Has Neil got the tap on the shoulder to play the youngsters?

[earlsta]

I was basically bewildered by last weeks article in the papers that Neil's going to be giving the younger guys more of a shot...

After 3 years he hasn't blooded many, kept retaining the likes of Perrie, McGregor, Doughty, Shirley (Clarke, Biglands) Stagnated the growth of Maric, Meesen & Griffin.

It just doesn't seem like him, has he been told by the admin to play these younger guys? Or was it his own decision? What do you think?

Jeez I swear Vince and Pfeiffer should have played more this year, they really should have...Douglas was fair..got ample opportunity..but the others I don't think so.

I think he was softly tapped on the shoulder at some point after our loss to Hawthorn...if he wants to keep the job that is.

edit: ps Drummond if your here, please post I miss your threads.

[IddyBiddy]

Personally i hope to god he didn't need to be tapped on the shoulder, where else are we really to go if we want to move forward. In the next two years we are going to lose the heart and souls of our club and our midfield. The 'window' was still open this year, injuries put pay to any hope there may have been, but apart from Geelong there was no real outstanding team that we couldn't have beaten on a good day. Should we have blooded more, yes. Did we give some players the opportunity they deserved, no. But if NC needed a tap on the shoulder once we were knocked out to say blood some players then we are in serious trouble.

[Eggzoi]

I don't think he needed a tap, he's a pretty smart man Neil. I have no real problems with what he's done WRT to the youth at the Crows since he's been here though. Many of the problems are still remnants of the Ayres era.

[- PC -]

I think it was a bit of a stretch by the reporter and I will wait for the proof in the pudding

NC has played an adequate number of younger players imo and will do so again this year

[Crow Envy]

I hope he actually received a tap about his stubborness and match day coaching. Not playing youngsters was in part due to their injuries and then our push for the finals.

[Southerntakeover]

I was basically bewildered by last weeks article in the papers that Neil's going to be giving the younger guys more of a shot...

After 3 years he hasn't blooded many, kept retaining the likes of Perrie, McGregor, Doughty, Shirley (Clarke, Biglands) Stagnated the growth of Maric, Meesen & Griffin.

It just doesn't seem like him, has he been told by the admin to play these younger guys? Or was it his own decision? What do you think?

Jeez I swear Vince and Pfeiffer should have played more this year, they really should have...Douglas was fair..got ample opportunity..but the others I don't think so.

I think he was softly tapped on the shoulder at some point after our loss to Hawthorn...if he wants to keep the job that is.

edit: ps Drummond if your here, please post I miss your threads.

Id like to think Craigy is given enough credit to understand what shape our list is in for himself. In actuality, i think Craigy would have played more youngsters this year had they been available. Tippett was almost a lock to debut before his major injury.

As for whether or not Vince and Pfeiffer should have been given more time this year... well, Vince got 6 games or so, which was probably around what i thought he would get. Pfeiffer was an underachieving player with a bad attitude, didnt deserve to wear the tri-colours.

[jenny61_99]

I think that is a crazy notion - that Craig didn't give kids a fair go. If you look at our seasons under him - 2005: Finished minor premiers with a huge percentage. Played out of our skins and above and beyond what was expected. Most had us pegged in the bottom 4. Hard to blood new blokes when the team is going that well. Having said that, both Van Berlo (11 games) and Knights (2 games) were blooded. 2006: Again, played well and finished top 2. In this year he added Maric (8 games), Vince (4 games), Douglas (3 games) and Porplyzia (11 games). Van Berlo (19 games and Knights (10 games) were becoming regular members. 2007: This year we gave Meesen (2 games), Campbell (1 game), Hinge (1 game) Griffin (16 games), and Gill (7 games) runs. While Vince (6) Douglas (13) Maric (6) and Porps (15) got more time. VB and Knights are now permanent fixtures. Our biggest problem this year was injuries with many of our younger blokes out injured at the same time that we had senior players injured and we ended up with a "make-do" type of team pretty much most of the year.

[crows4always]

I think that is a crazy notion - that Craig didn't give kids a fair go. If you look at our seasons under him - 2005: Finished minor premiers with a huge percentage. Played out of our skins and above and beyond what was expected. Most had us pegged in the bottom 4. Hard to blood new blokes when the team is going that well. Having said that, both Van Berlo (11 games) and Knights (2 games) were blooded. 2006: Again, played well and finished top 2. In this year he added Maric (8 games), Vince (4 games), Douglas (3 games) and Porplyzia (11 games). Van Berlo (19 games and Knights (10 games) were becoming regular members. 2007: This year we gave Meesen (2 games), Campbell (1 game), Hinge (1 game) Griffin (16 games), and Gill (7 games) runs. While Vince (6) Douglas (13) Maric (6) and Porps (15) got more time. VB and Knights are now permanent fixtures. Our biggest problem this year was injuries with many of our younger blokes out injured at the same time that we had senior players injured and we ended up with a "make-do" type of team pretty much most of the year.
Spot on Jenny 61 my thoughts as well.

[topjars]

I think it was a bit of a stretch by the reporter and I will wait for the proof in the pudding

NC has played an adequate number of younger players imo and will do so again this year

I agree.

[finn]

the question begs to be asked though - is it the number of games that's important or the amount of game time?

i think the thing that many forget is that adelaide started the season two key forward players down (even if I believe biglands is not up to scratch) and it was always going to be hard to manufacture scores, especially with the injuries to riccuito, burton et al. It would have made long term sense then to pump maximum game time into the youngsters who were fit enough to play - in my mind rather than recycle the same tired faces who craig, reid etc would have known weren't quite up to scratch.

craig's stubborness or support for players is legendary - even back to days as norwood's coach in the early 90's - it does enable players to play above their ability but finals is once again another step up and those with a higher level of ability have the potential to make that step. jericho is very much a recipient of this support as were people like doughty.

[Stiffy_18]

the question begs to be asked though - is it the number of games that's important or the amount of game time?

i think the thing that many forget is that adelaide started the season two key forward players down (even if I believe biglands is not up to scratch) and it was always going to be hard to manufacture scores, especially with the injuries to riccuito, burton et al. It would have made long term sense then to pump maximum game time into the youngsters who were fit enough to play - in my mind rather than recycle the same tired faces who craig, reid etc would have known weren't quite up to scratch.

craig's stubborness or support for players is legendary - even back to days as norwood's coach in the early 90's - it does enable players to play above their ability but finals is once again another step up and those with a higher level of ability have the potential to make that step. jericho is very much a recipient of this support as were people like doughty.
Please name those players that you think should have been played in that injury savaged forward line!

[SA Tricolours]

I think that is a crazy notion - that Craig didn't give kids a fair go. If you look at our seasons under him - 2005: Finished minor premiers with a huge percentage. Played out of our skins and above and beyond what was expected. Most had us pegged in the bottom 4. Hard to blood new blokes when the team is going that well. Having said that, both Van Berlo (11 games) and Knights (2 games) were blooded. 2006: Again, played well and finished top 2. In this year he added Maric (8 games), Vince (4 games), Douglas (3 games) and Porplyzia (11 games). Van Berlo (19 games and Knights (10 games) were becoming regular members. 2007: This year we gave Meesen (2 games), Campbell (1 game), Hinge (1 game) Griffin (16 games), and Gill (7 games) runs. While Vince (6) Douglas (13) Maric (6) and Porps (15) got more time. VB and Knights are now permanent fixtures. Our biggest problem this year was injuries with many of our younger blokes out injured at the same time that we had senior players injured and we ended up with a "make-do" type of team pretty much most of the year.

Agree totally with these comments

[Southerntakeover]

Please name those players that you think should have been played in that injury savaged forward line!

Exactly what i was thinking.

Considering the two best forward playing 'youngsters' in Tippett and Sellar werent fit all year....

Douglas in the forward line didnt exactly do the kid any favours...

[Stiffy_18]

Exactly what i was thinking.

Considering the two best forward playing 'youngsters' in Tippett and Sellar werent fit all year....

Douglas in the forward line didnt exactly do the kid any favours...
Exactly right!

Its all good to say play them but if one is out for a season and the other one is struggling fitness wise and "just going" at SANFL reserves there isn't a hell of a lot to pick from.

I think Craig would have played them if they were even close to being fit enough. He brought Gill into the side as soon as he regained some match fitness with North Adelaide.

[Freddy Bassett]

I think that is a crazy notion - that Craig didn't give kids a fair go. If you look at our seasons under him - 2005: Finished minor premiers with a huge percentage. Played out of our skins and above and beyond what was expected. Most had us pegged in the bottom 4. Hard to blood new blokes when the team is going that well. Having said that, both Van Berlo (11 games) and Knights (2 games) were blooded. 2006: Again, played well and finished top 2. In this year he added Maric (8 games), Vince (4 games), Douglas (3 games) and Porplyzia (11 games). Van Berlo (19 games and Knights (10 games) were becoming regular members. 2007: This year we gave Meesen (2 games), Campbell (1 game), Hinge (1 game) Griffin (16 games), and Gill (7 games) runs. While Vince (6) Douglas (13) Maric (6) and Porps (15) got more time. VB and Knights are now permanent fixtures. Our biggest problem this year was injuries with many of our younger blokes out injured at the same time that we had senior players injured and we ended up with a "make-do" type of team pretty much most of the year.
:thumbsu: Couldnt agree more. Its not like our kids, apart from Vince were getting in the best each week, unlike Ports. You cant give away AFL games, you must earn them. Even Vince was given a fair crack earlieish on. The only guy who should feel slightly pissed is Jericho, but when he went back to SANFL he never played that well he demanded to be picked. Dougo and Knights cut up SANFL, hence they are playing AFL. Its pretty simple. I just prey Tippett and Sellars kick some fat bags early next year;)

[out of order]

I don't think he needed a tap, he's a pretty smart man Neil. I have no real problems with what he's done WRT to the youth at the Crows since he's been here though. Many of the problems are still remnants of the Ayres era.
got to agree with that. Unfortunately most ppl are clueless and cant see it.

Torney decision was harsh but just part of team turnover, something you'll see with craigy on a continual basis. As a team we are paying for it in that 24-25 age grp ie K cornes, S burgoyne etc the ones we missed out on with Mr Ayres.

[out of order]

:thumbsu: Couldnt agree more. Its not like our kids, apart from Vince were getting in the best each week, unlike Ports. You cant give away AFL games, you must earn them. Even Vince was given a fair crack earlieish on. The only guy who should feel slightly pissed is Jericho, but when he went back to SANFL he never played that well he demanded to be picked. Dougo and Knights cut up SANFL, hence they are playing AFL. Its pretty simple. I just prey Tippett and Sellars kick some fat bags early next year;)
Agree to a point but eventually you have to test them out at AFl level. Not sure a lot of ports kids were getting best each week btw. Ports youth is extremely overrated.

[crowsarethebest]

I think Blooding youngsters were fine, but NC did not give the youngsters a fair go - most of them spent a lot of time on the bench... then the youngsters got dropped. How could they show anything if they weren't given the chance? IMO if you are going to give a kid a go give him a fair go and treat him just like any other player- doesn't matter about his age/inexperience- give him some responsibility and make him feel as if he is PART of the 22, not just a bit player getting a game for experience. They are never going to get better if they only play 30 minutes or so in a match. They'd be better off in the SANFL. Give them some responsibility NC. This way we can see who are the ones that can handle it and the ones that need to spend more time developing. Collingwood did this very well.

[- PC -]

They are never going to get better if they only play 30 minutes or so in a match. .

They wont get any worse either

There is no magic formula and playing a kid for 120 minutes is no guarantee of success . When a new player starts they have someone in the coaches box watching their every move, from when the ball is nar to when the ball is at the other end. They are assessed each and every moment they are on the ground.

[Stiffy_18]

I think Blooding youngsters were fine, but NC did not give the youngsters a fair go - most of them spent a lot of time on the bench... then the youngsters got dropped. How could they show anything if they weren't given the chance? IMO if you are going to give a kid a go give him a fair go and treat him just like any other player- doesn't matter about his age/inexperience- give him some responsibility and make him feel as if he is PART of the 22, not just a bit player getting a game for experience. They are never going to get better if they only play 30 minutes or so in a match. They'd be better off in the SANFL. Give them some responsibility NC. This way we can see who are the ones that can handle it and the ones that need to spend more time developing. Collingwood did this very well.
So let me get this straight! You bag NC for not giving the kids enough game time in their early games and as a result the kids are not going to learn anything playing only 30 minutes of the game?!

So how do you explain van Berlo, Knights, Porplyzia et al...?!

Certainly didn't do them any harm! In fact they were handled brilliantly by Craig. In his first season van Berlo got 11 games but not much game time. Knight got little game time last year and this year he was on the field most of the match.

I think Craig has the right formula in bringing the kids along and I think the liked of van Berlo, Knights etc are a testament to that. Knights last year was like a rabbit in the headlights, this year he took his game to another level.

Kids need a bit of time to adjust to the pace and intensity of the game and I would say they learn a hell of a lot more in 30 minutes of AFL football than a full game in the SANFL.

[lunacy]

I think that is a crazy notion - that Craig didn't give kids a fair go. If you look at our seasons under him - 2005: Finished minor premiers with a huge percentage. Played out of our skins and above and beyond what was expected. Most had us pegged in the bottom 4. Hard to blood new blokes when the team is going that well. Having said that, both Van Berlo (11 games) and Knights (2 games) were blooded. 2006: Again, played well and finished top 2. In this year he added Maric (8 games), Vince (4 games), Douglas (3 games) and Porplyzia (11 games). Van Berlo (19 games and Knights (10 games) were becoming regular members. 2007: This year we gave Meesen (2 games), Campbell (1 game), Hinge (1 game) Griffin (16 games), and Gill (7 games) runs. While Vince (6) Douglas (13) Maric (6) and Porps (15) got more time. VB and Knights are now permanent fixtures. Our biggest problem this year was injuries with many of our younger blokes out injured at the same time that we had senior players injured and we ended up with a "make-do" type of team pretty much most of the year.

I know you can't really play players if they don't deserve a game, but other clubs give their 18/19 yr old players games we debut players at the age of 21 yrs. Meesen 21 yrs (and gone anyway), Campbell 22 yrs (should've played more games), Hinge 20 yrs (delisted now), Griffin 21 yrs (fair enough big blokes take longer), and Gill 25yrs. We hardly blooded youngsters. It's either Craigs mentality or the youngsters haven't been developed well enough to warrant selection.

[Eggzoi]

I know you can't really play players if they don't deserve a game, but other clubs give their 18/19 yr old players games we debut players at the age of 21 yrs. Meesen 21 yrs (and gone anyway), Campbell 22 yrs (should've played more games), Hinge 20 yrs (delisted now), Griffin 21 yrs (fair enough big blokes take longer), and Gill 25yrs. We hardly blooded youngsters. It's either Craigs mentality or the youngsters haven't been developed well enough to warrant selection.
I challange you to name a 18-20 yr old on the Crows list that should have debuted this year but didn't and hasn't since been delisted.

[NikkiNoo]

I know you can't really play players if they don't deserve a game, but other clubs give their 18/19 yr old players games we debut players at the age of 21 yrs. Meesen 21 yrs (and gone anyway), Campbell 22 yrs (should've played more games), Hinge 20 yrs (delisted now), Griffin 21 yrs (fair enough big blokes take longer), and Gill 25yrs. We hardly blooded youngsters. It's either Craigs mentality or the youngsters haven't been developed well enough to warrant selection.

Ok let's deal with those that you have named

Meesen 21 yrs - injured in the nab cup game and did not play sanfl until the middle of the year. Would have debuted earlier if he was not injured

Campbell 22 yrs - severe ankle injury in the pre-season and did not play sanfl until the middle of the year. Played one game, the essendon loss and I still maintain that the coaches must have had issues with him as he was dropped for the following week when Craig normally allows debutants 2 weeks in the afl.

Hinge 20 yrs - debuted after some great early sanfl form and did his hamstring early into the game after a decent enough showing. Was then played in the sanfl as a tagger, was doing well until elbowed by Sellar in his neck and appeared good in matches and horrible in other stages of his sanfl games.

Griffin 21 yrs - if you say it's ok for Griff then don't complain about Messen due to size and that big guys take longer.

Gill 25yrs - back up draft pick due to loss of Hentschel. Hamstring issues until the middle of the year, got match fitness in the SANFL and then debuted.

Who else should have debuted on our list this year?

Tippett - injured

Sellar - injured and bottom aged anyway

MacKay - injured

Douglas - did play a few more games and would have been fighting with Van Berlo, Knights, Porplyzia and Vince for a similar spot.

Vince - good form in the sanfl as well and see above for Douglas

[Freddy Bassett]

When Cambpell got dropped we were in a tight struggle to make the 8. Im sure if we were safe or no chance he would of played

[James_37]

I know you can't really play players if they don't deserve a game, but other clubs give their 18/19 yr old players games we debut players at the age of 21 yrs. Meesen 21 yrs (and gone anyway), Campbell 22 yrs (should've played more games), Hinge 20 yrs (delisted now), Griffin 21 yrs (fair enough big blokes take longer), and Gill 25yrs. We hardly blooded youngsters. It's either Craigs mentality or the youngsters haven't been developed well enough to warrant selection.

Your logic just doesn't make sense, Meesen is in the same boat as Griffen in terms of being a big player, and don't tell me you would have played him last year instead of Biglands, Clarke and Maric. Hinge was always, solid, but never spectacular at SANFL level, we debuted Campbell and Gill at 22 and 25 due to the fact that we only picked them up at this age, couldn't debut them any earlier.

Anyway, barring injury I would have thought that Pfeiffer, Mackay and Tippet would all have debuted this year. Our star teenagers do debut, just don't get as much time as unlike teams such as port adelaide and collingwood, we havn't just been gifting games as we actually have a very competitive side anyway and these youngsters down figure in our best 22 yet.

[porpouglas]

I think that is a crazy notion - that Craig didn't give kids a fair go. If you look at our seasons under him - 2005: Finished minor premiers with a huge percentage. Played out of our skins and above and beyond what was expected. Most had us pegged in the bottom 4. Hard to blood new blokes when the team is going that well. Having said that, both Van Berlo (11 games) and Knights (2 games) were blooded. 2006: Again, played well and finished top 2. In this year he added Maric (8 games), Vince (4 games), Douglas (3 games) and Porplyzia (11 games). Van Berlo (19 games and Knights (10 games) were becoming regular members. 2007: This year we gave Meesen (2 games), Campbell (1 game), Hinge (1 game) Griffin (16 games), and Gill (7 games) runs. While Vince (6) Douglas (13) Maric (6) and Porps (15) got more time. VB and Knights are now permanent fixtures. Our biggest problem this year was injuries with many of our younger blokes out injured at the same time that we had senior players injured and we ended up with a "make-do" type of team pretty much most of the year.

Nice work!! :thumbsu: And now after giving it a red hot go and getting close 2 out of the last 3 years it's time to play the youngsters and make a push with a new group.