How Does Our Midfield Rate with Shiel

[Windy_Hill]

Assuming the deal gets done and Shiel joins the Dons, where does that place our often criticised Midfield compared to the best in the competition?


Who do we have and how do they rate



Shiel - A
Merrett - A
Smith - B+
Heppell - B+
Zaharakis - B
McGrath - C+
Parish - C+
Langford - C+
Myers. - C
Guelfi - C-
Mutch - D
Colyer - D
Clark - E

However - you could probably add the likes of McKenna/Saad as Midfielders of sorts with their run and deliver style of play. They are not simply lock down defenders.

Add to that Stringer providing very effective clearances cameos. (I read we win 80% of clearances when Jake is in the centre bounce)

Finally you have the luxury of also swinging the likes of Fantasia and McDonald-Tippungwuti into the mix from time to time.

We can also look forward to continued improvement from McGrath, Parish and Langford. All could develop into at least B level players.

Without doing team by team analysis, I see us as having at least a Top 6 rated Midfield. Add in out KPP strength, particularly in defence (Francis, Hurley, Hooker, Ambrose) and solid options up forwaard (A fit Daniher, Stringer, Laverde, Stewart and Brown) then it would be simply mental weakness or coaching that will stop this team making finals in 2019

[Gimps]

Langford as good as McGrath... Jesus.

[Rover99]

Langford as good as McGrath... Jesus.

Double wow. Is that the right Windy??

[Windy_Hill]

Relative to the competition I would say McGrath and Langford are in the same bracket. Would suggest upside for both of them but Langford physically and in terms of growing into his role had a pretty decent year. He continues to receive great reviews from within the football department in terms of his intrinsic and potential ability

McGrath had a transition year and whilst he showed a bit moving into the midfield, still has a fair bit of development ahead of him. I dont think he was necessarily the better player in 2018 out of the two of them.

However, if I was a betting man, I would suggest McGrath has the bigger long term upside based on his pedigree and what he has shown to date.

So for now at least, I have them in the same bracket

2018 Stats - FWIW

Games Played. AMc 20. KL 16
Ave Disposals. AMc 19.9. KL 17.9
Goals. AMc 5. KL 9
Clearances - AMc 1.3. KL 2.2
I50 - AMc 1.2. KL 3.4
Ave SC Points. AMc 71.4. KL 80

[patoman]

Agree with the points above. I think Langford will be a really good player... I think McGrath will become the better of the two players long term... I think Dave “Long left boot” Myers must be looking at our list and wondering if he’ll get a game this year!!! I believe like many others I’ve said most years if DM can have a good year and deliver on his legendary potential we could be good in the midfield... this is the first time we can look at the list and say if DM breaks down again it really doesn’t matter I hope he has a great year and finally shows why we picked him over Cyrill but if not we have sooo much to get excited about in that mids group I really don’t think we’ll notice!! Caaarrnn those Mighty Bombers for 2019!!!

[Windy_Hill]

Langford as good as McGrath... Jesus.

Double wow. Is that the right Windy??

Is there a wrong Windy?

[Windy Hille]

My views on ratings following current form - not potential...

Shiel - A
Merrett - A
Smith - A
Heppell - A
Zaharakis - B
McGrath - C+
Parish - C+
Langford - B
Myers. - C
Guelfi - C-
Mutch - D
Colyer - D
Clark - E

[Crazyman]

My views on ratings following current form - not potential...

Shiel - A
Merrett - A
Smith - A
Heppell - A
Zaharakis - B
McGrath - C+
Parish - C+
Langford - B
Myers. - C
Guelfi - C-
Mutch - D
Colyer - D
Clark - E

Bit harsh on Zaka and McGrath, very generous on Myers and Colyer.

[Rover99]

Langford as good as McGrath... Jesus.

Double wow. Is that the right Windy??

Is there a wrong Windy?

Well I'm not sure but now I see that the Hille has rated him a B and McGrath a C+. So why did we even bother with Shiel?l 6 months time he'll?l be an A+

[Windy_Hill]

Langford as good as McGrath... Jesus.

Double wow. Is that the right Windy??

Is there a wrong Windy?

Well I'm not sure but now I see that the Hille has rated him a B and McGrath a C+. So why did we even bother with Shiel?l 6 months time he'll?l be an A+

Yeah so basically the “wrong” Windy is in agreement with me. Don’t underestimate Kyle. I was not sold on him (see my post Kyle Languid). But I think his development has been very exciting. Will probably not go beyond a B but on this season’s form did as much if or more than McGrath.k

[Windy Hille]

Langford as good as McGrath... Jesus.

Double wow. Is that the right Windy??

Is there a wrong Windy?

Well I'm not sure but now I see that the Hille has rated him a B and McGrath a C+. So why did we even bother with Shiel?l 6 months time he'll?l be an A+

Credit where it’s due. Langers was pumping more inside 50’s than any other player in the league over the month of July. His midfield work improved dramatically this season. Should have won the most Improved award ahead of Myers who was his usual inconsistent self.

[Gimps]

Langford as good as McGrath... Jesus.

Double wow. Is that the right Windy??

Is there a wrong Windy?

Well I'm not sure but now I see that the Hille has rated him a B and McGrath a C+. So why did we even bother with Shiel?l 6 months time he'll?l be an A+

Credit where it’s due. Langers was pumping more inside 50’s than any other player in the league over the month of July. His midfield work improved dramatically this season. Should have won the most Improved award ahead of Myers who was his usual inconsistent self.

Nice to see you’re still deluded.

[nudder12]

I'm becoming disinclined to worry about "ratings" of players, with a few rare exceptions.
These days players don't need to be A+ or B or whatever to be effective.
As Jack Dyer used to describe them - "good ordinary footballers" - who do their role, are mostly what is required.
For example, I don't consider many Richmond or Collingwood mids to be great, but they act out their role for the team, and look where it got them.
Champion team Vs Team of champions, and all that......

[Windy_Hill]

I'm becoming disinclined to worry about "ratings" of players, with a few rare exceptions.
These days players don't need to be A+ or B or whatever to be effective.
As Jack Dyer used to describe them - "good ordinary footballers" - who do their role, are mostly what is required.
For example, I don't consider many Richmond or Collingwood mids to be great, but they act out their role for the team, and look where it got them.
Champion team Vs Team of champions, and all that......

Yep and the good ordinary footballers are rated a C to B

As for Richmond, bit rough on Dusty to say they dont have any great mids

[Windy Hille]

Double wow. Is that the right Windy??

Is there a wrong Windy?

Well I'm not sure but now I see that the Hille has rated him a B and McGrath a C+. So why did we even bother with Shiel?l 6 months time he'll?l be an A+

Credit where it’s due. Langers was pumping more inside 50’s than any other player in the league over the month of July. His midfield work improved dramatically this season. Should have won the most Improved award ahead of Myers who was his usual inconsistent self.

Nice to see you’re still deluded.

Ah yes, I remember you saying the same thing when I said McKenna will be a player

My “delusions” v your predictions

Fair to say I’m winning

[nudder12]

I'm becoming disinclined to worry about "ratings" of players, with a few rare exceptions.
These days players don't need to be A+ or B or whatever to be effective.
As Jack Dyer used to describe them - "good ordinary footballers" - who do their role, are mostly what is required.
For example, I don't consider many Richmond or Collingwood mids to be great, but they act out their role for the team, and look where it got them.
Champion team Vs Team of champions, and all that......

Yep and the good ordinary footballers are rated a C to B

As for Richmond, bit rough on Dusty to say they dont have any great mids

Read it again, I think you missed a "m" - I said not Many great mids

[Windy_Hill]

I'm becoming disinclined to worry about "ratings" of players, with a few rare exceptions.
These days players don't need to be A+ or B or whatever to be effective.
As Jack Dyer used to describe them - "good ordinary footballers" - who do their role, are mostly what is required.
For example, I don't consider many Richmond or Collingwood mids to be great, but they act out their role for the team, and look where it got them.
Champion team Vs Team of champions, and all that......

Yep and the good ordinary footballers are rated a C to B

As for Richmond, bit rough on Dusty to say they dont have any great mids

Read it again, I think you missed a "m" - I said not Many great mids

Yep fair enough

[Windy Hille]

It seems there’s a lot of hype surrounding us for next season. I’m not comfortable with that. SEN creating a ladder of most hyped clubs for 2019. We’re sitting on top according to them due to recruiting, sponsorship announcements, and glitzy articles.

Expectation will be high. And I think we struggle to live up to these things when it’s expected.

[Windy_Hill]

We are a click bait club for the media. Perhaps the biggest of them all. While we may come in around fourth or fifth in the membership stakes, it is quite likely we still retain the label of “most supported” club in the country. Our following in Perth and Queensland in particular is by far and away the biggest of all the Victorian clubs. Additionally we are also a club that other supporters, notably Hawthorn and Carlton, love to hate. They are still harping on about the needle culture at Windy Hill.

So,.......is it any surprise that we are heavily featured in off season fluff pieces. After all, does anyone care whether North Melbourne are training the house down or Geelong is set to crack x number of Members? Nope. Essendon is a big club with a huge following that generates clicks more than any other.


Some of you may recall a recent Roy Morgan research study that had Sydney as the most followed club in the land with the Bombers second. This is a flawed study as clearly the sample base in Sydney, whether they follow football or not, will likely just state the Swans as their team. They recorded almost twice the number of followers than Essendon in second place! This seems wrong when you consider the number of empty seats in their 40,000 seat stadium.

http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2017 ... -supported

[nudder12]

We are a click bait club for the media. Perhaps the biggest of them all. While we may come in around fourth or fifth in the membership stakes, it is quite likely we still retain the label of “most supported” club in the country. Our following in Perth and Queensland in particular is by far and away the biggest of all the Victorian clubs. Additionally we are also a club that other supporters, notably Hawthorn and Carlton, love to hate. They are still harping on about the needle culture at Windy Hill.

So,.......is it any surprise that we are heavily featured in off season fluff pieces. After all, does anyone care whether North Melbourne are training the house down or Geelong is set to crack x number of Members? Nope. Essendon is a big club with a huge following that generates clicks more than any other.


Some of you may recall a recent Roy Morgan research study that had Sydney as the most followed club in the land with the Bombers second. This is a flawed study as clearly the sample base in Sydney, whether they follow football or not, will likely just state the Swans as their team. They recorded almost twice the number of followers than Essendon in second place! This seems wrong when you consider the number of empty seats in their 40,000 seat stadium.

http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2017 ... -supported

I'd be pretty sure the Poll data is flawed. There's no explanation of how "most supported" was calculated.
It could be possible though, if you also consider old South Melbourne fans (which explains why SCG seats are empty), and that a lot of people (anecdotally) simply like or have a soft spot for the Swans. Many of these people aren't members at all and barely even follow AFL, but they might have been included in the survey.
Disclaimer - the methodology of the Poll might be on Roy Morgan's website, but I can't be stuffed to have a look. Care factor = zero