As someone who's watched him since under 11s he's not like either and yes we should've picked him
Opinion 2024 AFL Draft - Nights 1 & 2, from 7pm AEST
- Thread starter caesar88
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Inside the draft: Deals that Tigers rejected, the 'it' player who six clubs chased
Callum Twomey takes a closer look at the wheeling and dealing behind the scenes at the 2024 Telstra AFL Draft
www.afl.com.au
Heaps of Sydney content.
We tried to trade up to 12, I think, using our two picks plus future 1st. But we wanted other late 1st round richmond picks as well. So hardly an aggressive offer.
Rated Datolli ahead of Trainor and would have taken him even if Trainor was still available.
Tossed up between Shanahan and Bowman. Bowman would have gone soon after if we didn't pick him.
Knocked back the bowman pick + future 1st for North's future 1st.
Wheresbuddy
Club Legend
- Sep 14, 2020
- 2,822
- 5,937
- AFL Club
- Sydney
As Sheldrick plays more he'll get better. His technique is fine and he's natural on both sides. The main part of his game is to disrupt the oppo.
With continuity and fitness Gus will be a gun.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Realistically we should be playing both or at least one and I'm here or there which one. If we do play Sheldrick please no putting him forward pocket, he plays as a mid or don't.
Our inside mids have generally never been good kicks, not sure that many ever are and that's fine, it's not their main job.
So that wouldn't be my knock on Adams or Sheldrick. It's who can get to and win contests, and clear the ball out to better users of it.
For me, Adams looked off the pace, and the games he spent more time in the middle, he wasn't really that productive. He had some good cameos in midfield, and put on a good showing against Neale, in running with a slower mid.
Sheldrick, if he can bring the contested stuff, has a bit more of a burst.
So Adams for me, isn't in my 22, but with Parker gone, he might be a valuable sub. If we need a run-with role performed on a slower mid, or it's a wet game, I'd be loading up on contested types, so he might come into the 22 then.
So that wouldn't be my knock on Adams or Sheldrick. It's who can get to and win contests, and clear the ball out to better users of it.
For me, Adams looked off the pace, and the games he spent more time in the middle, he wasn't really that productive. He had some good cameos in midfield, and put on a good showing against Neale, in running with a slower mid.
Sheldrick, if he can bring the contested stuff, has a bit more of a burst.
So Adams for me, isn't in my 22, but with Parker gone, he might be a valuable sub. If we need a run-with role performed on a slower mid, or it's a wet game, I'd be loading up on contested types, so he might come into the 22 then.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Only thing I disagree on is this Adams as sub thing, you need the sub having mid capabilities but leg speed. It's why Campbell weirdly works well as one, Clearly would too but I dont want CC near that role he plays a full game. The question is if it isn't Campbell who is it? Maybe it's spread around but a slow inside mid as a sub I don't love.
Inside mids generally go at around 60 ish % D/E even the best ones, so that per se isn't the reason you wouldn't play a guy there, it's getting the mix right.
I've already pointed out that Adams has done well in shorter stints in midfield. Which would be why he's more suitable as sub than in the 22.
We should become a quicker side by default of Parker leaving. It was a concern having both Adams and Parker on the field at the same time, but that no longer has relevance.
Of course, if you're saying we don't need a mid as sub, that's another topic. But he's the best we have that I wouldn't already have in my 22 (including Sheldrick, Cleary, and Campbell also in the 22 up forward).
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
I don't want a slow inside mid as the sub though, Adams is in the Sheldrick file and it's the same point. If you pick them, play them the whole game. You need leg speed as the sub now who that is who on earth knows and haven't really thought of it beyond that. Personally I'm starting with Campbell as the sub, makes the most sense
Isn't it most likely that we'll be running 5 on the bench with no sub? I know it hasn't been settled yet but all the clubs want it and it's only a stroke of a pen.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Honestly don't know for the moment I'll assume no changes, that said I'd rather go with 5 on the bench too myself. Nothing annoys me more than coaches making blokes debut as the sub. It's the single biggest blight on the game and that includes the silly 'dangerous tackle' interpretations which are farcical
Ok then, Adams is out of the 22 and not sub either.
Sheldrick is a bit quicker imo.
Campbell as sub doesn't make any sense to me based on what we need and what he can offer.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Good enough, least don't put the slow mid with the turning circle of the Queen Mary as the sub, makes even less sense. Campbell had good games as the sub.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Don't worry I won't fire in a protest lol
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
A couple of them, l just don't rate him much, not against trying him up forward though
Not the real thing anymore , it's done well done on the placing . Bye
- Sep 24, 2014
- 3,803
- 19,162
- AFL Club
- Sydney
A month ago (SEN);
According to a report in the Herald Sun, the AFL is set to retain the much-scrutinised four-man bench and substitute in 2025 despite the wishes of the players association and those in charge of football clubs.
AFL asks for feedback, ignores feedback
Should be easy, but how long has the 6-6-6 warning been in place?
Makes absolutely no sense...........and yet.
- Mar 29, 2019
- 3,750
- 10,844
- AFL Club
- Sydney
One thing that I've been trying to figure out is why we didn't trade in any future picks in the 2025 draft?
With possibly 3 academy boys in consideration, it seems strange (to me at least) we didn't seem to try and get at least one future pick as security?
With possibly 3 academy boys in consideration, it seems strange (to me at least) we didn't seem to try and get at least one future pick as security?
Because we have 2 future drafts to use next year and we wanted to use the picks this year.
It does make less sense though with some of our selections. We could have traded back from our 2nd and still picked up a medium forward. We could have just traded our 3rd out instead of picking up another flanker. Could have gotten future value there.
I think it was a mistake. Getting into a game of trading future picks to match academy bids would be an enormous gamble that would eventually catch up with us.
Maybe the club just doesn't rate our crop next year as high as some of us do.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
