Nathan (Axel) Foley [MERGED]

[Tigerdog]

Nice article in today's Melbourne Sun about Foley (in case it hasnt been mentioned before)

There was a good one in The Age too.

 

[the claw]

Re: Nathan Foley

ah when all else fails throw up the coach and staff know better excuse its so funny my sides are aching.
and your  assuing things again. you know nothing about me and have even less of a clue about what knowledge i have or dont have about players. i find it very hard to debate with fools and know it alls of which you are both. and like disco  i to cant be bothered with you anymore.

You're right claw, I know nothing about you, but I'd be willing to bet the farm that you know infinitely less about Foley's physical capabilities regarding game time, how he pulls up after a run on the ball, after a game and after training, and who he's capable of matching up on at this stage of his career, than Wallace and the coaching staff do.

As I said before, you're downright delusional to think you know about the above than the coaching staff who work with Foley virtually every day.

Is Wallace a 'know it all' too now...or just a 'fool' when his football knowledge and player management skills are compared to yours?

firstly going by the above statement i would have to say you have never played an endurance sport and have know idea about the human body and how it works. but i reckon the real reason you make the above type statements is to throw up smokescreens to cover up the fact you know stuff all about the topic. look rayzor its alright if you dont have the confidence to make decisions about what you see. its alright if you need to trust what wallace and co are doing and in particular say. its really alright i understand you dont think wallace can do wrong.but falling back on the wallace knows best scenario really wears a little thin and i must say i really thought you could do better.

i was hoping we could have a debate about what your observations of foley are and your reasons why he cant play longer. not wallaces or the staffs we have already established that most here think foley can play longer and hence disagree with wallace. the fact is wallace isnt here to give his reasons but you are so you can give us yours.

obviously by my stance i think foley should get more game time and i think wallace is erring by not giving him a bit more.
nowhere have i claimed to have more knowledge than wallace and his assistants but i have made comment when i think things are wrong. i have seen foley play for coburg i have his beep tests his sprint times and his time trial times anyone who takes their recruiting seriously has this information. i also have the evidence of my own eyes and let me say i have no doubt what so ever that foley has the endurance to run out a full game.

now for a few of those really stupid comments your so used to making.
you say i dont know how he pulls up after a run on the ball wrong. i know damn well how he pulls up after a run on the ball and i have a fair idea of how long it takes him to recover.i really dont need to be a part of wallaces team to understand this unless foley cops some sort of injury or is recovering from an exceptional hit. as for how he pulls up after a game well unless hes copped an injury apart from the usual bumps and bruises i would expect foley to pull up well he would have to be extremely unfit for an elite level athlete to pull up buggered after the minimal game time he has been getting.
as for how how he pulls up after training i rely on others to keep me informed. if hes struggling i would have thought a third stringer like him would be spelled. from all reports ive got hes trained solidly most weeks.

finally if you cant or find it impossible to stick to the crux of the debate if you are going to be dishonest by using mirrors and smokescreens well see ya later. like i have said in the past i cant abide idiots and dishonesty.you can be rest assured this is the last post i have with you. i just dont have the patience.

 

[GoodOne]

Nice article in today's Melbourne Sun about Foley (in case it hasnt been mentioned before)

There was a good one in The Age too. 

Just putting people off the real trail I keep forgetting, the Age is the bigger paper, the Sun is the smaller one

 

[Rayzorwire]

nitpick, nitpick. What difference does it make?

It makes a lot of difference when you're basing the argument that Foley 'must' play on 1st string midfielders a lot of the game due to his and their game time.

A game has 120 minutes (for argument's sake). Three players play on the ball at any one time, which makes 360 minutes. If four players between them spend 320+ minutes on the ball, that's a vast majoity right? In alot of cases, the 3 starting on ballers will spend between 90 and 100 minutes on the ball. Yet Foley doesn't generally get his clearances against them somehow?

For starters, games run a lot closer to 110 mins than 120. How can Port rotate 7-8 players through the centre yet have only three onballers playing the game times (90-100 mins) you suggest? Are you suggesting the other 4-5 midfielders share a total of 30-60 minutes between them? It doesn't happen that way mate. The first string onballers generally spend 16-20 minutes a quarter on the ball - let's say 75-80 for the match on average - with the other 8-12 minutes of a quarter being taken by the 2nd/3rd string midfielders. That means Foley has been in the past able play a 60-70 minute match, with 40-50 of those minutes directly onball, and rarely have to compete against a first string midfielder.

Just because a team can only start 3 players on the ball does not mean that the players who do not start on the ball are lesser players.

Shouldn't be really easy to name a few sides whose 3rd or 4th best onballer is rated to be as good as their best then. Good luck with that!

In fact, often the contrary is true because a tagger may start in the middle, or a team may keep a midfielder back to have fresh legs later in quarters where more damage can be done against tired legs.

I'm afraid these comments somewhat contradict your earlier assertion that the best three onballers from each side spend 90-100 minutes on the ball each match.

You're devaluing his clearance stats by saying he generally doesn't win them against the other team's best players and are drawing your conclusion that he's not ready to start on the ball on that, which, as I said, I think is absolute rubbish.

I'm not devaluing his clearances at all, I've merely said that they needed to be evaluated in their proper context of who was mostly in the centre with him at these times in past matches when he's got his three clearances a game. I've never said he shouldn't start on the ball now and then, what I have said is that it's not realistic to expect him to spend 20 mins a quarter there in his first season.

And I didn't inlcude Dew becuase he spent very little time, if any, starting in the centre square.

He spent significant time in the centre square (I distinctly remember chuckling numerous times at how fat he is these days while waiting for the ball to be bounced) and onball around the ground - you don't win 6 clearances without playing directly onball for a significant period of the match.

Why? As I've pointed out, despite rotations the best on ballers play the majority of the game on the ball. And becuase of rotations all on ballers are going to face the 2nd and 3rd string rotations at some point during a game, and win clearances against them. If you make the distinction for Foley you have to make it for everyone else, in which case it's ridiculous to make a distinction.

The coaching staff of both sides make every effort to rotate their 1st string midfielders offball at the same time so neither get a situation where a couple of quick clearances can hurt them on the scoreboard. It's not always completely in sync because depth of midfield, stamina, injuries and overperformance from a 2nd/3rd stringer or underperformance from a player rated as a first stringer differs a fair bit from game to game, but overwhelmingly that is the case.

Do what I've done numerous times before when I have the time to sit down and really evaluate a good match - record the game then freeze it at the centre bounces and stop plays around the ground, then see who is really playing where and on who. I know that if you'd done that for a even a handful of the games we've played so far this season we wouldn't be having this discussion, because you'd know that my statement about Foley generally winning his clearances against the lesser midfielders is true.

He's averaging three a game and on average at least two of those (hence the use of 'generally') have been against 2nd and 3rd string midfielders - he has come off the bench to compete against them when the 1st rotations are both resting offball. It doesn't devalue his performance, he's going very well at the level expected and required of him so far - and we desperately need players who can win clearances at any stage.

 

[lamb22]

Thanks to phantom who provided the following TOG stats for Foley

Rnd Player TOG
1 N.Foley 58
2 N.Foley 57
4 N.Foley 66
5 N.Foley 52
6 N.Foley 73
7 N.Foley 84
8 N.Foley 74
9 N.Foley 82
10 N.Foley 52
11 N.Foley 82
12 N.Foley 73
13 N.Foley 67
14 N.Foley 72


They average out at about 68 minutes per game, they show a couple of things. First Rayzor's point about the coaching staff keeping Foley to 60 minutes is not accurate as already he has had three 80 plus minute games. It indicates that it is something other than conditioning which is determining game time.

Secondly if you increased his average game time by 50% to about 102 minutes (still about 20 minutes short of a ful game) - his game figures extrapolate out to an average of around 22 possessions, 4.6 clearances, 5 tackles and 3.3 contested possession per game. That would put him in top 10 in the league for contested possessions and clearances and top 35 for possessions and tackles. They are truly extraordinary figures for a kid who has played less than 20 games.

And Rayzor dont make your self look silly in relation to your comments on his clearance and contested possession ability. The kid is truly elite in that area even at this early stage of his career. My kids already know my mantra at the footy "Get Foley in there" and as soon as he gets in there the tide turns our way in the clearances. Watch closely Rayzor and you will see that when he doesnt get the clearance or conteasted possession himself he has usually done something else - a block, chase, shepherd, tap on, dive, tackle which gets the ball our way as well.

Rayzor you are way off the mark if you are saying this kid is a second stringer in relation to his clearance work. I rate him alongside Cogs in this area - although probably even cleaner and more effective than him. We also have Tuck who excells in this area - but Tuck probably does not provide the overall package in assists and smarts that Foley brings. No reason why Foley cant play at least 80-90 plus minutes on a regular basis from now on in! Nathan may have to work on some of the running parts of his game and the uncontested stuff which Cogs and Tuck are superior (as well as their competitiveness in the air) - but he seems to be working away at this part of his game as well.

Must agree with the taloned one on this one.

Cheers

Lamb

 

[Rayzorwire]

Re: Nathan Foley

firstly going by the above statement i would have to say you have never played an endurance sport and have know idea about the human body and how it works.

LMAO...first you complain that I know nothing about you (because I dared to suggest the coaching staff know far more about Foley and how he's coping with his load than you do), then you throw out a statement like the above!

but i reckon the real reason you make the above type statements is to throw up smokescreens to cover up the fact you know stuff all about the topic.

...yes claw...funnily enough if you read what all knowledgeable football people have to say about 1st and 2nd year players and their onball game time capacities, you'll see that they also (purely by coincidence) happen to agree with Wallace and the coaching staff.

They all know stuff all too - you're the expert...after all, you have time trial stats and have seen reserve games which instantly translate into AFL standard fitness levels.

i was hoping we could have a debate about what your observations of foley are and your reasons why he cant play longer. not wallaces or the staffs we have already established that most here think foley can play longer and hence disagree with wallace. the fact is wallace isnt here to give his reasons but you are so you can give us yours.

I've given you my reasons several times claw - as has evo and others. Why don't you ask Wallace, get the same answer and call him a 'fool?' Why don't you head on over to big footy and ask Weaver, get the same answer again, then call him a 'fool' for a while too? You can ask any truly knowledgeable person you like the same question - they'll all give you the same answer I have.

i have seen foley play for coburg i have his beep tests his sprint times and his time trial times anyone who takes their recruiting seriously has this information. i also have the evidence of my own eyes and let me say i have no doubt what so ever that foley has the endurance to run out a full game.

Deledio is self-evidently a better natural athlete than Foley. He's played reasonably full games mostly - but not the ones where he's been required to play onball as he was last week...strangely enough his game time from last week again reflects the difference between being a good junior/reserve player able to run out full games while playing onball and then being able to do it at senior level.

now for a few of those really stupid comments your so used to making.
you say i dont know how he pulls up after a run on the ball wrong. i know damn well how he pulls up after a run on the ball

Ah yes, the armchair crystal ball info again... :rofl

finally if you cant or find it impossible to stick to the crux of the debate if you are going to be dishonest by using mirrors and smokescreens well see ya later. like i have said in the past i cant abide idiots and dishonesty.you can be rest assured this is the last post i have with you. i just dont have the patience.

The fact I happen to agree with Wallace and all knowledgable football people on the subject is hardly smoke and mirrors claw.

I shall greatly miss conversing with you in the future.

 

[Disco08]

For starters, games run a lot closer to 110 mins than 120.

Going off the stats Phantom was kind enough to send me (and Lamb obviously, nice post Lamb) games average pretty close to 120. Most games settle around 117-118 and there are games which go as much as 125 and as little as 111. Certainly not 'a lot closer to 110 mins than 120'.

How can Port rotate 7-8 players through the centre yet have only three onballers playing the game times (90-100 mins) you suggest? Are you suggesting the other 4-5 midfielders share a total of 30-60 minutes between them? It doesn't happen that way mate.

I think it does. The (onball) rotations are in place to give the teams' top onballers small breaks to allow them to run out a full game. The other players that get rotated through the middle are neither onball specialists or as accomplished at stoppages so they are in there only for the time they absolutely have to be. After that they go back to their more natural positions.

The first string onballers generally spend 16-20 minutes a quarter on the ball - let's say 75-80 for the match on average - with the other 8-12 minutes of a quarter being taken by the 2nd/3rd string midfielders. That means Foley has been in the past able play a 60-70 minute match, with 40-50 of those minutes directly onball, and rarely have to compete against a first string midfielder.

Totally disagree. I watch alot of Sydney games and I can tell you without a shadow of doubt that Kirk and Bolton spend at least 90 minutes on the ball each game. At least. If a quarter runs 30 minutes then they both are in the middle for 25. They don't have a standout third onballer so they rotate Crouch, Matthews, Fosdike and to a much lesser extent Malceski and Ablett through their depending on matchups. The same goes for Richmond. Before Cogs got injured, it was clear as day that he, Tuck and Johnson were spending similar amounts of time in the middle as Kirk and Bolton (not just this year, but the last couple at least). The same goes for Hawthorn who I've had the displeasure of seeing a couple of times. Mitchell, Hodge and Lewis are in there very much most of the time. I'm sure if you look at most other teams the same principles will apply.

You can't be trying to tell me that the topline onballers are usually spending only half (or not much more) of each quarter on the ball, surely?

I'm not devaluing his clearances at all, I've merely said that they needed to be evaluated in their proper context of who was mostly in the centre with him at these times in past matches when he's got his three clearances a game. I've never said he shouldn't start on the ball now and then, what I have said is that it's not realistic to expect him to spend 20 mins a quarter there in his first season.

He's only had exactly 3 clearances in 2 games. Early in the year he was getting very little time in the middle so he has some games where his clearances are low. In the games where he's had more TOG, and picked up more clearances (4, 5, 5, 5, 8) who was he getting them against?

He's had three games of 80+ minutes TOG. I reckon he's been getting pretty close to spending 20 minutes a quarter on the ball.

he has come off the bench to compete against (the 2nd and 3rd string onballers) when the 1st rotations are both resting offball.

The coaching staff of both sides make every effort to rotate their 1st string midfielders offball at the same time

No, they don't. Firstly, the top onballers (on the same team) rarely rest at the same time, so there are generally 2 of the team's top onballers in the middle at any time. Occasionally this may differ when injuries occur or there is a mismatch to be exploited. Secondly, AFL coaches will try and find a mismatch at every possible opportunity.

Do what I've done numerous times before when I have the time to sit down and really evaluate a good match - record the game then freeze it at the centre bounces and stop plays around the ground, then see who is really playing where and on who. I know that if you'd done that for a even a handful of the games we've played so far this season we wouldn't be having this discussion, because you'd know that my statement about Foley generally winning his clearances against the lesser midfielders is true.

I've got most of our games on DVD. I can tell you in the games where he's won the majority of his clearances, he is not doing it 'generally against the lesser midfielders'.

He's averaging three a game and on average at least two of those (hence the use of 'generally') have been against 2nd and 3rd string midfielders - he has come off the bench to compete against them when the 1st rotations are both resting offball.

Couldn't disagree more.

If this was the case, don't you think more people here and in the media would be making the distinction?

As I've said, he's winning his clearances against the same midfields as other players, and like I said in a previous post (which you seem to have dismissed), he's not only winning them against his direct opponents but the other players who are competing for the hard ball around the centre bounces and stoppages.

 

[lamb22]

Rayzor should read my earlier post. His stats show that based on 100 minutes game time he would BE TOP TEN IN THE LEAGUE in clearances and contested possessions - Not a second stringer -- CASE CLOSED!!!!!

PS - Also dont need stats when its plainly obvious that he owns the ball in the centre square!

 

[Tigerdog]

Nathan Foley is good

 

[Ms Tantie]

Nathan Foley is good

Heehee, delightfully succinct and to the point Tigerdog. :clap

Ms Tantie.
xox

 

[Ghost Who Walks]

Foley has stepped up this year and been very impressive.  :clap

If he keeps improving at the current rate, Richmond will have a very handy player.

 

[Disco08]

I think they already have a very handy player. IMO the only question is how much more than that can he become?

 

[jonnomc]

Foley has been one of our most improved players barring hyde Foley continues to always have a decent go Good Stuff Mate :clap

 

[Tigerfan]

Wow, the boy's got game. Foley convinced me of that tonight. Super. :clap

 

[Rayzorwire]

They average out at about 68 minutes per game, they show a couple of things. First Rayzor's point about the coaching staff keeping Foley to 60 minutes is not accurate as already he has had three 80 plus minute games. It indicates that it is something other than conditioning which is determining game time.

Firstly lamb, I don't have any TOG stats and am just going off what Disco and claw have said regarding his game time - I'm not likely to buy a newspaper just for a stat!

The TOG stats DO NOT indicate a single thing about time in midfield. As I've already said, it's one thing for a player to play outside the centre for a full game, and quite another for them to be in midfield for a considerable time. I've made a clear distinction between the two all along.

You also apparently fail to account for the role injuries to other players during games and depleted squads to pick from have played in his game time from week to week. For example, his increased game time largely coincides with Johnson's injury time off does it not?

Secondly if you increased his average game time by 50% to about 102 minutes (still about 20 minutes short of a ful game) - his game figures extrapolate out to an average of around 22 possessions, 4.6 clearances, 5 tackles and 3.3 contested possession per game. That would put him in top 10 in the league for contested possessions and clearances and top 35 for possessions and tackles. They are truly extraordinary figures for a kid who has played less than 20 games.

Once again, IF he was capable of playing this game time, and IF extra game time means he still performs at the same level cameo performances with significant rest periods on the bench is bringing him.

Rayzor you are way off the mark if you are saying this kid is a second stringer in relation to his clearance work.

Don't put words in my mouth I haven't said lamb...if you can't work out by now what I mean by 2nd stringer then you mustn't have been following very closely. It has little to do with his ability and everything to do with how often and when he comes onto the ball - generally against other 2nd stringers in past games. I've said repeatedly I think he's going very well overall and extremely well for the level expected of him.

I don't know what more I can say...I'm not about to rate him up there with the best in the competition at this stage like you blokes...but I'm sure we all hope he can get there. Based on what he's shown, it's fair to say he's very close to being on track to do so in the next couple of years.

 

[Rayzorwire]

LOL...avoiding select points again Disco?

Going off the stats Phantom was kind enough to send me (and Lamb obviously, nice post Lamb) games average pretty close to 120. Most games settle around 117-118 and there are games which go as much as 125 and as little as 111. Certainly not 'a lot closer to 110 mins than 120'.

Well I must say I'm surpised to hear that as I would have thought most quarters average out to about 28 minutes of actual game time.

The (onball) rotations are in place to give the teams' top onballers small breaks to allow them to run out a full game. The other players that get rotated through the middle are neither onball specialists or as accomplished at stoppages so they are in there only for the time they absolutely have to be. After that they go back to their more natural positions.

These 'small breaks' add up to around 35-50 minutes a game, when 2nd/3rd string midfielders goes in, we obviously move our top onballers elsewhere or off as well, and in the past that's when Foley comes off the bench or is moved into the midfield from elsewhere on field. So roughly speaking, upwards of 2/3rds of his games have been against these players.

The first string onballers generally spend 16-20 minutes a quarter on the ball - let's say 75-80 for the match on average - with the other 8-12 minutes of a quarter being taken by the 2nd/3rd string midfielders. That means Foley has been in the past able play a 60-70 minute match, with 40-50 of those minutes directly onball, and rarely have to compete against a first string midfielder.

I watch alot of Sydney games and I can tell you without a shadow of doubt that Kirk and Bolton spend at least 90 minutes on the ball each game. At least. If a quarter runs 30 minutes then they both are in the middle for 25.
...
Before Cogs got injured, it was clear as day that he, Tuck and Johnson were spending similar amounts of time in the middle as Kirk and Bolton (not just this year, but the last couple at least).

If that were actually true (which it occasionally has been in the past but certainly isn't this year), how does Foley get any significant time on the ball at all? You leave enough space for only 60 minutes of onball game time to be shared between 3-4 other players AND Foley.

How exactly can this division of onball time possibly be based on reality when you'd like to tell me Foley virtually has those whole 60 minutes?

Do we always have a four man midfield where 3 players swap exclusively with Foley and just run themselves into the ground until he can replace them?

Or are you just wrong? They're your two choices.

He's only had exactly 3 clearances in 2 games. Early in the year he was getting very little time in the middle so he has some games where his clearances are low.

How many times can you chop and change to suit whatever is your current point Disco?

Quote Wrom: AAFXISHJEXXIMQZUIVOTQNQEMSFDULHPQQWOY

Foley spends every second he's on the ground playing on the ball.

Early in the year he was getting very little time in the middle

the best midfielders play in the middle, as Foley mostly does...

You're reinventing reality to suit whatever point you're making as you go along mate!

In the games where he's had more TOG, and picked up more clearances (4, 5, 5, 5, 8) who was he getting them against?

The same as I told you about several times about a dozen posts ago I reckon. As I said way back then, if you can name several instances substantial game time where he's played on a genuine 1st string midfielder then please do so. This is the bloke he generally has to beat to the clearance - not players 5m away. They're not all in a line - they're in a 360o arc. And once again, he's not being tagged while others like Tuck, Coughlan - and occasionally others - are.

He's had three games of 80+ minutes TOG. I reckon he's been getting pretty close to spending 20 minutes a quarter on the ball.

I reckon you're recreating reality to suit your latest point again as above. Earlier you were happy to agree with the reality that he spends game time on ground off the ball, because it suited your point at that stage about how awesome he was.

No, they don't. Firstly, the top onballers (on the same team) rarely rest at the same time, so there are generally 2 of the team's top onballers in the middle at any time. Occasionally this may differ when injuries occur or there is a mismatch to be exploited. Secondly, AFL coaches will try and find a mismatch at every possible opportunity.

I'm not talking about all of them, just the one's directly opposed to each other resting at the same time. I mean 'rotations' as in both players - hence the use of plurality.

I've got most of our games on DVD. I can tell you in the games where he's won the majority of his clearances, he is not doing it 'generally against the lesser midfielders'.

Well it should have been easy to answer my now several times repeated question:

name several instances of substantial game time where he's played on a genuine 1st string midfielder.

If this was the case, don't you think more people here and in the media would be making the distinction?

They are - Foley is still well under the media's radar in terms of being the 'elite clearance player' some of you blokes want to talk him up as at this early stage. He's going very well, but it's going to be another step up if/when he gets to the stage where he's considered worth tagging ahead of others and when he does get more game time onball as a consequence of previous good work, his increased stamina levels and/or our injury status.


Finally, this conversation stopped being worth anybody's while about 12 days and numerous hours of my time ago...all from 1-2 simple statements I made which have been challenged endlessly...and regarding a player whose performance we all are rapt about! It got beyond silly a long time ago...feel free to respond, but I've got no more time to spend on this discussion and won't be responding any further - and I can say that and really mean it. :hihi

 

[Disco08]

I agree, this discussion is going nowhere. It really is like banging your head against a brick wall.

But, no matter how much you try and bend, deflect and focus on the irrelevant, there is no way you can justify saying that most of Foley's clearances were won against lesser players in games where he spent 73, 84, 74, 82, 83, 73, 72 minutes on the ground for 4, 8, 3, 3, 5, 5 & 5 clearances respectively. These represent the majority of his clearances so obviously you're ridiculous statement is exactly that, ridiculous.

 

[Mr Brightside]

55 minutes he got last night on the ground for 21 touches,I think its gettin a bit silly this kid has to get more game time

 

[Timmy99]

I'm sure Nathan would be flattered that there is so much interest in him.

Be patient, after a good off-season, Nathan will be getting more game team next year.  Then we will see how many touches/clearances he gets when given the opportunity.

 

[AngryAnt]

Nathan Foley is good

This post is way too sensible.