Jake Batchelor

[Mr Brightside]

It's called a highlights video for a reason.
It's all the best little bits he did over a whole heap of games n they've chopped off n erased all the dodgy stuff ups.
Never yet seen a player look like a dud in his highlights package.

Dean Putts best example of this

 

[The_General]

Dean Putts best example of this

Putty!

In all seriousness, that video shows what I mean about carrying too much weight. He's lost his mobility. They should strip him of a few kg and play him as a Houli type. He's better defensively, has more aggression, and can kick just as well as Houli.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

Jake isn't the problem. Was good last year in a functioning backline. This year he is being played as a key back at 188cm.

He's never been able to play tall, has shown it on multiple occasions, yet Hardwick keeps trying to get him to do this. He didn't have to do it hardly at all last year until he decided to have him on Waite in the EF, and we all know how well that worked out.

 

[Bullarto Tiger]

Reckon Batchelor has shown his best ... not much more up here.

 

[leon]

Why would Parker still in your mind? Parker was Pick #40. In other words every club ignored him up to 39 picks. Additionally between Batchelor picked at 30 and Parker at 40, Batchelor has played more games than 8 other players. In hindsight you could argue that in fact it's lucky we picked Batchelor ahead of Ariel Steinberg at 31. Picks at this range are notoriously hit and miss.

OK, I'll tell you why. Because of a great post on PRE. Cannot remember by who; not sure whether on this thread or another, but it described how (if my memory is correct) that they grew playing at the same junior club. Parker continually won all the B & Fs right through junior ranks to U16 or U18. Everyone and anyone at the club would have said Parker was easily their best player etc.

It was stark just how no-one rated Parker. We preferred Batch. Trust me, it is fascinating to read, not just for our scouts but all the others who missed him too. But tell me how the Swans got it so right? Just luck you reckon, or did they really rate the opinions of people at that junior club who would know the most about them?

I read it months ago, but might have a search for it if I have the time, or seek it yourself if interested.

 

[Tigers of Old]

It's called a highlights video for a reason.
It's all the best little bits he did over a whole heap of games n they've chopped off n erased all the dodgy stuff ups.
Never yet seen a player look like a dud in his highlights package.

All true. The stats don't lie though. In his now six years on an AFL list, Batch has never been better than his opening couple of seasons.
No doubt in my mind he's gone backwards since his bright start.

 

[Rod]

It was stark just how no-one rated Parker. We preferred Batch. Trust me, it is fascinating to read, not just for our scouts but all the others who missed him too. But tell me how the Swans got it so right? Just luck you reckon, or did they really rate the opinions of people at that junior club who would know the most about them?

So if Sydney are so smart, why did they pick Jed Lamb before Parker in the 2010 draft?

 

[Tiger Pops]

Looks unfit to me, not to mention take away Rance and Grimes and he is then exposed, can compete and beat the 3rd of 4th best forward, not the best or second best.

 

[leon]

So if Sydney are so smart, why did they pick Jed Lamb before Parker in the 2010 draft?

I kind of meant it rhetorically. I don't know why Swans chose Parker? Just a fluke, sheer luck? But they definitely did very well; maybe by talking to the junior club people - I really believe in that.

Anyway, no-one gets them all right. The draft is always something of a lottery. Then so many factors come into what makes one guy succeed, another equally talented fail. Some clubs do it significantly better than others. RFC in the bottom half overall, even for first-rounders it appears.

 

[bigwow]

It's called a highlights video for a reason.
It's all the best little bits he did over a whole heap of games n they've chopped off n erased all the dodgy stuff ups.
Never yet seen a player look like a dud in his highlights package.

I get all of this, but Jake is doing none of the things he showed in the clip.

 

[artball]

took his opponents out of the game Sat. night. needs Grimes and Rance there, but who doesn't?

 

[HR]

took his opponents out of the game Sat. night. needs Grimes and Rance there, but who doesn't?

otherway round artball. Combine the three and its a pretty good li e as history tells us

 

[artball]

otherway round artball. Combine the three and its a pretty good li e as history tells us

?

 

[Daigoro]

All true. The stats don't lie though. In his now six years on an AFL list, Batch has never been better than his opening couple of seasons.
No doubt in my mind he's gone backwards since his bright start.

Agree. That package is actually pretty representative of his first year or two. We tried to turn him into a third tall and he has lost his run and mobility

 

[Mr Brightside]

The less he gets the footy the better he goes

 

[tigertim]

The less he gets the footy the better he goes

I'll be curious as to what his DE was coz as far as I saw it was awful.

 

[Scoop]

Desperate for a upgrade.

Looks unfit. Looks horrible with ball in hand.

Would prefer to trial Broad.

 

[Harry]

problem is he's an inbetweener.

too short for a tall, too slow for a running back, too unskilled for a half back user of the ball

 

[Total Tiger]

He needs a bloody decent haircut

 

[Tigers of Old]

Desperate for a upgrade.

Looks unfit. Looks horrible with ball in hand.

Would prefer to trial Broad.

x 2