Jack Silvagni - The Ultimate Medical Sub

[DJC]

I'd have to say I'd be a little skeptical about the height imbalance theory - I'd say it was one factor among several, a minor factor IMO. If you're swapping out 2 or 3 smalls for talls, then yes, no doubt, but not 1.

Listening to Voss post game, he mentioned desire, ground ball and contested ball. He said we lost too many critical battles, and were out muscled by a side with greater desire and work rate. He didn't seem too concerned when questioned about 3 talls, height balance etc.

I think Vossy has covered most of the reasons.  Did he also mention over-using the ball and not providing opportunities for handball receives?

Our small forwards are great at putting pressure on opposition defenders and helping out in the midfield and in defence, but they're not troubling the scorers.  When you have an advantage with your tall forwards, in terms of both quantity and quality, opposition defenders shouldn't be marking a lot of kicks inside 50; marking contests should be won by our talls or brought to ground.  Our small forwards aren't capitalising on those opportunities and it's generally Charlie or midfielders that do the crumbing.  In that context, playing Jack, Tom and Pitto is the best option ... but not necessarily an underdone Pitto.

[PaulP]

I think Vossy has covered most of the reasons.  Did he also mention over-using the ball and not providing opportunities for handball receives?

Our small forwards are great at putting pressure on opposition defenders and helping out in the midfield and in defence, but they're not troubling the scorers.  When you have an advantage with your tall forwards, in terms of both quantity and quality, opposition defenders shouldn't be marking a lot of kicks inside 50; marking contests should be won by our talls or brought to ground.  Our small forwards aren't capitalising on those opportunities and it's generally Charlie or midfielders that do the crumbing.  In that context, playing Jack, Tom and Pitto is the best option ... but not necessarily an underdone Pitto.

I don't recall Voss mentioning those. I think he was pretty grumpy about being overpowered at the contest, and that was the focus of his presser.

I've got nothing against Durdin (in fact I rather like him), but what we saw on Saturday night was an 18 man problem. Durdin would've made no difference.

I haven't watched much of the Crows, but what I saw on the weekend matches the word around the traps, which is that they are a tough, honest, blue collar team, who for once also looked polished as well. Their best game for the year, and our worst IMO.

[Baggers]

I'd have to say I'd be a little skeptical about the height imbalance theory - I'd say it was one factor among several, a minor factor IMO. If you're swapping out 2 or 3 smalls for talls, then yes, no doubt, but not 1.

Listening to Voss post game, he mentioned desire, ground ball and contested ball. He said we lost too many critical battles, and were out muscled by a side with greater desire and work rate. He didn't seem too concerned when questioned about 3 talls, height balance etc.

Precisely. What The Vossmeister identified was all about attitude. And we need look no further.

When you lose, and lose badly, you're too tall, too small, too slow, shizen game plan, too soft, too many spuds... etc. Symptoms of a slack attitude, to be blunt.

[PaulP]

This thread was started about 15 months ago, and it's interesting to see how things have changed.

There are, as best as I can tell, two main theories about the ideal sub : one, a fast, burst player, who can take advantage of a fatigued opposition, with pace, chase down and line breaking ability. And two, a utility player, who can play a variety of positions, creating minimal disturbance to structures. The former is more strategic, the latter is more contingency. Jack clearly falls into the latter category. The club generally plays him as 3rd tall or 2nd ruck, and I think Jack Martin and Tom De Koning respectively, are viewed by the club as being ahead of JSOS. And I agree. I read an article where Dermott Brereton stated that JSOS has no real home, and when combined with his limited mobility and athleticism, means he will be down the pecking order IMO. He is undoubtedly a solid handy footballer, but he is being eased out by better options. I think the sub role would suit him to a t.

It is a standard football truism that you need genuine, AFL level players beyond the best 22 to win a flag. This clearly means that in any premiership team, there will be worthy, deserving players that miss out. It sucks, and I wish it were different, but I can't see any other way.

In the overall narrative of our 2024 season, what happens with Jack Silvagni will be very much a minor plot line IMO, but also oddly intriguing.

[LP]

In the overall narrative of our 2024 season, what happens with Jack Silvagni will be very much a minor plot line IMO, but also oddly intriguing.

Yes largely agree, an intriguing distraction.

If our fate hinges on the rise or fall of SoJ we must truly be the child of the Cephissus' abuse of Liriope!

[pinot]

He's in our top 25-30 imo.

I don't think he is a sub but a starting talent tbh - his best position would be a link-man between defence to forward with his endurance and work rate. He's a hard match up for a half back flank and his skills are excquisite.

[PaulP]

If we are at the point next season where a handy player like Jack Silvagni is a sub or on the fringes of the best 22, there's only 2 possibilities IMO :

- the MC is incompetent or corrupt,
- our list is healthy, in form and deep.

There's no doubt in my mind as to the more likely possibility.

[DJC]

Fox Footy has published our "best 23" for 2024.  Apart from including Elijah Hollands, they have gone with one ruckman, Tom De Koning, with Jack Silvagni as third tall forward and second ruckman.  That's only going to happen if Marc Pittonet is injured and our developing rucks aren't ready to play at AFL level.

AFL.com has a more convincing "best 22" with Tom De Koning and Marc Pittonet sharing the ruck duties and Jack Silvagni nowhere to be seen.  However, I'm not sure that whoever picked that team appreciates Jack's ability to find space inside 50, to mark on the lead, and his value when giving Charlie or Harry a break, as well as making the opposition sending a competent tall defender to him ; I don't really want to see Matty Cottrell lining up on a key defender.  On the flipside, we don't want Jack playing against a defender who will run off him.

If Jack is in form, he plays as our third tall forward and one of Matt Owies, Jesse Motlop and Lachie Fogarty misses out.

I'm not opposed to the idea of Jack as the sub.  He has the versatility to be the ideal contingency sub as well the ability to have an impact as a strategic sub.  I'm not convinced that a strategic sub needs to be speedy player to have an impact.

[PaulP]

David, if I've understood your post, your 6 forwards would be : McKay, Curnow, Martin, Silvagni, and 2 out of Moltop, Owies and Fogarty. Is that right ?

[kruddler]

Fox Footy has published our "best 23" for 2024.  Apart from including Elijah Hollands, they have gone with one ruckman, Tom De Koning, with Jack Silvagni as third tall forward and second ruckman.  That's only going to happen if Marc Pittonet is injured and our developing rucks aren't ready to play at AFL level.

AFL.com has a more convincing "best 22" with Tom De Koning and Marc Pittonet sharing the ruck duties and Jack Silvagni nowhere to be seen.  However, I'm not sure that whoever picked that team appreciates Jack's ability to find space inside 50, to mark on the lead, and his value when giving Charlie or Harry a break, as well as making the opposition sending a competent tall defender to him ; I don't really want to see Matty Cottrell lining up on a key defender.  On the flipside, we don't want Jack playing against a defender who will run off him.

If Jack is in form, he plays as our third tall forward and one of Matt Owies, Jesse Motlop and Lachie Fogarty misses out.

I'm not opposed to the idea of Jack as the sub.  He has the versatility to be the ideal contingency sub as well the ability to have an impact as a strategic sub.  I'm not convinced that a strategic sub needs to be speedy player to have an impact.

What both those best 22(3)s have in common is what i've been referring too all year. Team balance and being mindful of NOT being too tall.
You can't play 2 rucks, 2 key forwards and Jack.

Whichever way you want to slice it, thats what it boils down too.
You wanna play Pitto as 1st ruck, TDK and Charlie as KPPs, then you can play Jack.
You wanna play Pitto as 1st ruck, TDK as backup forward, and Charlie and Harry....then Jack should probably miss out (although i think it makes us too immobile.
You wanna play TDK as 1st ruck, Jack as backup and Charlie and Harry as KPFs, then Pitto misses out. TDK probably needs to improve his ruckwork and work around the ground, but i think this is the likely long-term plan.

Thing is, i don't care who plays where and when, as long as it works for the team.
I've put up numbers, stats and many many paragraphs behind the pros and cons of each, and people accuse me of bias. Not so, just using the numbers to guide me in picking my best team......and its certainly not clear cut one way or another.

However, i do get my back up when someone proclaims "its simple..." because its not. Or if someone says "player x is better than player y at...." and stats say otherwise.

Have an opinion, but base it on some kind of logic and/or evidence. Even if its simply based on potential.