Clean the 'floorboards' as well

[Cove Cobra]

Ok, fair enough, the case for Gary Ayres' departure has been well-documented throughout the football media. Whether the decision is correct remains to be seen.

I believe that the appointment of Neil Craig for 9 weeks should be just that, 9 WEEKS. When you sack a coach mid-year, the playing group wakes up to the fact that THEY TOO are under IMMENSE SCRUTINY. Improved performance is virtually guaranateed due to the fact they are playing for MONEY and CONTRACTS and anyone with 1/2 a brain will pull their finger out and perform better on the field. There are better credentialled people capable of undertaking this enormous task other than Neil Craig.

The board as a collective group needs to have a good look at themselves as well; the Goldies are not benign to the fact that there is an 'old boys network' operating at the club. If the Adelaide Football Club is to move on to a new era; the operating staff from recruiting to assistants needs to be overhauled. This include the ENTIRE BOARD as well.

Sweep the environment and you breathe new enthusiasm into a footy club. If football is a business these days (which it is) we should bring in business people with the knowledge of running one.

Leave the football to the people that know; the football department, not unsuccesful ex-coaches such as Reid and Trigg.

Be-gone with you both. And you can follow Sanders.

[jc67]

rainmage, if you have a look around the board you will find that everthing you have said has/is being argued ATM.
The support for Craig seems to be increasing, but most are happy for him to have a trial (wins mean nothing as far as his chance for next year goes)

[noddy]

Originally posted by rainmage
Ok, fair enough, the case for Gary Ayres' departure has been well-documented throughout the football media. Whether the decision is correct remains to be seen.

I believe that the appointment of Neil Craig for 9 weeks should be just that, 9 WEEKS. When you sack a coach mid-year, the playing group wakes up to the fact that THEY TOO are under IMMENSE SCRUTINY. Improved performance is virtually guaranateed due to the fact they are playing for MONEY and CONTRACTS and anyone with 1/2 a brain will pull their finger out and perform better on the field. There are better credentialled people capable of undertaking this enormous task other than Neil Craig.

The board as a collective group needs to have a good look at themselves as well; the Goldies are not benign to the fact that there is an 'old boys network' operating at the club. If the Adelaide Football Club is to move on to a new era; the operating staff from recruiting to assistants needs to be overhauled. This include the ENTIRE BOARD as well.

Sweep the environment and you breathe new enthusiasm into a footy club. If football is a business these days (which it is) we should bring in business people with the knowledge of running one.

Leave the football to the people that know; the football department, not unsuccesful ex-coaches such as Reid and Trigg.

Be-gone with you both. And you can follow Sanders.

Not saying that i disagree with some of your sackings but why not include the front desk receptionist & the cleaning lady in your clean out & be done with it.

[Wayne's-World]

Still bnelieve you pick the best coach available.
Wallace has proven to be a very good coach, Craig hasn't proved anything.

Are we prepared to gamble?

[macca23]

Originally posted by Wayne's-World
Still bnelieve you pick the best coach available.
Wallace has proven to be a very good coach, Craig hasn't proved anything.

Are we prepared to gamble?

If the club appoints Craig, then they are being half baked about their overhaul of the club.

Rainmage is correct. You would expect the playing group to lift with the departure of the coach and a clear statement that they are playing for their futures. As a result, Craig's performance as a coach over 9 weeks will be inflated.

For god's sake Adelaide, don't gamble.

They must appoint a coach with several years of good coaching experience behind him - and a first name of either Terry or Rodney.

[Wayne's-World]

Originally posted by macca23
If the club appoints Craig, then they are being half baked about their overhaul of the club.

Rainmage is correct. You would expect the playing group to lift with the departure of the coach and a clear statement that they are playing for their futures. As a result, Craig's performance as a coach over 9 weeks will be inflated.

For god's sake Adelaide, don't gamble.

They must appoint a coach with several years of good coaching experience behind him - and a first name of either Terry or Rodney.
If the "experienced" coaching options were as thin as they were when we last re-appointed Ayres, then I would fully support Craig.

However having Wallace available makes it imperative we choose him, as he is the best available.

Anyone who wtaches every single game isn't just doing it for his media commitments;)

[dyertribe]

Originally posted by macca23
... and a first name of either Terry or Rodney.

Wheeler, Maynard? ;)

[Wayne's-World]

Originally posted by dyertribe
Wheeler, Maynard? ;)
Go back to the pub;)

[johnnypanther]

Originally posted by rainmage

Leave the football to the people that know; the football department, not unsuccesful ex-coaches such as Reid and Trigg.

Be-gone with you both. And you can follow Sanders.


Everyone has their own opinions largely based on perceptions so I beg to differ from you - IMO Trigg is the best or up with the best CEOs in the AFL as is Reid as Football Manager and i think that the AFC is fortunate to have both.

The board I cannot really comment on - i was critical of Bill Sanders in a recent posting when there were leaks etc emanating supposedly from the board,however, subsequently it appears that it may have been other factions in the board that were critical of Wayne Carey's performance in particular (amongst other things) and which i took offence to, consequently I just dont know enough anymore to comment on the board.

I dont believe that our recruiting,drafting etc has been as bad as most people state and that it stacks up quite well in comparison with other sides (including Port Power). I originally believed that we were bad in this area as commonly perceived but after sitting down and doing a detailed analysis of our recruiting since 1992 I have altered my opinion and now think we are fairly good at it. Of course there have been mistakes. I wouldn't mind starting a new thread just to discuss in detail our trading, drafting etc since inception and compared to other clubs.

The one common theme and biggest mistake that we have made, IMO, and it is a continual one starting from 1992 has been our (largely elusive)search for a marking ruckman and a marking forward and we have thrown away probably too many 1st and 2nd round draft picks in pursuit of these. Taken in isolation the trades/pics appeared fine at the time but taken as a continuum over the 12 years they have cost us plenty in terms of young players foregone.
for example:
1996: pick 13 for Tom Gilligan (& it was obvious he was not a marking ruckman)
picks 32 & 47 for Barry Standfield
1998: pick 34 for Bryan Beinke
pick 48 Lucas Herbert
1999: pick 6 Matthew Clarke (cant mark but probably has been an ok trade)
pick 36 Biglands (good pick but hasnt developed his marking as he should have)
2000: pick 7 Angwin (i wouldnt class this as a bad trade - this bloke had it all as a mobile marking ruckman/forward unfortunately other factors destroyed him to our detriment)
pick 23 traded for Evan Hewitt (looked ok at the time)
pick 48 Smith
2001: pick 28 traded for Ryan Fitzgerald (once again looked ok at the time)
Vardy traded for Schell (another who looked ok at the time)
pick 44 Finnin
2002: pick 4 for Carey (i consider this trade fine for the reasons prevailing at the time - and it was just bad luck that Mark Stevens and Scott Welsh had injuries preventing us from having this trade work as it could have)
Hentschel - pre-season
Bock & Rutten - rookie elevations
2003: 14, 29,45,58 for Watts, Krueger, Stevens, Hudson
I would say that under Ayres since 2000 but particularly in the last 2 years we have got it right.

The other mistakes i think we have made in recruiting over time have been in going for midfielders etc who lack pace (eg Picioane,
Cook,Cicolella,Shirley,Byrne,Skipworth,Bode,Nelson,Torney,Ha zell......and in drafting too many older (as in early 20s) recruits "in total" (the problem here is that to unearth a future star we need to look at the raw youngsters from where such will come but by recruiting too many older players we lock ourselves out of that opportunity and we also lose any possible future trade value because generally the older 2nd tier players have no future trade value. I much prefer to have on our list a raw youngster particularly lower in the draft, and pre-season and rookie lists, than an older 22+ player.

Having said all that I dont believe our list is as badly off youth-wise as some scribes would have us believe but nevertheless this end of year's reconstruction of our playing list via drafting,trading & delisting may probably be the most crucial in the club's history and set the scene for the next phase in our history.
The opportunity is there to get rid off older 2nd tier players (eg Shirley, Gallagher, Doughty,etc who havent stepped up as they should and replace them with youth (& not with more 2nd tier players). Our existing youth have shown that they can step up eg Johncock,Hentschel,Bock,Mattner,Jericho,Reilly(with an injury free run),Schuback (but he needs a bomb under him sometimes), Watts(possibly the best marking forward we've had apart from Modra). (Krueger free from injury hopefully and Andrews with the right development as a ruckman). A further infusion of youth with grunt and pace is needed and we may need to trade players such as Stenglein, Burton,....

Sorry for the rambling post - but i've been watching a dvd movie and drinking and talking with friends at the same time as trying to type this.

I'll be enjoying the last 9 games watching our juniors and fiercely competitive efforts hopefully but at the same time i only wish to see 1 more win (the Showdown) and 1 draw (Kangaroos as a send off for the King) hence giving us 5 1/2 wins and a bonus priority pick.

[Wayne's-World]

Originally posted by johnnypanther
Everyone has their own opinions largely based on perceptions so I beg to differ from you - IMO Trigg is the best or up with the best CEOs in the AFL as is Reid as Football Manager and i think that the AFC is fortunate to have both.

The board I cannot really comment on - i was critical of Bill Sanders in a recent posting when there were leaks etc emanating supposedly from the board,however, subsequently it appears that it may have been other factions in the board that were critical of Wayne Carey's performance in particular (amongst other things) and which i took offence to, consequently I just dont know enough anymore to comment on the board.

I dont believe that our recruiting,drafting etc has been as bad as most people state and that it stacks up quite well in comparison with other sides (including Port Power). I originally believed that we were bad in this area as commonly perceived but after sitting down and doing a detailed analysis of our recruiting since 1992 I have altered my opinion and now think we are fairly good at it. Of course there have been mistakes. I wouldn't mind starting a new thread just to discuss in detail our trading, drafting etc since inception and compared to other clubs.

The one common theme and biggest mistake that we have made, IMO, and it is a continual one starting from 1992 has been our (largely elusive)search for a marking ruckman and a marking forward and we have thrown away probably too many 1st and 2nd round draft picks in pursuit of these. Taken in isolation the trades/pics appeared fine at the time but taken as a continuum over the 12 years they have cost us plenty in terms of young players foregone.
for example:
1996: pick 13 for Tom Gilligan (& it was obvious he was not a marking ruckman)
picks 32 & 47 for Barry Standfield
1998: pick 34 for Bryan Beinke
pick 48 Lucas Herbert
1999: pick 6 Matthew Clarke (cant mark but probably has been an ok trade)
pick 36 Biglands (good pick but hasnt developed his marking as he should have)
2000: pick 7 Angwin (i wouldnt class this as a bad trade - this bloke had it all as a mobile marking ruckman/forward unfortunately other factors destroyed him to our detriment)
pick 23 traded for Evan Hewitt (looked ok at the time)
pick 48 Smith
2001: pick 28 traded for Ryan Fitzgerald (once again looked ok at the time)
Vardy traded for Schell (another who looked ok at the time)
pick 44 Finnin
2002: pick 4 for Carey (i consider this trade fine for the reasons prevailing at the time - and it was just bad luck that Mark Stevens and Scott Welsh had injuries preventing us from having this trade work as it could have)
Hentschel - pre-season
Bock & Rutten - rookie elevations
2003: 14, 29,45,58 for Watts, Krueger, Stevens, Hudson
I would say that under Ayres since 2000 but particularly in the last 2 years we have got it right.

The other mistakes i think we have made in recruiting over time have been in going for midfielders etc who lack pace (eg Picioane,
Cook,Cicolella,Shirley,Byrne,Skipworth,Bode,Nelson,Torney,Ha zell......and in drafting too many older (as in early 20s) recruits "in total" (the problem here is that to unearth a future star we need to look at the raw youngsters from where such will come but by recruiting too many older players we lock ourselves out of that opportunity and we also lose any possible future trade value because generally the older 2nd tier players have no future trade value. I much prefer to have on our list a raw youngster particularly lower in the draft, and pre-season and rookie lists, than an older 22+ player.

Having said all that I dont believe our list is as badly off youth-wise as some scribes would have us believe but nevertheless this end of year's reconstruction of our playing list via drafting,trading & delisting may probably be the most crucial in the club's history and set the scene for the next phase in our history.
The opportunity is there to get rid off older 2nd tier players (eg Shirley, Gallagher, Doughty,etc who havent stepped up as they should and replace them with youth (& not with more 2nd tier players). Our existing youth have shown that they can step up eg Johncock,Hentschel,Bock,Mattner,Jericho,Reilly(with an injury free run),Schuback (but he needs a bomb under him sometimes), Watts(possibly the best marking forward we've had apart from Modra). (Krueger free from injury hopefully and Andrews with the right development as a ruckman). A further infusion of youth with grunt and pace is needed and we may need to trade players such as Stenglein, Burton,....

Sorry for the rambling post - but i've been watching a dvd movie and drinking and talking with friends at the same time as trying to type this.

I'll be enjoying the last 9 games watching our juniors and fiercely competitive efforts hopefully but at the same time i only wish to see 1 more win (the Showdown) and 1 draw (Kangaroos as a send off for the King) hence giving us 5 1/2 wins and a bonus priority pick.
You should drink more often - great post and made a lot odf sense.
My conclusion is unlike Essendon, Adelaide has been reluctant to trade good players for to 10 draft picks.

This is probably of the belief they weren't that far of a premiership.
I think the Jarman/Wellman trade is the only time we have given up a good player.

If we are to regenerate quickly we must be more agressive in getting more higher draft picks.
But will we be agressive enough?.

[Stiffy_18]

I am a bit with jonnypanther here. I don't know how many people listened to James Fantasia on 5AA on friday when he was taking Qs from callers. That was great insight into recruiting and it confirmed what I already knew and have been saying here since day one.

We say that our drafting has been poor since James has been our RM based on a couple of busts but guess what. Every club has those busts. After listening to James I decided to do a bit of research myself and the fact is we have been as successful with drafting as any other club in the AFL. The perception comes because we haven't got a lot of guns BUT if you look at the number of 1st round draft picks we have had in Fanto's time at the club then you will realise that the number of 1st round draft picks we have had is minimal.

Secondly, we all point point out the failures but we all forget the success stories. Johnson #27, Stenglein #29, McGregor#75, Johncock #67, Biglands #36 etc......

Now to the Angwin debate. There has been a lot of talk that the club hasn't done a lot of research on him but that is not correct. That year the club carried out 2 phys tests on Angwin just to be sure. They also interviewed him 3 times including with the coach. We also interviewed his regional manager, coach and familiy and parents. The coach who has the final say when it comes to trading AND drafting (so he should) wanted Angwin despite majority of others wanting Kane Cornes. NOw we can say that Angwin was a bust for obvious reasons BUT no one can dispute Angwin's talent and potential as a footballer. Anyone who has ever seen him play a game of footy would have been very impressed with his football ability. I remember watching him with Glenelg where he kicked 4 goals in a hafl of footy and just dominated.

Now we have strengthened our recruting network by appointing John Turnbull and I am sure that we will do a lot better this time around.

Also Carey trade was discussed. The story is that Richmond Categorically said that they will not trade their pick if it became pick 2 and Adelaide has made up its mind that if they got a top 2 pick they would have held onto it and would have found another way to get Carey. This was based on Adelaide believing that there we 2 real standouts in the pool (Wells and Goddard). The rest is history.

Again people think recruiters have the final say in drafting and trading and that is not the case. The coach says who he wants in the side and who he doesn't want. Recruiting manager can only offer his informed opinion.