn't played regular footy for the dogs? or would he have been snapped in half in the seniors as he is build like a stick insect? nobody can definitively say.
The question of playing a kid and sticking with him is an interesting point though there have been examples where it has worked and others where it has failed dismally...i'd like to look at the case of your favourite footballer and his journey ...Troy Longmuir...
Longmuir could argue that he has already been a victim of this youth at all costs policy. When a young Paul Medhurst arrived down at the Freo S**tfish he was given every opportunity to play senior football. Whilst his first season was admirable and probably worthy of keeping Longmuir out of the team, his performaces since then have been erratic at best. He is a player whose game/temperament is so flawed that he literally can't get a kick whenever the S**tfish travel to Melbourne, but i don't recall a single time that he has been dropped from the team. In fact due to the fame of his rock star haircut he developed as a cult figure, often to the detriment of his football and the club didn't have the stones to drop him. All this at the expense of out little bug eyed friend Longmuir.
So here is a case of a youth who has not been given the opportunity to work on the faults in his game at a lower level, who still makes the same mistakes that he always has. He hasn't worked on his temperament as he is an automatic inclusion in to the team, so even though he is by no means the most liked player amongst his teammates - he has not really adjusted his approached too much.
So Freo have failed in the development of two players - one who was given too much game time for his output whilst another wasn't given enough opportunities to display his obvious talent. As a result Freo have lost the better footballer (Longmuir) for nothing and have just (i believe) given their overrated cult figure a new 3 year @ $300,000 deal.
I'm all for playing the kids if its meritted but there are certainly some dangers to not managing the WHOLE of your list and only focussing on those drafted that are considered elite.
Login
Register
FAQ
