Importance of this weeks game

[Melbourne Lion]

I'm aware that this year will be up against it to finish near the 8 let alone in it.

However I feel this game could be a pivotal point for lots of our younger brigade and for the confidence within the group as a whole.
Their must be a great deal of pressure for the younger non-premiership players to escape the shadow of the champion teams that have come in the years before them,and some of the lack lustre efforts this year certainly wouldnt help.

However after a good display last week its games like this sunday game,a difficult yet very winnable test, that can go along way to giving the guys some good spirit and belief that the current team can be a growing force on the field in the years to come.

Am I looking into it much or do you guys agree?

[Grimreepah]

This is an important game, but I don't necessarily see it as any more or less important than any other game.

The problem with a young side is inconsistency, so if we win it won't mean we are premiership favourites all of a sudden, but if we lose it won't mean we are doomed for the wooden spoon either.

If there is an extra incentive to win, it would be to get the confidence to win outside Queensland. It's hard for a young team to cope with the difficulties of travelling, but a win against Port would give them some confidence next time they travel.

[Melbourne Lion]

This is an important game, but I don't necessarily see it as any more or less important than any other game.

The problem with a young side is inconsistency, so if we win it won't mean we are premiership favourites all of a sudden, but if we lose it won't mean we are doomed for the wooden spoon either.

If there is an extra incentive to win, it would be to get the confidence to win outside Queensland. It's hard for a young team to cope with the difficulties of travelling, but a win against Port would give them some confidence next time they travel.

Yeah I think your last paragraph was what I was eluding to.
Dont get me wrong,I am not suggesting that this game will make us world beaters of anything as this year will clearly be a struggle,and I agree every game is important.
However as you said a young side strives for consistancy,which makes these types of games that are very winnable all the more important,particularly for the younger guys.

[konstas_87]

very important for the boys to string two together, will be a tough ask at AAMI even considering Ports poor form.
Good if the midfield can get up again and Browny has a strong influence across HF/FF.

[POBT]

I can see where you are coming from Melbourne Lion. This is a "where we are at" game. If we can knock Port off in Adelaide, it would be a sign that the light at the end of the tunnel is a little closer than some of the naysayers would suggest.

We are clearly rebuilding and I think there are 3 usual methods of rebuilding.

One is the "top up" method where one or two years at the bottom of the table adds some quality to a reasonable core list. I guess West Coast is the most apt example of this.

Two is the "begin again" method where you sacrifice some of your short term competitiveness in the hope of building a side from scratch that will allow you to challenge in the medium/long term. St Kilda and Hawthorn are examples of this.

The third is the "holding pattern" approach where you attempt to be as competitive as possible whilst focusing on maximising the draft to ensure your medium/long term competitiveness. Geelong and North are examples.

This is a little simplistic but I think it makes the point. Determining which approach to take to rebuilding requires analysis of your list over a number of games. This game is more important because I think we can learn so much more from it compared to the West Coast or Sydney games. It is hard to glean too much from 10 goal losses, even if those losses are "honourable". A game such as this, where there are challenges (eg playing away to a team containing a number of premiership and AA players), will teach us a lot about the guys we have and whether we have a strong enough "core" to hopefully only spend a couple of seasons out of the 8. Hard decisions should not be made solely on the basis of this one game, but it is certainly instructive.

[konstas_87]

We are clearly rebuilding and I think there are 3 usual methods of rebuilding.

One is the "top up" method where one or two years at the bottom of the table adds some quality to a reasonable core list. I guess West Coast is the most apt example of this.
I was under the impression that topping up is what Richmond did under Danny Frawley, when you think you're close to a flag and you trade for experience players, nothing to do with rebuilding.


Two is the "begin again" method where you sacrifice some of your short term competitiveness in the hope of building a side from scratch that will allow you to challenge in the medium/long term. St Kilda and Hawthorn are examples of this.
I would have though Geelong did this too: their list is all 24-25 year olds together and ready to strike a serious assault on the GF in the next 1-3 years.


The third is the "holding pattern" approach where you attempt to be as competitive as possible whilst focusing on maximising the draft to ensure your medium/long term competitiveness. Geelong and North are examples.
North do this because their club cant afford to bottom out, but i thought geelong had a great youth policy and built the team they have now more or less from scratch.

just being a bit picky i guess,
but the game this weekend really will tell us where the side is at.

[POBT]

You are being picky! ;)

In relation to Geelong, the point that I was making was that they didn't have to bottom out. They have a great list of young guys but not too many of them were as a result of high draft picks. IIRC, they have never been too active in trading good players to obtain draft picks either. Cf Hawthorn and St Kilda who have not been afraid to dispose with guys like Everitt, Hall, Hay, Rawlings, Thompson.

Maybe I used "top up" in an ambiguous sense. I meant it in reference to "rebuilding" - Tigers under Frawley weren't really rebuilding at that time. They hadn't hit the bottom at that stage. I meant that to refer to clubs who, while they finish down the ladder, are structurally quite sound and have the nucleus of a very good side without having to turn over a heap of players or obtain a number of high draft picks for years on end. In other words, they just need to "top up" their core with some quality and depth. I see that is where West Coast were a few years ago.

Does that make a bit more sense?

[Grimreepah]

We are clearly rebuilding and I think there are 3 usual methods of rebuilding.

One is the "top up" method where one or two years at the bottom of the table adds some quality to a reasonable core list. I guess West Coast is the most apt example of this.

Two is the "begin again" method where you sacrifice some of your short term competitiveness in the hope of building a side from scratch that will allow you to challenge in the medium/long term. St Kilda and Hawthorn are examples of this.

The third is the "holding pattern" approach where you attempt to be as competitive as possible whilst focusing on maximising the draft to ensure your medium/long term competitiveness. Geelong and North are examples.


I agree with what you're saying, but I would point out that these methods are not necessarily what the coaches plan for, it just so happens to work out that way.

As far as strategies to rebuild, I would say it is even more simplistic:

a) play your best side
b) sacrifice playing your best side to maximise the improvement in your side

[POBT]

I agree with what you're saying, but I would point out that these methods are not necessarily what the coaches plan for, it just so happens to work out that way.

As far as strategies to rebuild, I would say it is even more simplistic:

a) play your best side
b) sacrifice playing your best side to maximise the improvement in your side
In a way, I think the likes of Brisbane and Port etc are quite fortunate in that there is now enough history in the draft for these clubs to "go to school on" how best to rebuild a side after a period of sustained success. Clubs like Geelong and West Coast should be admired for the way in which they have gone about minimising the time they have spent with less than competitive teams. Similarly, Adelaide has done a great job of maintaining competitiveness - I really rate the fact that they have 3 or 4 generations of genuine top class players...that really is great list management.

Particularly now that priority picks are not an automatic right following a poor season, it is important to look at options other than the "bottom out". I would contend that the West Coast model is the one to follow. One year of pain was followed by a couple of years of promise and now what looks to be a sustained period of success. I think any fan, regardless of the club you support, would take that deal.

[Grimreepah]

One year of pain was followed by a couple of years of promise and now what looks to be a sustained period of success. I think any fan, regardless of the club you support, would take that deal.

You say it like that was their plan from the start. But I would say that this wasn't the plan, it just turned out that way.

Usually when you bottom out it is for a couple of years, and I think this would have been the same for West Coast, had they not managed to snag Chris Judd after their one bad year, which propelled them straight back up again.

The only way I can see to plan such a thing is to wait for a superdraft and lose as many matches as possible in the preceding year....

[*Danni*]

You say it like that was their plan from the start. But I would say that this wasn't the plan, it just turned out that way.



It's not so much that it is a 'plan' but that history tells us that it is more than likely the way things will go. All the best laid schemes to buck that system and avoid conforming to what history says will happen, haven't worked to date.

Rather than 'just turning out that way' it's more along the lines of trial and error to avoid turning out that way. 'that way' is pretty much accepted as what will happen, trying to avoid that is the plan.

[Grimreepah]

Rather than 'just turning out that way' it's more along the lines of trial and error to avoid turning out that way.

What is the trial and error? What have we learnt?

'that way' is pretty much accepted as what will happen, trying to avoid that is the plan.

As it has always been. No?

[POBT]

You say it like that was their plan from the start. But I would say that this wasn't the plan, it just turned out that way.

Usually when you bottom out it is for a couple of years, and I think this would have been the same for West Coast, had they not managed to snag Chris Judd after their one bad year, which propelled them straight back up again.

The only way I can see to plan such a thing is to wait for a superdraft and lose as many matches as possible in the preceding year....
I didn't say it was their plan....I said that there is now enough history to allow clubs to go to school on how other clubs rebuilt.

Aside from a little "tweaking", we've now had a system of governing player movement and recruitment that has been the same for a number of years. It stands to reason that people will use history to inform their own planning. My point is that Brisbane and Port are in a position to determine what has worked and what hasn't (as far as list management goes) and to make informed decisions accordingly.

Having said that, West Coast could have pushed the panic button and gone all out to secure as many high draft picks as they could by trading their good players. But they didn't and I would imagine that is because they believed that they didn't need to toss it all in and start again. That does show a little bit of strategic thought.

[Grimreepah]

I didn't say it was their plan....I said that there is now enough history to allow clubs to go to school on how other clubs rebuilt.

If you're talking about clubs getter better at being able to identify players in the draft who will cut it at AFL level, then I am inclined to agree.

Apart from that I'm not so sure if there is much else to learn. West Coast had one bad year and then hit the jackpot, so it's hard to learn from that example. Richmond had the same approach but they were stuck in the middle for a long time, so it didn't really work for them. And St Kilda developed a team from bottoming out, so they have been successful from a completely different method.

And how do you measure success? West Coast haven't won a premiership since 94. They made the finals a lot, but on many of those occaisons they were far from being a contender.

[Grimreepah]

I didn't say it was their plan....I said that there is now enough history to allow clubs to go to school on how other clubs rebuilt.

I suppose it gives the coaches and players the confidence to be able to succeed without having to bottom out for a few years.

When Bannister broke the 4 minute mile suddenly everyone was doing it.