May I be the first to put my balls out and say.... [Archive]

View Full Version : May I be the first to put my balls out and say....

Campbell's Chunky

20 Apr 2008, 23:42

Well done to Matt Rendell last year. Premature I know, and I'll lay a fairly safe 10 bucks there will be people who come in and say 'We'll wait and see in 15 years time'. But that's boring.

He copped a heap of shit initially, especially with what was perceived as a bit of unprofessionalism in effectively giving up pick 21 for pick 30 instead.

The players we potentially missed out on in that group are:

Scott Selwood
Tayte Pears
Clayton Hinkley
Tom Collier
Brett Meredith
Marlon Motlop
Brendan Whitecross

I'm happy with Jarrhan Jacky over most of them, so not a big deal in early hindsight IMO.

But anyway let's run through it.

Patrick Dangerfield
Rendell really stuck his balls out here, choosing the Victorian bolter who was going to stay at home in 08, in front of the local gun who was pumped up like a bouncy castle by the local media.

This one really looks like coming off, with an 8 goal performance today by a kid who is living his life out of a suitcase/school bag.

Could potentially be one of the very best out of this draft and our own recent recruiting history, and the type of young player this club has been lacking for a while.

Andy Otten
As I said in another thread, offsets the potential loss of Brad Ebert IMO. As Vic Crow said: jack of all trades - master of none. Not a bad thing, but can run all day, can find the pill, can take a grab, can kick goals, can play defense...can do anything really. I've been dieing for him to play a blinder in the SANFL as I want to release the nickname 'Mr Football' (see Mike Hussey for reasoning).

Needs to improve a few things and put some bulk on before he plays AFL though.

Jarrhan Jacky
Well liked by the coaches (talked up massively by Craig recently and even in the after match presser), just made his debut after some good performances in the SANFL, looks like being an aboriginal goal sneak/midfielder without the baggage that usually comes with this kind of player.

Could be a very nice little pick up; Craig seems to think he will be a career player.

Myke Cook
Been injured a lot, so a bit early to comment here.

Dale Thomas clone from the game I saw. Little bit of a left field selection, but if he comes off he will be another that will be handy around the HFF.

Tony Armstrong
Also had a troubled pre-season. Racked up 20 possessions in a half of ressies for North a few weeks back, but still just finding his feet in the SANFL. Could be a long term replacement for Mcleod/Johncock in the backline.

Aaron Kite
Matt Rendell openly stated at the time that Aaron Kite wasn't their next highest rated player, however, he was bottom aged and they couldn't rookie list him and they believed he would go high in the 2008 draft, so they selected him with a bit of faith in their recruiting talents.

A lot of people were shitty with this selection. 'WHY THE ____ DIDN"T WE PICK UP DAVID GOURDIS' I seem to recall.

Well I believe he could prove them wrong, and is doing so at the moment. Had a little injury and only just came back last weekend with a solid game, but before that, by all reports he was playing very well and providing good dash off the half back line.

Certainly not going to threaten the Crows line up for a while, but being a bottom ager, there is a lot to work with!

Buddy Walker
More James Fantasia's pick here, as he signed him up in 2006, but Rendell and the Crows coaches decided to promote him what some (including Walker himself) may have considered a year too early.

Last year kicked something like 50 goals in his last 9 games for North Broken Hill and NSW.

Kicked 5 goals on debut in Norwood's ressies, finishing 2nd best but did a slight calf injury, then came back and kicked 3 goals in the ressies...once again finishing 2nd best, and the week after was promoted to the seniors and blew us all away, kicking 4.4 and finishing 3rd best on debut. Could have kicked 7 or 8.

Rookies

I won't do rookies one by one, but I believe some of the talent we have on the rookie list could possibly allow us to pick up a gun key forward with our first pick in the draft this year. Could be up to 2 promotions at the end of the year and a third to stay on the rookie list.

--------------------------

I invite people to post there thoughts/agreements/disagreements on Matt Rendell's recruiting career so far. :)

jo172

20 Apr 2008, 23:52

Agree about Danger, Jacky, Otten and Walker, after only a few showings I think each will play 100 AFL games.

Kite I'm iffy about, however for a bloke his size whose only 18 I don't think it's fair to judge for at least 18 months.

Cook and Armstrong are really unknowns at this point but good luck to them! Will be concerned if they can't fight their way out of reserves soon though, can't think of too many succesful AFL midfielders who have spent long periods in SANFL reserves.

And the rookies seem pretty encouraging with Martin and Moss regularly in best players lists (and playing in the two worst sides to be a good reserves player in!) and from what I know of Petrenko I'm happy with him!

Onya Matt:thumbsu:

I'll have a laugh with you any day!

Chief Crow

20 Apr 2008, 23:56

I agree 100%. Rendell has picked players that will fill holes in our list. Danger as the player in a Judd mould. Otten could be our tall mid and all around Mr Fix it. Jacky will be our small Crumbing forward. Tex to be our lead up FF. Kite to be moulded into a Bock type backman. Armstrong to be our next defencive sweeper and Cook to be a hard at the ball Half forward

crows98

20 Apr 2008, 23:58

I invite people to post there thoughts/agreements/disagreements on Matt Rendell's recruiting career so far. :)

Like a good bottle of wine, we need to give theses kids a few more years to mature before proclaiming they have what it takes to be a stars.

Its way to early to make any sort of positive or negative assessments on how he performed at last years draft. Let’s revisit this in 4 years time.

MickyCrow

20 Apr 2008, 23:58

fightingdreamer88

21 Apr 2008, 00:13

While it would be easy for me to tear strips off those who jumped to crazy conclusions about Rendell for nothing throwaway lines, all I will say is well done Chunka-chunka for offering some support.

My initial thought was there was absolutely no reason to criticise Rendell so long as he could pick talent; from the early going it seems he may be quite capable in this area which is, you know, handy. ;)

Campbell's Chunky

21 Apr 2008, 00:17

Premature I know, and I'll lay a fairly safe 10 bucks there will be people who come in and say 'We'll wait and see in 15 years time'. But that's boring.

Like a good bottle of wine, we need to give theses kids a few more years to mature before proclaiming they have what it takes to be a stars.

Its way to early to make any sort of positive or negative assessments on how he performed at last years draft. Let’s revisit this in 4 years time.

Glad my money was safe.

I was getting worried there with 2 posts being made without this comment being made.

Campbell's Chunky

21 Apr 2008, 00:18

doppelganger47

21 Apr 2008, 00:36

Danger: ok, it was either Ebert or Danger at the time. guess i was fearful for 'go home factor' from Danger and 'go back to Port' factor from Ebert, so i trust the guys did their job and just picked the best one out there. we need some flare in our team and this kid has it. great pickup.

Otten: i was actually extremely happy we got this guy. seriously thought Sydney was going to pick him up - i think so did everyone else. he slipped and we nabbed him as soon as that happened with the next pick. (sort of like Ebert dropping to West Coast - they were happy with that).

Jacky: would've been picked up with our second pick if Otten hadn't fallen in our arms, but i think we were all happy to grab a quick crumbing forward with aboriginal talent. :thumbsu:

Armstrong: didn't think much of this pick. still got plenty of time to develop.

Cook: more like Dale Thomas clone wannabe. he makes Dale Thomas look goood. didn't think much of this pick either, but for a late pick, i'd give him time.

Kite: we finally have a pretty boy to call our own. i was quite happy with this pick. it was a very late pick with not much else out there. he's bottom aged, so there's lots of potential.

Texas Walker: everyone loves this kid. couldn't wait to get him in the team, especially for such a very late pick. almost like a father son to call our own. i haven't been this excited about a young player since...ever. he'll be a 12-15 year player for our side.

in general, i think the 2007 draft was the best draft since 2001. though this years is supposed to be something big as well.

Drummond

21 Apr 2008, 00:47

Dangerfield looks like a quality player. For once it would be nice if we managed to snare a player that could be one of the best youngsters in the country. I want the football world to talk about one of our youngsters, when was the last time that happened? I certainly can’t remember it. He has all the tools to succeed and I was impressed with his SANFL debut. Looked comfortable out there; he won a bit of the ball, took the opposition on and was good around the packs. Would be great if he managed to debut next week as prior to the season I gave him less than a 0% chance of making his debut.

I’m still far from sold on Otten. Others are praising him and he’s made a seamless start to his SANFL career, but there’s a certain something missing from his game. Looks like a player that will do okay but never really stand out and could be easily replaced. This is just my gut feeling, I hope I’m wrong but that’s what my initial impression is.

Each time I’ve seen Jacky play I’ve walked away a little bit disappointed. Not so much because I thought he played poorly, more so because he was close to having a real impact but failed to do so. He shows glimpses of class but hasn’t put much together thus far. But he’s only 19 and is still very slight so he’ll take another 12 months before showing us what he’s capable of. Could be a handy player down the track.

I haven’t seen Myke Cook in action and he’s received so little attention since being drafted. Everything I’ve read seems to indicate that he’s an aggressive player who likes to take the opposition on and his pace will help him do that. Hopefully he can overcome a nagging hamstring injury which threatens to derail his season. He’ll need to progress to the SANFL seniors before too long because as jo said, not many successful AFL players (especially midfielders) spend long periods in the reserves, Luke Peel being a prime example. He was the 37th selection so league footy shouldn’t be too much of a stretch.

Armstrong, well I’m still annoyed we didn’t draft McNamara. What is he exactly, a small defender? Said to have good foot skills and a smooth mover but hopefully, like Cook, he can play league footy sooner rather than later.

Aaron Kite impresses me a little more each time I see him. Great athlete, extremely quick, has superb foot skills and overall just has huge upside. He’ll take a long time to develop, probably the longest of last year’s draftees, but he could be worth the wait. Played on the wing on Friday and with his athletic ability and speed that could be his position down the track. Spent some time up forward in the TAC Cup but interestingly enough he hasn’t spent a minute there so far this year with the Legs.

Taylor Walker, what more needs to be said? I’ve said it all in the SANFL thread. We have a great talent.

As for our rookies, Petrenko will play AFL footy and for whatever reason I rate Curnow highly. Don’t know much about Moss or Martin, wouldn’t mind seeing them in action some time.

Overall I think we did pretty well. IMO we have two “sure things” in Dangerfield and Walker, and the others all bring something to the table. Will be very interesting to see how they all develop as it’s extremely unlikely all will make it, that’s just how it goes. I’m confident we’ll have at least 4 quality players from this batch. :thumbsu:

Southerntakeover

21 Apr 2008, 01:09

Each time I’ve seen Jacky play I’ve walked away a little bit disappointed. Not so much because I thought he played poorly, more so because he was close to having a real impact but failed to do so. He shows glimpses of class but hasn’t put much together thus far. But he’s only 19 and is still very slight so he’ll take another 12 months before showing us what he’s capable of. Could be a handy player down the track.

For what its worth (and not much admittedly), a few people i know who saw Jacky during the preseason training came away very impressed, the inevitable comparisons to McLeod aside, if/when Jacky gets accustomised to the pace of seniors football, and gets his confidence up im convinced he'll be a very good player for us. Even now when hes clearly not quite ready, he shows glipses of what he could be.

Crow-mo

21 Apr 2008, 06:36

I agree rendell and co. put their balls on the line, but I think you've totally missed the point about how they did it.

it's not the picks they made, that throw caution to the wind - but that they decided to make those choices at all. many other clubs chose to bypass this draft altogether. they traded down to the bare bones minimum selections - including Collingwood who we've publicly declared the model to follow - and we didn't. when every one else was selling out of the draft, we bought in.

that will be decision that shapes the future, not who we picked, but that we chose to boots n all into a draft class that no one else wanted. mind you, if we are wrong, we're ____ed :)

jenny61_99

21 Apr 2008, 08:35

Dangerfield looks like a quality player. For once it would be nice if we managed to snare a player that could be one of the best youngsters in the country. I want the football world to talk about one of our youngsters, when was the last time that happened?

You've not heard the commentators raving about Tippett already this year? :p

I think Craig's normal philosophy of slowly introducing youngsters into the team means that the football world only gets to see snippets. It's not until the player has been semi-established that people notice and by then they probably aren't classed as youngsters anymore - even though they are. Knights, Reilly, VB, Porplyzia were all in that category. Now Douglas, Vince and McKay. Look at Vince - he's been exceptional this season so far. The footy world SHOULD be raving about HIM!

Vader

21 Apr 2008, 10:23

I'm still a long way from convinced about Rendell's performance during trade week.

However, from what we've seen of our draftees this year, I'm very happy with how he did on draft day.

DJ75

21 Apr 2008, 12:00

I've got to say I'm impressed with and happy with our recruitment team. Here's why:
A few weeks ago I was talking with a family friend about footy and school footy in gerenral. I mentioned an ex-basketballer who had recently turned to footy. He was a country lad who was back in Adelaide and had been playing SANFL reserves in the trials. I mentioned him because I know Port had been keen on his development.
Turns out this guy I was talking with knew someone who did some recruiting for the Crows. so, about a week later I get a phone call from the Crows recruiting department. They were interested in the guy from the country who had just begun playing footy. I told them what I knew and was surprised that they had actually heard the guys name mentioned once before.
I was impressed because:
1. The crows obviously want to cover all bases, and even though they knew nothing about me, they took the time to check out info on a player they might not have known about, and
2. They had actually already heard the guys name! remeber this is a guy who had played one season of country footy and 2 trial games in the reserves and they already knew his name. :)

I feel very comfortable that our recruitment team are well and truely on the ball!

Jars458

21 Apr 2008, 12:09

This thread is extremely sexist. Those who don't ahve balls are excluded. What can they put on the line?:D:eek:

fightingdreamer88

21 Apr 2008, 14:57

This thread is extremely sexist. Those who don't ahve balls are excluded. What can they put on the line?:D:eek:

Breasts.

Crow-mo

21 Apr 2008, 18:53

I think Craig's normal philosophy of slowly introducing youngsters into the team means that the football world only gets to see snippets. It's not until the player has been semi-established that people notice and by then they probably aren't classed as youngsters anymore - even though they are. Knights, Reilly, VB, Porplyzia were all in that category. Now Douglas, Vince and McKay. Look at Vince - he's been exceptional this season so far. The footy world SHOULD be raving about HIM!

can I just say, that without any evidence, but my gut feel is that Craigy was given the hurry up from upstairs this year. I think the word came down that things needed to be accelerated wherever possible.

of course this might not be true, but my feeling is that the old dog did not learn new tricks overnight by himself.

jo172

21 Apr 2008, 19:03

can I just say, that without any evidence, but my gut feel is that Craigy was given the hurry up from upstairs this year. I think the word came down that things needed to be accelerated wherever possible.

of course this might not be true, but my feeling is that the old dog did not learn new tricks overnight by himself.

I disagree.

The more I think, the more Craigy has been given a bum rap over his slowness to introduce youngsters to the side.

Since his first season of taking over lets examine the facts:

2005: Ok, we won the minor premiership and barely sustained an injury all year. Despite this Van Berlo played consistantly throughout the year and Knights was also given a taste of AFL footy, IIRC Maric might have also snuck a game?

2006: Despite another year where the Crows were playing consistantly well and requiring little alterations to the team Craig managed to keep pace with Van Berlo playing all games where avaliable, Knights and Maric both playing significant portions of the season and Douglas making his debut and even playing in a final. Vince also plays a couple of games

2007: Van Berlo and Knights make it into Adelaide's top tier of players. Douglas plays 15+ games and Maric, Griffen and Meesen all get some footy in despite the fact that we again made the finals.

He really hasn't been that slow in introducing talent to the side. This job has been made even harder as during his tenure the Crows have fielded a consistantly succesful side.

And as a general rule, the blokes who haven't been blooded have generally been duds (Gibson, Meesen, Obst, Pfeiffer etc.)

This is not to mention the development of other youngsters since he took over such as Doughty :p, Rutten, Bock, Hentshel, Reilly etc.

Seems to me this is just a popular myth spread by those looking to assasinate Neil's character.

Crow-mo

21 Apr 2008, 19:37

I disagree.

disagree with what? where I say I have no evidence, and may well be wrong? that bit? :p

The more I think, the more Craigy has been given a bum rap over his slowness to introduce youngsters to the side.

Since his first season of taking over lets examine the facts:

2005: Ok, we won the minor premiership and barely sustained an injury all year. Despite this Van Berlo played consistantly throughout the year and Knights was also given a taste of AFL footy, IIRC Maric might have also snuck a game?

that's not a lot. still be amongst the lower rungs of the league, though the minor premiership and no injuries is compelling mitigation.

2006: Despite another year where the Crows were playing consistantly well and requiring little alterations to the team Craig managed to keep pace with Van Berlo playing all games where avaliable, Knights and Maric both playing significant portions of the season and Douglas making his debut and even playing in a final. Vince also plays a couple of games

van berlo appears a lot here. how many years do you want to count him for? :)

big injuries, and not much movement. still bugger all.

2007: Van Berlo and Knights make it into Adelaide's top tier of players. Douglas plays 15+ games and Maric, Griffen and Meesen all get some footy in despite the fact that we again made the finals.

again, another year of massive injuries. and you're repeating the same players. not many.

He really hasn't been that slow in introducing talent to the side. This job has been made even harder as during his tenure the Crows have fielded a consistantly succesful side.

I think your "evidence" doesn't agree with your conclusions. your evidence seems to be saying quite the opposite. in 3 years we introduced 2 players (VB & Knights) and handed out crumbs to a couple more...

now I'm not even sure I'm complaining about that, but it's certainly amongst the slowest, if not the slowest introduction rate in the league.

And as a general rule, the blokes who haven't been blooded have generally been duds (Gibson, Meesen, Obst, Pfeiffer etc.)

not sure about that, and I am definitely of the opinion that you can hamper a players development by how you handle them, and damage their future prospects.

This is not to mention the development of other youngsters since he took over such as Doughty :p, Rutten, Bock, Hentshel, Reilly etc.

all of whom were playing pre-neil ;)

Seems to me this is just a popular myth spread by those looking to assasinate Neil's character.

nonsense. it's plain as day that we on a different path this year, compared with the last 3 years - by your own admission that's obvious.

what's not obvious, is why? arguably it doesn't even matter why, it's just the way things are. but this character assasination thing is just bit too hysterical to really take seriously.

Southerntakeover

21 Apr 2008, 19:45

not sure about that, and I am definitely of the opinion that you can hamper a players development by how you handle them, and damage their future prospects.

all of whom were playing pre-neil ;)

I suppose if the first statement is true, then Craig has to get credit for the younger players improvements under him, regardless of whether he first debuted them or not.

Crow-mo

21 Apr 2008, 20:37

I suppose if the first statement is true, then Craig has to get credit for the younger players improvements under him, regardless of whether he first debuted them or not.

yeah, maybe.

but I do think just because you can damage a player, doesn't mean that the reverse is always true.

I've always thought our one size fits all policy is likely to suit some guys, and not others.

Southerntakeover

21 Apr 2008, 20:43

yeah, maybe.

but I do think just because you can damage a player, doesn't mean that the reverse is always true.

I've always thought our one size fits all policy is likely to suit some guys, and not others.

Always true? Probably not, but its certainly been true in a few Crows related cases as far as i can see.

Im not sure we have a one size fits all policy... whilst we're traditionally cautious, if we feel a player is truely ready we'll throw them in. Look at the contrast between the treatment of Sellar/Tippett.

Crow-mo

21 Apr 2008, 21:04

Im not sure we have a one size fits all policy... whilst we're traditionally cautious, if we feel a player is truely ready we'll throw them in. Look at the contrast between the treatment of Sellar/Tippett.

see I think that goes the other way, after all Sellar and Tippett are very new examples.

fwiw, I think sellar is someone who shouldn't be given much more time in the sanfl. my feeling (again, not based on anything in particular) is that he's someone who struggles to get his head right at the lower levels. some guys can just be so focussed, and others can't re-adjust.

I've known plenty of sportmen (including myself ;) ) who were better players at higher levels, because they just couldn't get up the same way for lower rungs. is it a flaw or failing? you bet. however, it's also true for some people. you train every day, focus on the big prize, and then are expected to not be a bit deflated when you drop down a level.

I think sellar might be like that, and I always thought meesen was too. you can argue about the rights and wrongs, but some people respond to the challenge and need the validation of selection to believe in their talent.

IF, and I say IF Sellar is one of these people, you can go two ways. you can argue about the lack of discipline and focus, and effectively stunt their development, and in hindsight say - look I told you so. OR you can say, we need to handle this guy differently. and yes, he might only perform in the big show, but wouldn't you rather a guy whose head was only in it for the big games, than proving a point?

nothing about that proves that either of the players I've mentioned are like that, however certain players are. Scott Welsh for one ;)

if you want the best from them, you gotta play 'em or get them up to playing speed as quickly as possible.

Ps. I think that's the most impressive thing about dangerfield, that he seems to have no problem with focus and getting his head out of the clouds. performing like he did for the falcons is amazing, when he had to combat the disappointment of not making the big team.

Southerntakeover

21 Apr 2008, 21:30

see I think that goes the other way, after all Sellar and Tippett are very new examples.

fwiw, I think sellar is someone who shouldn't be given much more time in the sanfl. my feeling (again, not based on anything in particular) is that he's someone who struggles to get his head right at the lower levels. some guys can just be so focussed, and others can't re-adjust.

I've known plenty of sportmen (including myself ;) ) who were better players at higher levels, because they just couldn't get up the same way for lower rungs. is it a flaw or failing? you bet. however, it's also true for some people. you train every day, focus on the big prize, and then are expected to not be a bit deflated when you drop down a level.

I think sellar might be like that, and I always thought meesen was too. you can argue about the rights and wrongs, but some people respond to the challenge and need the validation of selection to believe in their talent.

IF, and I say IF Sellar is one of these people, you can go two ways. you can argue about the lack of discipline and focus, and effectively stunt their development, and in hindsight say - look I told you so. OR you can say, we need to handle this guy differently. and yes, he might only perform in the big show, but wouldn't you rather a guy whose head was only in it for the big games, than proving a point?

nothing about that proves that either of the players I've mentioned are like that, however certain players are. Scott Welsh for one ;)

if you want the best from them, you gotta play 'em or get them up to playing speed as quickly as possible.

Ps. I think that's the most impressive thing about dangerfield, that he seems to have no problem with focus and getting his head out of the clouds. performing like he did for the falcons is amazing, when he had to combat the disappointment of not making the big team.

Most of that is a justification for why Sellar should be selected, and fair enough if thats your opinion.

For what its worth though, i think the club recently has shown its willing to show a big of pragmatism regarding what approach to take with younger players. Tippett/Sellar might be a newer example, but is a very good one, two players who play the same role, at two different levels of readiness. Rightly or wrongly, one is playing an apprenticeship, the other was in the soon pretty much as soon as he was fit.

Crow-mo

21 Apr 2008, 21:56

Most of that is a justification for why Sellar should be selected, and fair enough if thats your opinion.

No it's not! im just using sellar as an example. in this case he's a high stakes guy for a team that has not always had the best record with players like him, who seems to offer more at the highest level than he does at the lower end.

it might be a fluke or he might one of those who needs different handling.

For what its worth though, i think the club recently has shown its willing to show a big of pragmatism regarding what approach to take with younger players. Tippett/Sellar might be a newer example, but is a very good one, two players who play the same role, at two different levels of readiness. Rightly or wrongly, one is playing an apprenticeship, the other was in the soon pretty much as soon as he was fit.

it's also only relevant as an example to this year! that's pretty new ;)

Southerntakeover

21 Apr 2008, 22:02

No it's not! im just using sellar as an example. in this case he's a high stakes guy for a team that has not always had the best record with players like him, who seems to offer more at the highest level than he does at the lower end.

it might be a fluke or he might one of those who needs different handling.

*shrugs* Again, theres not much of an arguement there. It falls down to disagreement on the individuals and their merits, rather than a philosophical problem as far as i can see. Your school of thought suggests hes getting little out of playing in the SANFL, and theres another which suggests that as a young player whos spent little time up forward he still has much he can learn playing senior football for Glenelg.

it's also only relevant as an example to this year! that's pretty new ;)

Not really.

Whilst both were injured last year, every indication is that Tippett would have played Seniors, and Sellar would have remained in the SANFL.

Like your earlier point, this is just one example. I can think of others where two players have been drafted relatively closely yet blooded in a different fashion. Knights spend an extra year in the SANFL compared to van Berlo, Douglas was treated differently to Pfeiffer etc etc. Theres a wider sample available than just this year.

Crow-mo

21 Apr 2008, 22:23

*shrugs* Again, theres not much of an arguement there. It falls down to disagreement on the individuals and their merits, rather than a philosophical problem as far as i can see. Your school of thought suggests hes getting little out of playing in the SANFL, and theres another which suggests that as a young player whos spent little time up forward he still has much he can learn playing senior football for Glenelg.

you say there's no much of argument there, and that's fine. but there is just as little evidence in support of the status quo either. what we've been doing up until now, hasn't exactly proven to be the gold standard.

the philosophical position you're outlining is exclusive of player traits. it doesn't take account of the individual, which is what I am saying is/was the issue a one size fits all approach.

whether you think playing them all early or letting them all develop slowly is best, it's an approach about "all" and not a case by case basis.

Not really.

Whilst both were injured last year, every indication is that Tippett would have played Seniors, and Sellar would have remained in the SANFL.

Like your earlier point, this is just one example. I can think of others where two players have been drafted relatively closely yet blooded in a different fashion. Knights spend an extra year in the SANFL compared to van Berlo, Douglas was treated differently to Pfeiffer etc etc. Theres a wider sample available than just this year.

look, maybe you're right maybe tippett would've been fast tracked last year. but we don't actually know, and even if you are right - that too is very, very recent.

more to the point, just because players appear to be treated differently, doesn't mean they are. it means their outcomes are different. their outcomes under a fixed system. when the system is rigid, and the players are the variables you will get different outcomes from player to player. when the system is more flexible, you will get different outcomes amongst the same players too. however the inputs will not be the same, and the argument is that we "might" get more desirable or predictable results by flexing both sides of the equation, where historically we haven't done that.

Vader

21 Apr 2008, 22:39

OK, I'll bite on this one.

2004
By years end every single player on Adelaide's senior list had had a game, with Josh Krueger being the solitary exception. It's worth noting that Craig inherited a list with a grand total of ONE teenager - Fergus Watts. You can't play teenagers if you don't have any on the list (thank-you Gary Ayres).

2005
With no pre-existing youngsters to work with (well, only Watts), we're pretty much limited to discussing the 2004 draftees.

Van Berlo made his debut in R3, going on to play a total of 11 games (including the final vs St Kilda).
After a string of 30+ disposal games in the SANFL, Knights was rewarded with 2 games, playing all of 7 minutes on debut.
Meesen had a disappointing year, spending more time in the Norwood reserves than the league side.
Maric was playing good footy by the end of the year, but with Hudson, Clarke & Biglands ahead of him he was always going to struggle to get a game. He was arguably performing better than Clarke when Hudson went down, but Craig went with experience over youth - remember that the injury occurred on the verge of the finals.

2006
Watts was gone by now, so no longer a factor. So, by now we have 4 players from the 2004 ND and 4 from the 2005 ND and Porplyzia taken in the PSD, Griffin upgraded from the rookie list.

Van Berlo became an established player, playing every game for which he was available. This is the last year in which I'd consider him a rookie under development (though 2007 was his break-out year).
Knights stepped it up, earning 10 more games with a best of 17 disposals. However, on a disposal per minute on ground basis he was Adelaide's leading possession winner. What he did with those possessions is entirely another matter.
Maric made his debut in the Showdown in the wet, infamously kicking into the man on the mark, gathering the loose ball and slotting the goal. He went onto play 8 games that year, a fairly reasonable return for a 2nd year ruckman I would have thought.
Meesen showed improvement, playing mostly for Norwood's seniors, but with Maric, Clarke & Biglands ahead of him he never looked like getting a game. Rarely did he string together sufficient quality games to even put his name before the selectors.
Douglas made his debut late in the year, when injuries forced the hands of the selectors. He responded well, playing 3 games including the final against Freo.
Pfeiffer suffered a series of injuries (glandular fever, stress fractures in his back), plus one or two disciplinary issues (sent to Norwood to train until he lifted his game). Never looked like getting a game, nor should he on the form he displayed.
Vince made his debut in R1 before going on to play 4 games for the year. Looked out of his depth and many of us were critical of him as a result.
Obst spent most of the year playing for Centrals reserves and was delisted at the end of the year, after only one year on the list. No surprises that he was never gifted a game.
Porplyzia was a mature aged recruit, having previously been on Adelaide's rookie list. He played 11 games for the year, starring with a burst down the boundary line in the final against Freo.
Griffin struggled to break into the SANFL's most dominant team, spending pretty much the whole year in the magoos - though he was noted to be performing well at that level. Nobody expected him to get an AFL game though, viewing him as a "project player".

2007
5 new draftees, plus the ongoing list of youngsters recruited during the NC era.

With Clarke retired and Biglands MIA, there's one spot open for a developing young ruckman (Hudson firmly entrenched in the #1 slot). The 3 youngsters are set for a ruck-off in the MMC, then disaster strikes. Meesen injures his knee and Maric his hip. Griffin seizes the opportunity for all it's worth.
Maric returns to the SANFL, via the reserves, in R7. Eventually he regains match fitness and confidence, playing 6 AFL games from R14 onwards.
Meesen takes even longer to return from injury and struggles to string together consecutive high quality SANFL games when he does. Eventually Craig is driven to see whether he has an AFL future and selects him for R20 & 21. Meesen fails to impress and is sent back to the SANFL, never to be seen again.
Knights becomes an established player, playing 22 games.
Douglas plays 13 games in his second season, on track for development of a young midfielder.
Pfeiffer is once again injured early (broken cheek, from a bar fight) and has further disciplinary issues. Under normal circumstances his late-season form would have easily been good enough to justify an AFL debut, but by now his cards have been marked "never to play for the AFC". He's delisted at the end of the year, currently playing in Carlton's AFL team.
Vince plays 6 games from R3-8, once again failing to impress (best of only 14 disposals). He's sent back to the SANFL where he regularly racks up 30+ disposal games. By years end it is clear that he's a class above the SANFL, but can he make the transition to the higher standard of the AFL?
Porplyzia plays 15 games, including the final, and is an established member of the team by the end of the year.
Sellar has a disappointing year, struggling with a groin injury (osteitis pubis?) all year. Spends most of the year with the Glenelg magoos. No chance of making his debut.
Tippett is on the verge of making his AFL debut when he injures his shoulder, requiring a reconstruction. Misses the rest of the year.
Mackay plays 2 SANFL games (one of which is in the magoos), starring in both. Unfortunately, he blows his hammie in the 2nd game, ultimately missing the remainder of the year as the club tries to get his leg to recover properly.
Gill suffers a seemingly never ending series of soft tissue injuries, but finally gets it all together in time to make his debut in R17 - playing the last 7 games of the year. A mature aged recruit, he's now an established member of our best-22 - when fit!
Campbell also misses the first half of the year with injury, struggling to regain the levels which saw him drafted in the first place. Eventually he does make his debut, getting just one game (R17 vs Essendon). He appears to do reasonably well, but is dumped inexplicably.

2008
7 more draftees and Gallman promoted from the rookie list, to go with Adelaide's growing contingent of younger players.
Maric failed to set the world on fire during the MMC, but is now in outstanding form in the SANFL - demanding promotion to the AFL.
Griffin has continued his development from 2007, playing every game to date.
Vince has also played every game and is clearly having a break-out season, highlighted by his winning the Showdown Medal.
Sellar played the first 3 MMC games, starring in Dubai but disappointing in the other two games. Has played regularly for the Glenelg seniors, but his form is not demanding promotion - demotion to the magoos appears more likely at present.
Tippett & MacKay have both played every game this year.
Campbell appears to be out of favour. He's played one game, selected on the basis that he was the "last man standing".
Dangerfield has performed well in every game he's played, appears highly likely to be given an AFL debut this weekend.
Otten has been consistently amongst South Adelaide's best players and was named as an emergency last week (with nobody else available). Not sure why he isn't being considered for a promotion.
Jacky has played reasonably well in the SANFL, without being outstanding. The coaching staff love him though, seeing him rewarded with 2 MMC games and an AFL debut last week. Still appears out of his depth at AFL level and will benefit from more time in the SANFL.
Armstrong & Cook have been playing in the SANFL reserves, neither have been pressing a claim for an AFL debut.
Gallman has missed most of the season so far with a series of injuries - knee & ribs. Played last week in the North Adelaide reserves and would be expected to return to the SANFL once he regains fitness.
Kite has been a surprise packet, playing well in the Norwood seniors until injuring his knee. Did reasonably well on returning from injury. Is regarded as a "project player" who would not be expected to debut this year - though he may surprise us all yet.
Walker did well in the SANFL reserves for Norwood, before making a stellar debut for the redlegs seniors last week. Hard to say his development has been held back to date, indeed he may well earn a call-up if he continues to show the form he did last weekend.

So.. For those who are critical of Neil Craig's development of our youngsters, which youngsters have been held back in their development? Who should have been played and when? What would you have done differently?

The only ones I can think of are Bernie Vince & Bryce Campbell. Vince could well have played more games in 2007 given his outstanding SANFL form. Campbell should (in my personal opinion) have been given more than one game to prove himself in 2007. Given his outstanding form in the SANFL this year, it will be interesting to see what fate holds in store for him once he recovers from his current ankle injury.

Southerntakeover

21 Apr 2008, 23:29

you say there's no much of argument there, and that's fine. but there is just as little evidence in support of the status quo either. what we've been doing up until now, hasn't exactly proven to be the gold standard.

the philosophical position you're outlining is exclusive of player traits. it doesn't take account of the individual, which is what I am saying is/was the issue a one size fits all approach.

whether you think playing them all early or letting them all develop slowly is best, it's an approach about "all" and not a case by case basis.

Ahh, look, i think where we're falling down here is how far back we're willing to go. Im only really taking my case study to the start of Craigy's reign, as he cant be held accountable for anything else.

Since hes taken over i feel we have been taking into account individual player traits, and we really cant be said to have a one size fits all approach. We may have previously, but dont at current.

look, maybe you're right maybe tippett would've been fast tracked last year. but we don't actually know, and even if you are right - that too is very, very recent.

more to the point, just because players appear to be treated differently, doesn't mean they are. it means their outcomes are different. their outcomes under a fixed system. when the system is rigid, and the players are the variables you will get different outcomes from player to player. when the system is more flexible, you will get different outcomes amongst the same players too. however the inputs will not be the same, and the argument is that we "might" get more desirable or predictable results by flexing both sides of the equation, where historically we haven't done that.

Im only basing my speculation on what Tippett would have done last year on statements ive heard Craigy make, but yeah, no way of knowing for sure.

Again, i dont think we've had a rigid system over the last few years. Admittedly, we may have before that, and to be honest, it falls outside my area of expertise. All evidence in recent times makes me think that we're no longer using a rigid system, and are judging players on their merits in regards to how we attempt to develop them. IMO this can only be a good thing.

Campbell's Chunky

21 Apr 2008, 23:35

Southerntakeover

21 Apr 2008, 23:44

Incase anyone was wondering, in regards to the thread title, I didn't actually have my balls out while writing this.

What I meant to say was 'put my balls on the line'.

Sorry if this did cause any confusion.

It has caused occasional unneccesary vomiting.

There will be a Hindu protest outside your computer room next time you make a thread, to let you know that this sort of indecency is frowned upon in Bigfooty.

Stephen2

21 Apr 2008, 23:49

OK, I'll bite on this one......
Vader, post of the year, fantastic detail and analysis. Thanks, enjoyed it :thumbsu:

Dandy_GO

22 Apr 2008, 00:03

Vader, post of the year, fantastic detail and analysis. Thanks, enjoyed it :thumbsu:

Agreed. Good job, Vader.

Crow-mo

22 Apr 2008, 00:33

OK, I'll bite on this one.

2004
By years end every single player on Adelaide's senior list had had a game, with Josh Krueger being the solitary exception. It's worth noting that Craig inherited a list with a grand total of ONE teenager - Fergus Watts. You can't play teenagers if you don't have any on the list (thank-you Gary Ayres).

come now, everything can't be ayre's fault. there's a lot of people still around, who were around then. including Neil Craig :p

2005
With no pre-existing youngsters to work with (well, only Watts), we're pretty much limited to discussing the 2004 draftees.

Van Berlo made his debut in R3, going on to play a total of 11 games (including the final vs St Kilda).
After a string of 30+ disposal games in the SANFL, Knights was rewarded with 2 games, playing all of 7 minutes on debut.
Meesen had a disappointing year, spending more time in the Norwood reserves than the league side.
Maric was playing good footy by the end of the year, but with Hudson, Clarke & Biglands ahead of him he was always going to struggle to get a game. He was arguably performing better than Clarke when Hudson went down, but Craig went with experience over youth - remember that the injury occurred on the verge of the finals.

well for 1. you can't ignore watts because it doesn't suit. seeing as he is a poster child for a talented 1st round big who didn't get developed.

meesen went nowhere, for a supposedly ready made ruckman. mind you wood looks like he sucks arse too, so maybe there were no winners in that one :D

Maric didn't play.

this year doesn't exactly show that we are forthcoming. we had one midfielder play regularly, and another play 7 minutes on debut.

isn't this exactly an example of a year where we didn't exactly get much time into our young guys?

2006
Watts was gone by now, so no longer a factor. So, by now we have 4 players from the 2004 ND and 4 from the 2005 ND and Porplyzia taken in the PSD, Griffin upgraded from the rookie list.

Van Berlo became an established player, playing every game for which he was available. This is the last year in which I'd consider him a rookie under development (though 2007 was his break-out year).
Knights stepped it up, earning 10 more games with a best of 17 disposals. However, on a disposal per minute on ground basis he was Adelaide's leading possession winner. What he did with those possessions is entirely another matter.
Maric made his debut in the Showdown in the wet, infamously kicking into the man on the mark, gathering the loose ball and slotting the goal. He went onto play 8 games that year, a fairly reasonable return for a 2nd year ruckman I would have thought.
Meesen showed improvement, playing mostly for Norwood's seniors, but with Maric, Clarke & Biglands ahead of him he never looked like getting a game. Rarely did he string together sufficient quality games to even put his name before the selectors.
Douglas made his debut late in the year, when injuries forced the hands of the selectors. He responded well, playing 3 games including the final against Freo.
Pfeiffer suffered a series of injuries (glandular fever, stress fractures in his back), plus one or two disciplinary issues (sent to Norwood to train until he lifted his game). Never looked like getting a game, nor should he on the form he displayed.
Vince made his debut in R1 before going on to play 4 games for the year. Looked out of his depth and many of us were critical of him as a result.
Obst spent most of the year playing for Centrals reserves and was delisted at the end of the year, after only one year on the list. No surprises that he was never gifted a game.
Porplyzia was a mature aged recruit, having previously been on Adelaide's rookie list. He played 11 games for the year, starring with a burst down the boundary line in the final against Freo.
Griffin struggled to break into the SANFL's most dominant team, spending pretty much the whole year in the magoos - though he was noted to be performing well at that level. Nobody expected him to get an AFL game though, viewing him as a "project player".

agreed. we've more to work with here. however, there is either some examples of a couple of players getting a little love or others left out in the cold. Vince & Porplyzia were mature/older players so the expectation was that they'd be ready to go. VB & Knights were counted the year before too :p and douglas got a little time through injury.

Maric is the only one of any interest to this discussion imo. and that's not enough. but that being said, I think Maric is a good example in riposte.

he was maybe a little early, lets get him in and have a look.

2007
5 new draftees, plus the ongoing list of youngsters recruited during the NC era.

With Clarke retired and Biglands MIA, there's one spot open for a developing young ruckman (Hudson firmly entrenched in the #1 slot). The 3 youngsters are set for a ruck-off in the MMC, then disaster strikes. Meesen injures his knee and Maric his hip. Griffin seizes the opportunity for all it's worth.
Maric returns to the SANFL, via the reserves, in R7. Eventually he regains match fitness and confidence, playing 6 AFL games from R14 onwards.
Meesen takes even longer to return from injury and struggles to string together consecutive high quality SANFL games when he does. Eventually Craig is driven to see whether he has an AFL future and selects him for R20 & 21. Meesen fails to impress and is sent back to the SANFL, never to be seen again.
Knights becomes an established player, playing 22 games.
Douglas plays 13 games in his second season, on track for development of a young midfielder.
Pfeiffer is once again injured early (broken cheek, from a bar fight) and has further disciplinary issues. Under normal circumstances his late-season form would have easily been good enough to justify an AFL debut, but by now his cards have been marked "never to play for the AFC". He's delisted at the end of the year, currently playing in Carlton's AFL team.
Vince plays 6 games from R3-8, once again failing to impress (best of only 14 disposals). He's sent back to the SANFL where he regularly racks up 30+ disposal games. By years end it is clear that he's a class above the SANFL, but can he make the transition to the higher standard of the AFL?
Porplyzia plays 15 games, including the final, and is an established member of the team by the end of the year.
Sellar has a disappointing year, struggling with a groin injury (osteitis pubis?) all year. Spends most of the year with the Glenelg magoos. No chance of making his debut.
Tippett is on the verge of making his AFL debut when he injures his shoulder, requiring a reconstruction. Misses the rest of the year.
Mackay plays 2 SANFL games (one of which is in the magoos), starring in both. Unfortunately, he blows his hammie in the 2nd game, ultimately missing the remainder of the year as the club tries to get his leg to recover properly.
Gill suffers a seemingly never ending series of soft tissue injuries, but finally gets it all together in time to make his debut in R17 - playing the last 7 games of the year. A mature aged recruit, he's now an established member of our best-22 - when fit!
Campbell also misses the first half of the year with injury, struggling to regain the levels which saw him drafted in the first place. Eventually he does make his debut, getting just one game (R17 vs Essendon). He appears to do reasonably well, but is dumped inexplicably.

certainly there are some examples, but equally we we're on the bare bones of our list. and still players like Meesen & Pfeiffer didn't get a look in. Meesen was handed too little too late, with SFA gametime in blatant act of tokenism. I'm still not sure it was Craigy's idea to look at him either. but we'll never know either way.

campbell/gill mature aged. vince/porps mature aged. Knights, should be playing by now...

seems up until this point you got games if you were a mature aged draftee - which we took quite a few of them - and if you were knights or VB (which is strewn over a few years);

as you say Griffen/maric got games because Biglands went down, and we had NO one else. if he's still there, who knows?

this is not an overwhelming case in favour at all as far as I can see.

2008
7 more draftees and Gallman promoted from the rookie list, to go with Adelaide's growing contingent of younger players.
Maric failed to set the world on fire during the MMC, but is now in outstanding form in the SANFL - demanding promotion to the AFL.
Griffin has continued his development from 2007, playing every game to date.
Vince has also played every game and is clearly having a break-out season, highlighted by his winning the Showdown Medal.
Sellar played the first 3 MMC games, starring in Dubai but disappointing in the other two games. Has played regularly for the Glenelg seniors, but his form is not demanding promotion - demotion to the magoos appears more likely at present.
Tippett & MacKay have both played every game this year.
Campbell appears to be out of favour. He's played one game, selected on the basis that he was the "last man standing".
Dangerfield has performed well in every game he's played, appears highly likely to be given an AFL debut this weekend.
Otten has been consistently amongst South Adelaide's best players and was named as an emergency last week (with nobody else available). Not sure why he isn't being considered for a promotion.
Jacky has played reasonably well in the SANFL, without being outstanding. The coaching staff love him though, seeing him rewarded with 2 MMC games and an AFL debut last week. Still appears out of his depth at AFL level and will benefit from more time in the SANFL.
Armstrong & Cook have been playing in the SANFL reserves, neither have been pressing a claim for an AFL debut.
Gallman has missed most of the season so far with a series of injuries - knee & ribs. Played last week in the North Adelaide reserves and would be expected to return to the SANFL once he regains fitness.
Kite has been a surprise packet, playing well in the Norwood seniors until injuring his knee. Did reasonably well on returning from injury. Is regarded as a "project player" who would not be expected to debut this year - though he may surprise us all yet.
Walker did well in the SANFL reserves for Norwood, before making a stellar debut for the redlegs seniors last week. Hard to say his development has been held back to date, indeed he may well earn a call-up if he continues to show the form he did last weekend.

and by your own analysis 2008 looks very different to the others, and is barely recognisable to 2005/2006.

this year it looks like anyone with a bit about themselves might get a look.

but I still don't see many if any, examples of where we've taken a flyer on someone who might just be more suited to senior level than sanfl.

what is undeniable, is that Hawthorn - who have the best development record of any right now (though there are numbers on their side too) were very keen to games into their guys early.

So.. For those who are critical of Neil Craig's development of our youngsters, which youngsters have been held back in their development? Who should have been played and when? What would you have done differently?

clearly with hindsight, we'd have gotten more games into watts/meesen and Pfeiffer.

and as far as who was critical of Neil's development, surely the club counts as one of those too? they came out and made statements at the end of 2007, about emulating collingwood, their emphasis on youth, and how we'd be doing things differently in 2008. which we have.

The only ones I can think of are Bernie Vince & Bryce Campbell. Vince could well have played more games in 2007 given his outstanding SANFL form. Campbell should (in my personal opinion) have been given more than one game to prove himself in 2007. Given his outstanding form in the SANFL this year, it will be interesting to see what fate holds in store for him once he recovers from his current ankle injury.

very fair. but again, Vince & Campbell were older draftees. they should be more ready to go when they come in.

Midfielders usually are ready earlier, and we had a couple of come out of the blocks (VB & Knights) but over a few years, that's not a lot. our big guys don't seem to be getting much of a look in, with the exception of Maric in 2006! Griffen & Maric got games in 2007 because we'd be rucking trent ormond allen other wise :D :p

imo, your analysis has clearly shown a shift in approach.

Vader

22 Apr 2008, 11:01

come now, everything can't be ayre's fault. there's a lot of people still around, who were around then. including Neil Craig :p
It's not all Ayres' fault, but there does seem to have been a common thread when you look at the drafting records of the different coaches. Ayres was a fan of the mature aged recruit, generally drafting players aged 20-21. Neil Craig has generally drafted teenagers. There are obvious exceptions to these generalisations (Watts, Gill, Campbell, Vince), but that's true from the broader picture.

Was Ayres to blame for the drafting policy implemented under his reign? Not sure, as I'm not privvy to the inner workings of the club and its recruiting department. All I know is that there was a radical change in drafting policy after he left.

[QUOTE=Crow-mo;10757563]well for 1. you can't ignore watts because it doesn't suit. seeing as he is a poster child for a talented 1st round big who didn't get developed.
Fair enough, I shouldn't have been so flippant with my dismissal of Watts. Watts played 6 games for the club, 5 of which were in 2004 (the first of which was Ayres' last game as coach). He only played 1 game in 2005, R1 vs the Weagles. I don't recall his SANFL form demanding that he be promoted to the AFL, but I'm happy to be contradicted on this point.

meesen went nowhere, for a supposedly ready made ruckman. mind you wood looks like he sucks arse too, so maybe there were no winners in that one :D
At this point we need to work out what we're discussing here. Are we discussing how well we develop the players, improving them to the point where they are ready to play in the AFL? Or, are we judging their development in terms of the number of AFL games they managed to achieve. He certainly didn't deserve to make his debut in 2005, but questions should be asked over his lack of development as a player.

There's no doubt that Meesen was a major disappointment. How much of this can be attributed to the club and how much to the player I'm not sure. Certainly he hasn't set the world on fire since leaving Adelaide and moving to Melbourne - if anything he's gone backwards. This would tend to indicate that it may not have been all the club's fault. Any way you care to look at it it was a disappointing return from a highly rated first round draft pick.

Maric didn't play.
Both Maric & Meesen were drafted to fill a void when Biglands, Hudson & Clarke departed. Neither of them would have been expected to play at all in 2005. We all know that it takes ruckmen longer than any other type to develop. Maric' form late in the season wasn't dominant enough to demand selection, but it was good enough that he should have been considered when Hudson went down. However, with finals on the horizon they made the sensible choice to go with Clarke. I am fine with that decision.

this year doesn't exactly show that we are forthcoming. we had one midfielder play regularly, and another play 7 minutes on debut.

isn't this exactly an example of a year where we didn't exactly get much time into our young guys?
One midfielder played 7 games, the other played 2 games. It's worth noting that Knights may have been getting 30+ disposals in the SANFL, but he didn't get many Magarey Medal votes in those performances. Put bluntly, his disposal left a lot to be desired. He improved it significantly as a result and got more games in later years.

In his first full year as coach, Craig had little youth to work with. Maybe he could have cut deeper with the 2004 delistings (mostly retirements - Smart, Burns, Carey) and taken more draftees, but he didn't. I honestly can't fault his development of our players in this year.

agreed. we've more to work with here. however, there is either some examples of a couple of players getting a little love or others left out in the cold. Vince & Porplyzia were mature/older players so the expectation was that they'd be ready to go. VB & Knights were counted the year before too :p and douglas got a little time through injury.
Porps was indeed a mature player who was ready to go. Even so, he still needed to work on his fitness levels, though his disposal was superb. He played 15 games which is what you'd expect.

Vince might have been slightly older than the teenage draftees, but he didn't have the conventional background. Less than 12 months before his drafting he'd been playing country footy on the Yorke Peninsula. Being a fairly handy cricketer, he'd never had a pre-season either. His fitness needed a LOT of work and he needed to adjust to the speed of the game at the AFL level. Neither of these factors really came together for him until this year. He was given a run early and struggled with the pace of the game. I would almost list Vince as a poster boy for our player development, given how he's exploded this year.

certainly there are some examples, but equally we we're on the bare bones of our list. and still players like Meesen & Pfeiffer didn't get a look in. Meesen was handed too little too late, with SFA gametime in blatant act of tokenism. I'm still not sure it was Craigy's idea to look at him either. but we'll never know either way.
Pfeiffer's card was clearly marked "never to play for the AFC" before he reached the levels he did late in the season, when he WAS demanding to be selected. Given the disciplinary issues which we DO know about, I'm guessing these were just the tip of the iceberg. He seems to be doing well at Carlton and good luck to him. In terms of his development at the AFC, he's a unique case in that he's the only player who we're not judging on his football merits alone.

Meesen is an interesting case as well. I agree he was given his games out of tokenism - and NC may well not have been the instigator behind his selection in the first place. However, based on the form he showed for Norwood can you honestly tell me that you would have given him a game any earlier? Maybe one or two weeks earlier, bringing his total to 4 matches, but I don't honestly think that this would have made any difference in his decision to leave. Meesen's year was ruined when he did his knee in the MMC, after that it was always an uphill struggle for him.

campbell/gill mature aged. vince/porps mature aged. Knights, should be playing by now...
Campbell had major injury problems, as did Gill. Both were severely restricted as a result. Knights played 22 games, becoming an established member of the team, so I'm not sure what you're driving at there.

seems up until this point you got games if you were a mature aged draftee - which we took quite a few of them - and if you were knights or VB (which is strewn over a few years);
The AFC do not believe in gifting games to players. If they perform in the SANFL then they are generally rewarded when the opportunities arise (frequently due to injury moreso than players being dropped because of poor form). To this point we had rucks (who take longer to develop anyway), mature aged midfielders, and VB & Knights. Precisely who else did you expect them to play?

as you say Griffen/maric got games because Biglands went down, and we had NO one else. if he's still there, who knows?
A fair & valid question. But you can't change history, so there's no point in wondering about the hypotheticals. My guess is that they would have been given the occasional opportunity, as Maric did in 2006. In some ways, Biglands knee injury was the best thing which could have happened to the club.

this is not an overwhelming case in favour at all as far as I can see.
Given the number of youngsters with injury concerns, 2007 was actually a pretty good outcome. VB, Porps, Knights & Griffin all became regular members of the senior team. Maric, Vince, Campbell & Meesen were all given a decent taste. Most of the others were unavailable for selection, either through injury or disciplinary reasons. Once again, what more did you want to see?

and by your own analysis 2008 looks very different to the others, and is barely recognisable to 2005/2006.

this year it looks like anyone with a bit about themselves might get a look.
By 2008 our entire list is almost unrecognisable from what Neil Craig inherited back in 2004. In that time there have been 23 draftees (21x ND, 1x PSD, 2x rookie promotions) arrive at the club, only 3 of which have already departed. That doesn't include players received during trade week (Symes, Moran, Thompson). At the start of the year, our 22nd most experienced player was Brad Symes who had played 20 games. We had 11 players on our list who were yet to make their debut (3 have debuted to date), with only 7 players falling outside these two categories.

2008 was always going to be different, because of the depth of cuts we made last year. Put bluntly, almost ANY injury this year is going to result in kids getting a game - whether they are ready for it or not. We don't HAVE the "depth players" this year that we have had in the past. 2009 is going to be even more remarkable, as we lose the likes of Bassett, Biglands, Shirley and possibly Edwards all to retirement.

but I still don't see many if any, examples of where we've taken a flyer on someone who might just be more suited to senior level than sanfl.
This much IS true. This one boils down to philosophy. The AFC believe that players should show solid SANFL form before they get promoted. You believe that some players are inherently better suited to the different style of play in the AFL. You may be right. The AFC appear to disagree with you though.

what is undeniable, is that Hawthorn - who have the best development record of any right now (though there are numbers on their side too) were very keen to games into their guys early.
Hawthorn went about their rebuild in a very different manner to the AFC. The Hawks recognised that they had very few players, especially amongst their mid-range to senior levels, who were capable of taking them to a flag. As a result, they traded and/or delisted almost the entire top half of their list. They brought the kids in early, knowing that they would sink initially, but would eventually learn to be very vigourous swimmers indeed. There aren't actually all that many Hawks kids who were thrown in the deep end - Franklin, Roughead, Lewis and Dawson are pretty much the only ones which spring to mind. The others were all given at least 12 months in the VFL to tune their skills, as the AFC do. The difference is that they brought a lot more youngsters onto heir list at that time, as we are doing now.

The price they paid for this was that they fell dramatically down the bottom of the ladder, earning priority draft picks in consectutive years.

The AFC do not intend to ever qualify for priority draft picks, preferring to do our rebuilding while maintaining a position in the top-8. Doing it this way requires a more gradual turnover, replacing senior players with youngsters, which is what we have seen.

clearly with hindsight, we'd have gotten more games into watts/meesen and Pfeiffer.
Maybe, maybe not. If Watts & Meesen had done enough to warrant being selected more often then I'm sure they would have been. Pfeiffer's non-selection was not football related.

and as far as who was critical of Neil's development, surely the club counts as one of those too? they came out and made statements at the end of 2007, about emulating collingwood, their emphasis on youth, and how we'd be doing things differently in 2008. which we have.
Certainly they weren't happy with 2007, but they did recognise that many of the reasons behind it were injury related. Tippett, Mackay, Gill, Campbell & Pfeiffer all missed large chunks of the season with injury. You can't play them if they're watching from the grandstand.

very fair. but again, Vince & Campbell were older draftees. they should be more ready to go when they come in.
Campbell was injured for much of the year. It will be VERY interesting to see how many games he plays in 2008. Vince I've discussed above.

Midfielders usually are ready earlier, and we had a couple of come out of the blocks (VB & Knights) but over a few years, that's not a lot. our big guys don't seem to be getting much of a look in, with the exception of Maric in 2006! Griffen & Maric got games in 2007 because we'd be rucking trent ormond allen other wise :D :p

imo, your analysis has clearly shown a shift in approach.
I'm not sure there has been a shift in approach. I think it's more a case of there being fewer experienced players to choose from, so the kids are getting more games by default. Then again, it has been good to see those who ARE demanding selection getting selected.

Pistolnight

22 Apr 2008, 11:30

The best thing to happen to the AFC draft selections is Mr.James Fantasia found another place of employment. Nothing more needs to be said.

Vic Crow

22 Apr 2008, 12:04

Campbell's Chunky

22 Apr 2008, 13:25

Kennyrocks

22 Apr 2008, 14:27

Agree 100% CC. Hopefully those who love to stand back and criticise for no good reason (and they are everywhere, in the media, sitting behind you at the footy) because somehow they feel like they are experts if they do this shut up now.
Actually hopefully they keep going on because when Dangerfield starts to rip it up they'll look even stupider and everyone will realise never to listen to them again *Cough* McDermott! *Cough*.

TheLeftFist8

22 Apr 2008, 15:30

Campbell's Chunky

22 Apr 2008, 15:37

marvin

22 Apr 2008, 15:48

TheLeftFist8

22 Apr 2008, 15:49

For me atm:

Massie
Gallman (although the Crows may really rate him, but who knows)
Jericho
Shirley
Biglands

Petrenko elevated.
Moss and Curnow retained on the Rookie list.
Martin cut.

Which leaves us with 4 draft picks - a KPP, 2 mids and a ruck.

Interesting.

Seems harsh as i absolutely think he's a champion but Bassett would be under consideration, simply based on age. I'd keep Massie instead.

Edwards would also have to be considered. If he isn't a standout for the rest of the year, I'd back in the young-uns for his role. Another top 5 B&F may be needed for another year.

Others include Campbell and McGregor (if we have heaps of young-uns we can pay out his contract anyway).

The risk is, ironically, unbalancing the squad towards youth. Having said that, 08 is supposedly meant to be a good draft, so I wouldn't like to miss out too much.

Vader

22 Apr 2008, 16:03

Be interested to know the general perception of Gallman. I realise he has been a non-event this season due to injury, but how is he rated when compared to our other young prospects?

I am just trying to shortlist who may be in danger at the end of the year, as i reckon our best bet is 4-5 draft picks, and 2 new rookies (with the best 2 of this year upgraded as early indications are promising).

So 6-7 players to go.

I was glad Gallman was elevated but is he another defensive vanilla midfielder/HBF or is he good enough to warrant his place? Speculative i know, just wondered where he sat in the scheme of things atm.

At risk of taking this thread off-topic, here's my stab at our end of year movements...

Biglands - retire
Shirley - retire
Bassett - retire
Edwards - retire
Gill - retire (great player but body keeps letting him down)
Campbell - delist (seems to be out of favour, plenty of younger options)
Jericho - delist/trade (showed courage to return with a broken sternum, but realistically he was only picked as "last man standing" in the first place)
Massie - delist (solid depth player who never sets a foot wrong, but the time has come for the youth to be the depth players)

McGregor will be retained, due to our lack of other KPP forward options. If Sellar, Walker and/or Hentschel can force their way into the side by the end of the year then they may let him go, but I'm not holding my breath. He's a depth player at best, but right now depth in this position is what we lack. Don't forget he's contracted for 2009 as well.

Not sure about rookie movements, though they do seem happy with the development of Moss in particular.

So that would make 8 departures. With 1-2 rookie promotions we'd have 6-7 draft picks. Supposed to be another superdraft, so that sounds about right.

wattsyman

22 Apr 2008, 16:17

You've not heard the commentators raving about Tippett already this year? :p

I think Craig's normal philosophy of slowly introducing youngsters into the team means that the football world only gets to see snippets. It's not until the player has been semi-established that people notice and by then they probably aren't classed as youngsters anymore - even though they are. Knights, Reilly, VB, Porplyzia were all in that category. Now Douglas, Vince and McKay. Look at Vince - he's been exceptional this season so far. The footy world SHOULD be raving about HIM!

could not agree more although I wish Craigy would play them all more when consistant SANFL form warrants it though

crows98

22 Apr 2008, 16:23

doppelganger47

22 Apr 2008, 17:56

Isn’t this year national draft supposed to be another super draft?

Looking at Vader list (looks about right to me) I assume 8 picks would be too many in any one year so we may upgrade One maybe Two rookie and hold one back for the PSD giving us 5 picks.yep. don't know how the far the depth reaches; though it can't be worse than our 2001 drafting with only 1 player still in the team in Reilly (though it was still worth it; more than i can say for Port who only have Damon White left from that draft, but i guess they got good compensation for the dud in Brooks). at least 3 will retire or be delisted and a couple will probably get upgraded from rookie list at year's end, so not sure who else would make way, unless we decide not to draft big this year.

Carl Spackler

22 Apr 2008, 18:57

Great discussion in this thread. Some very interesting posts. :thumbsu:

fwiw, I think sellar is someone who shouldn't be given much more time in the sanfl. my feeling (again, not based on anything in particular) is that he's someone who struggles to get his head right at the lower levels. some guys can just be so focussed, and others can't re-adjust.

IF, and I say IF Sellar is one of these people, you can go two ways. you can argue about the lack of discipline and focus, and effectively stunt their development, and in hindsight say - look I told you so. OR you can say, we need to handle this guy differently. and yes, he might only perform in the big show, but wouldn't you rather a guy whose head was only in it for the big games, than proving a point?
I agree with this post. Just out of interest though, how come you've been so strong in pushing the "they'll get games when they're ready" line for the past two seasons? This is the first time I've ever read this opinion from you.

can I just say, that without any evidence, but my gut feel is that Craigy was given the hurry up from upstairs this year. I think the word came down that things needed to be accelerated wherever possible.

of course this might not be true, but my feeling is that the old dog did not learn new tricks overnight by himself.

it's plain as day that we on a different path this year, compared with the last 3 years - by your own admission that's obvious.

what's not obvious, is why? arguably it doesn't even matter why, it's just the way things are.
This is the interesting part of the debate for me. We are on a different path this year. But which one is the real Neil Craig? Is it the 2005/06 You Can't Beat Experience Craig, or the 2008 The Children Are Our Future Craig?

Regenerating the list was firmly on Craig's agenda in 2005. I don't think those inside the club, or certainly the supporters, expected us to do so well that year. But all of a sudden we found ourselves within striking distance of a premiership. That fact meant that we were unlikely to take any (even calculated) gambles at the selection table or were unlikely to experiment with youth. And no one was playing badly so there were few opportunities for anyone outside the 22 anyway.

Did our unexpected success cause Craig to temper his original approach? Was the original intention that year to introduce some young players? Did this get put on the backburner?

As for this year, I think it is unfair to believe that Craig was completely oblivious to the fact that we were running with the oldest team in the league. IMO he knew that the time would come at some stage for a cleansing of the list. Jonas and Stewart are part of the team specifically to assist us with this 'transition' year. This year was always coming, it was just a question of when. I would dispute that Craig has had to be pushed into this but as you said, we are just talking about gut feels from afar here anyway.

The real selection test though for 2008 hasn't yet eventuated. With Knights, Reilly and co all out injured we have not had anything like a full compliment to choose from. Only when they are all up and running will we see if there has truly been a change in philosophy.

Drummond

22 Apr 2008, 19:33

Since his first season of taking over lets examine the facts:

2005: Ok, we won the minor premiership and barely sustained an injury all year. Despite this Van Berlo played consistantly throughout the year and Knights was also given a taste of AFL footy, IIRC Maric might have also snuck a game?
No, Maric didn’t manage a game in 2005, even when Hudson went down. Instead we decided to go for Clarke and while he did okay, we took the safe option.

Knights was given a taste? 7 minutes on debut, about 40 a week later against the Dogs. I guess you could call it giving him a taste, but my word he was stingy.

2006: Despite another year where the Crows were playing consistantly well and requiring little alterations to the team Craig managed to keep pace with Van Berlo playing all games where avaliable, Knights and Maric both playing significant portions of the season and Douglas making his debut and even playing in a final. Vince also plays a couple of games
Since when is 8 games a significant portion of the season? Vince got 4 games, Douglas 3, staggering stuff.

2007: Van Berlo and Knights make it into Adelaide's top tier of players. Douglas plays 15+ games and Maric, Griffen and Meesen all get some footy in despite the fact that we again made the finals.
Griffin played, at least at the start of the season, because we had NO ONE ELSE. Maric was injured at the time, as was Meesen. Huddo was a workhorse but I don’t expect him to ruck for 120 minutes week in, week out.

He really hasn't been that slow in introducing talent to the side. This job has been made even harder as during his tenure the Crows have fielded a consistantly succesful side.
Yes he has.

And as a general rule, the blokes who haven't been blooded have generally been duds (Gibson, Meesen, Obst, Pfeiffer etc.)
I’ll give you the first 3 (however 2 are still on AFL lists...), but how the heck is Pfeiffer a dud? He’s slotted beautifully in at AFL level and will have a fine career.

Crow-mo

22 Apr 2008, 21:37

I agree with this post. Just out of interest though, how come you've been so strong in pushing the "they'll get games when they're ready" line for the past two seasons? This is the first time I've ever read this opinion from you.

I've been thinking about it over and over... and one of my main positions was that the development would be a neutral effect to the end game. that playing someone early wouldn't change what they ultimately become, and can damage / cause bad habits. which I still believe, but my focus was on that it wouldn't make them better, without reference to the opposite view that could it make them worse?

I also started thinking about those guys who are high talent, and maybe their make up isn't always suited to long slow development lead times. ego, focus, speed of the game etc. add to that, the conflicts between SANFL agenda's and that of an AFL parent... and it's not so simple.

specifically talls, which we seem to have not had too much luck with recently. Are we scouting these guys wrong, or not developing them as well as we might?

meesen just strikes me as an example worth discussing. He was supposedly a ready to go, very talented, athletic ruckman/ruck rover type. what went wrong? 3 years and nothing. obviously we lost him a while back, and his confidence was shot. was that him, many say it was - did we contribute?
but it struck me, that the one size fits all approach appeared to be heavily imposed on him.

he lost confidence, could we have done anything different? did we show ANY faith in him at all? I don't think we did, but maybe he didn't deserve it? we had as much to lose as him, did we protect and nuture our investment, or just take a very victorian (as in 19th century england) stance. "toughen up bitch".
some people will say look at him now, as evidence he was just soft; when you can just as well say look at him now, what happened?

Now applying that to sellar - he showed in Dubai plenty of potential, and seemed well in front of the curve, and now he struggles in the SANFL. maybe his ego, emotional make up, whatever responds better to being the centre of attention, part of the main setup - hell he's always been a star, and he doesn't deal with the lesser lights.

we could say you'll have to do it our way, ala watts, meesen et al, or we could ask is there another way?

I don't know if that's right, or if it change things, but our record previously on certain types of players suggests it's worth thinking about.

we all know talls take longer, small ready sooner. but has anyone thought of the emotional toll on a big bloke who's being held back longer than everyone else? you can say it, they can say they understand, but really do they? you come here as the great white hope, super draft pick all the adulation friends and family going nuts, and how much of that eats into the emotional and sometimes fragile ego of a young sportsman waiting for his body to catch up?

Southerntakeover

22 Apr 2008, 21:51

we all know talls take longer, small ready sooner. but has anyone thought of the emotional toll on a big bloke who's being held back longer than everyone else? you can say it, they can say they understand, but really do they? you come here as the great white hope, super draft pick all the adulation friends and family going nuts, and how much of that eats into the emotional and sometimes fragile ego of a young sportsman waiting for his body to catch up?

Then again, its worth considering that this damage can also take place in the AFL, probably even more so considering the higher scrutiny on people in the big leagues. If a player were to be played before they really were ready, and fail spectacularly, their entire career could be blown (see Zac Dawson).

Crow-mo

22 Apr 2008, 22:10

Vader, I'm not sure either of us has time to continue responding in such depth so I'm just going to comment on a couple of things.

It's not all Ayres' fault, but there does seem to have been a common thread when you look at the drafting records of the different coaches. Ayres was a fan of the mature aged recruit, generally drafting players aged 20-21. Neil Craig has generally drafted teenagers. There are obvious exceptions to these generalisations (Watts, Gill, Campbell, Vince), but that's true from the broader picture.

I'm not sure Craig has shown any less propensity to the mature age recruit, lets forget porplyzia, and the umpteen geriatric rookies...

Fair enough, I shouldn't have been so flippant with my dismissal of Watts. Watts played 6 games for the club, 5 of which were in 2004 (the first of which was Ayres' last game as coach). He only played 1 game in 2005, R1 vs the Weagles. I don't recall his SANFL form demanding that he be promoted to the AFL, but I'm happy to be contradicted on this point.

no you're right, generally his SANFL form didn't demand a spot.
however, what is not certain is that waiting for a tall to do the majority of his early development in the SANFL is the best approach.

put another way, was it right to wait until he had outgrown the sanfl?

There's no doubt that Meesen was a major disappointment. How much of this can be attributed to the club and how much to the player I'm not sure. Certainly he hasn't set the world on fire since leaving Adelaide and moving to Melbourne - if anything he's gone backwards. This would tend to indicate that it may not have been all the club's fault. Any way you care to look at it it was a disappointing return from a highly rated first round draft pick.

yup, that's fair. however, I strongly don't think you can make that statement in bold. that he's gone backwards, could be exactly an indication that the club didn't handle him right. his going backwards is not a certain indicator that of responsibility. what is certain is the combination of his makeup and our approach did not yield the results we would have liked.

Both Maric & Meesen were drafted to fill a void when Biglands, Hudson & Clarke departed. Neither of them would have been expected to play at all in 2005.

Meesen was certainly drafted partially on the idea that he would be ready before Wood, and that 2005 was not out of the question.

ah hindsight lol. :)

One midfielder played 7 games, the other played 2 games. It's worth noting that Knights may have been getting 30+ disposals in the SANFL, but he didn't get many Magarey Medal votes in those performances. Put bluntly, his disposal left a lot to be desired. He improved it significantly as a result and got more games in later years.

now this is strongly something I personally do believe. that a midfielders form in the sanfl is a better indicator than a KPP or Ruckman. if a midfielder isn't getting it at that level, he won't up higher. But I am not sure I think the same is true for bigger guys. pace of the game, better disposal, better umpiring, more emphasis on inches than feet in the AFL etc. are all reasons why a tall might be more effective in a faster machine.

In his first full year as coach, Craig had little youth to work with. Maybe he could have cut deeper with the 2004 delistings (mostly retirements - Smart, Burns, Carey) and taken more draftees, but he didn't. I honestly can't fault his development of our players in this year.

honestly, we can make that point. but equally you can always make excuses, and we were well down the list as far as teams and their young players.

WCE (not that it's doing them much good right now :) ) hahve always managed to get games when on top and when not.

Pfeiffer's card was clearly marked "never to play for the AFC" before he reached the levels he did late in the season, when he WAS demanding to be selected. Given the disciplinary issues which we DO know about, I'm guessing these were just the tip of the iceberg. He seems to be doing well at Carlton and good luck to him. In terms of his development at the AFC, he's a unique case in that he's the only player who we're not judging on his football merits alone.

you could be right, but we don't know he's the only one not being judged on football alone.

it's early, but we're not looking too clever at the moment.

Meesen is an interesting case as well. I agree he was given his games out of tokenism - and NC may well not have been the instigator behind his selection in the first place. However, based on the form he showed for Norwood can you honestly tell me that you would have given him a game any earlier? Maybe one or two weeks earlier, bringing his total to 4 matches, but I don't honestly think that this would have made any difference in his decision to leave. Meesen's year was ruined when he did his knee in the MMC, after that it was always an uphill struggle for him.

I absolutely think we needed to protect and nuture our investment in him a different way. going all tough love sure didn't get the job done.

my view has changed a little on this, but in hindsight I would've absolutely given him games when the opportunity arose.

The AFC do not believe in gifting games to players. If they perform in the SANFL then they are generally rewarded when the opportunities arise (frequently due to injury moreso than players being dropped because of poor form). To this point we had rucks (who take longer to develop anyway), mature aged midfielders, and VB & Knights. Precisely who else did you expect them to play?

I agree. you are spot on. 100% that is our approach, and under that framework there is little flexibility for anything else to have occurred.

however, is our system and framework absolute? do our results suggest that it is unassailably the only way to go? this is the one size fits all approach I am increasingly sceptical about.

we have undeniably changed our approach in 2008 - and who knows in a couple of years we may be saying that was the wrong thing to do - but as an example (in my opinion) there is no way jacky gets a game for us in 2005 or 2006.

Given the number of youngsters with injury concerns, 2007 was actually a pretty good outcome. VB, Porps, Knights & Griffin all became regular members of the senior team. Maric, Vince, Campbell & Meesen were all given a decent taste. Most of the others were unavailable for selection, either through injury or disciplinary reasons. Once again, what more did you want to see?

i think it's arguable that were all given a decent taste. what's more, that's a list of mature draftees and draftees from a good few years earlier.

By 2008 our entire list is almost unrecognisable from what Neil Craig inherited back in 2004. In that time there have been 23 draftees (21x ND, 1x PSD, 2x rookie promotions) arrive at the club, only 3 of which have already departed. That doesn't include players received during trade week (Symes, Moran, Thompson). At the start of the year, our 22nd most experienced player was Brad Symes who had played 20 games. We had 11 players on our list who were yet to make their debut (3 have debuted to date), with only 7 players falling outside these two categories.

I think that's a fair statement of fact. but to be honest, I'm not entirely sure what I should take from that. I'd note one of the reasons for the few rookie promotions is our focus on mature bodies we could call on if injury required. an approach we appear to have discarded.

we have been very inactive at the trade table, but have had some success with later draft picks and mature bodies. it's the earlier, higher talent picks that haven't set the world on fire.

2008 was always going to be different, because of the depth of cuts we made last year. Put bluntly, almost ANY injury this year is going to result in kids getting a game - whether they are ready for it or not. We don't HAVE the "depth players" this year that we have had in the past. 2009 is going to be even more remarkable, as we lose the likes of Bassett, Biglands, Shirley and possibly Edwards all to retirement.

yup. but we made the decision to balance our list in such a manner.

This much IS true. This one boils down to philosophy. The AFC believe that players should show solid SANFL form before they get promoted. You believe that some players are inherently better suited to the different style of play in the AFL. You may be right. The AFC appear to disagree with you though.

what you say is inarguable. it is equally inarguable that SOME players are better suited to the faster face of afl. what isn't known is if any of our players are in that category. that's the point I'm speculating on.

The AFC has diagreed in the past, and to be fair I tended to support that view. they're shifting their position, as am I. :D

Hawthorn went about their rebuild in a very different manner to the AFC. The Hawks recognised that they had very few players, especially amongst their mid-range to senior levels, who were capable of taking them to a flag. As a result, they traded and/or delisted almost the entire top half of their list. They brought the kids in early, knowing that they would sink initially, but would eventually learn to be very vigourous swimmers indeed. There aren't actually all that many Hawks kids who were thrown in the deep end - Franklin, Roughead, Lewis and Dawson are pretty much the only ones which spring to mind. The others were all given at least 12 months in the VFL to tune their skills, as the AFC do. The difference is that they brought a lot more youngsters onto heir list at that time, as we are doing now.

they did adopt a different approach, as did Collingwood. Both however took a more aggressive stance that appears to have paid off for them. to some degree though, the change in the AFC's own approach must be seen as at least a partial repudiation of their old policies and view.

The price they paid for this was that they fell dramatically down the bottom of the ladder, earning priority draft picks in consectutive years.

The AFC do not intend to ever qualify for priority draft picks, preferring to do our rebuilding while maintaining a position in the top-8. Doing it this way requires a more gradual turnover, replacing senior players with youngsters, which is what we have seen.

our admiration for Collingwood's turn around has been effusive and public.

Maybe, maybe not. If Watts & Meesen had done enough to warrant being selected more often then I'm sure they would have been. Pfeiffer's non-selection was not football related.

again, what you're saying is that if they conformed to our philosophy at the time they would have been selected. which is true.

I'm not sure there has been a shift in approach. I think it's more a case of there being fewer experienced players to choose from, so the kids are getting more games by default. Then again, it has been good to see those who ARE demanding selection getting selected.

I don't think that's accidental or unintended.

Crow-mo

22 Apr 2008, 22:15

Then again, its worth considering that this damage can also take place in the AFL, probably even more so considering the higher scrutiny on people in the big leagues. If a player were to be played before they really were ready, and fail spectacularly, their entire career could be blown (see Zac Dawson).

that is absolutely true. I think I made mention of this (or intended to) that it can be damaging to rush players in. they can get injuries, develop bad habits etc etc.

it's just that it is only one side of the coin, some players might be better suited to an earlier introduction - and the emotional side is just one reason.

I am just speculating and arguing against a fixed systematic approach (one as Carl points out, I was not always against). players are different, and we should treat each one of their own character, abilities and traits.

Vader

22 Apr 2008, 22:52

Gotta say this is the best debate I've ever seen you involved with Crow-Mo, well played.:thumbsu:

What it all boils down to is a battle of philosophies.

The AFC have long subscribed to the theory that a player should get runs on the board in the SANFL before they get promoted to the AFL. Within this framework it is hard to fault the way the AFC have developed and introduced their youngsters.

You say that they have changed their philosophy this year. I don't see it myself. Jacky got a chance because we had no fit players ahead of him in the queue. Of all our available players (to replace Campbell), every single one of them would have been debutants except for Maric. Jacky was at the head of a VERY short list.

Dangerfield will probably play this week, his form having demanded selection.

As I see it, the kids (Tippett, Mackay, Vince, Douglas) all took their chances in the MMC - they demanded to be picked and they have been rewarded. No change in the philosophy. We're going to see more kids debut later this year - most likely Dangerfield, Otten, Walker, Gallman and maybe Kite. They will all have earned their positions by playing well in the SANFL. The fact that we've turned the list over to such a significant degree has also helped by moving them further up the queue, with fewer experienced players ahead of them.

What you propose is a different philosophy, where some players may be rushed into the side without significant SANFL form behind them, hoping that they will perform better at the higher level.

I can see where you're coming from and I don't entirely disagree with it.

Sellar may well be a reasonable example, struggling with poor delivery from the Gleleng midfield and competing against an abundance of other tall options in their forward line. He may well perform better in the AFL, fed by the Crows midfield with only 1 or 2 tall forwards competing for the ball. Additionally, he'd be more familiar with the Crows forward structures, so you'd hope he wouldn't be competing directly for the same ball (though we've all noted the number of times KMack & Tippett have spoiled each other this year).

Meesen may well have been another - but he's gone now so we'll never know.

I also agree that Collingwood should be the model we espouse to emulate, rather than Hawthorn. Unlike the Hawks, the pies managed to introduce a significant number of kids (9 debutants in 2007) whilst maintaining a successful record. That's what we should be aiming to achieve.

Crow-mo

22 Apr 2008, 22:56

Gotta say this is the best debate I've ever seen you involved with Crow-Mo, well played.:thumbsu:

you are relatively new here ;)

Carl Spackler

23 Apr 2008, 08:58

meesen just strikes me as an example worth discussing. He was supposedly a ready to go, very talented, athletic ruckman/ruck rover type. what went wrong? 3 years and nothing. obviously we lost him a while back, and his confidence was shot. was that him, many say it was - did we contribute?
but it struck me, that the one size fits all approach appeared to be heavily imposed on him.
It is an interesting debating point. In 2005 van Berlo played quite a few games (can't remember exactly) in the Crows team. His form with South Adelaide wasn't anything special, what we heard from the AFC at the time was that he was fantastic on the track, displayed outstanding character etc. His form in the AFL wasn't anything special either, but we found (created?) a role for him that allowed him to play and not subtract from team performance.

Chicken or the egg.

Has van Berlo emerged as a good prospect for us because he is simply a good player, or did our treatment of him in 2005 contribute to the player he has become? If he had been left with South Adelaide and been made to earn his place in the AFC team through a string of best-on-ground performances then would he be a walk up start for our starting 18 as he is now?

crowsup

23 Apr 2008, 10:44

It is an interesting debating point. In 2005 van Berlo played quite a few games (can't remember exactly) in the Crows team. His form with South Adelaide wasn't anything special, what we heard from the AFC at the time was that he was fantastic on the track, displayed outstanding character etc. His form in the AFL wasn't anything special either, but we found (created?) a role for him that allowed him to play and not subtract from team performance.

Chicken or the egg.

Has van Berlo emerged as a good prospect for us because he is simply a good player, or did our treatment of him in 2005 contribute to the player he has become? If he had been left with South Adelaide and been made to earn his place in the AFC team through a string of best-on-ground performances then would he be a walk up start for our starting 18 as he is now?

But isn't the high-lighted part the crux of the matter? His potential was detected by the club at training. It doesn't matter if the ability is manifested in a sanfl game or at training. As long as it is noticed.

Unfortunately, some supporters believe that the club does not have the ability to do that. Some insist that the club should play the new draftees regardless of their form.

marvin

23 Apr 2008, 10:47

Gotta say this is the best debate I've ever seen you involved with Crow-Mo, well played.:thumbsu:

I've really enjoyed the discussion. Well played both teams. :thumbsu:

Meesen may well have been another - but he's gone now so we'll never know.

Meesen fascinates me. I was one calling for his early immersion in 2005, after a useful pre-season introduction, especially when Clarke was Biglands was doubtful. I went to watch him play for Sandringham on Sunday, and while I have no doubt he's got the athletic skills to make it, he lacks intensity. He looked like a bloke who doesn't really enjoy footy. How much of that is because he's missing that X-factor, how much is because he's struggling to come to terms with slipping from being a standout junior 4 years ago to warming the bench in the VFL, and how much because he's worn down by the system (ours and Melbourne's) I really don't know.

I also agree that Collingwood should be the model we espouse to emulate, rather than Hawthorn. Unlike the Hawks, the pies managed to introduce a significant number of kids (9 debutants in 2007) whilst maintaining a successful record. That's what we should be aiming to achieve.

Don't underestimate how firmly Collingwood put the cue in the rack a few years ago to get the cream of the crop (Pendlebury and Thomas for two). Also, of their 9 debutants, I wonder how many will show the benefit of their early promotion long term? Nichols, Cook and Cox have yet to reappear, Goldsack and Clarke appear to have the 2nd year blues, Toovey wasn't showing much when he went down, Dick has stuffed a knee, and Stanley and Reid are somewhere between the seniors and the magoos.

Crow-mo

23 Apr 2008, 19:34

But isn't the high-lighted part the crux of the matter? His potential was detected by the club at training. It doesn't matter if the ability is manifested in a sanfl game or at training. As long as it is noticed.

Unfortunately, some supporters believe that the club does not have the ability to do that. Some insist that the club should play the new draftees regardless of their form.

your post doesn't make sense.

on one hand you say the club spotted his talent and potential at training (fine), and you claim that some say the club doesn't have the ability to do that.

firstly no one has said that.
secondly no one has said the club should play the new draftees regardless of form. you seem to have misread or oversimplified the arguments.

lastly, in meesen's example of course we recognised his talent, we drafted him in the top 10!!!!!

Crow-mo

23 Apr 2008, 19:52

Meesen fascinates me. I was one calling for his early immersion in 2005, after a useful pre-season introduction, especially when Clarke was Biglands was doubtful. I went to watch him play for Sandringham on Sunday, and while I have no doubt he's got the athletic skills to make it, he lacks intensity. He looked like a bloke who doesn't really enjoy footy. How much of that is because he's missing that X-factor, how much is because he's struggling to come to terms with slipping from being a standout junior 4 years ago to warming the bench in the VFL, and how much because he's worn down by the system (ours and Melbourne's) I really don't know.

and you know what, you hit the nail on the head. we had him on the list for 3 years, made a major committment and investment in acquiring his rights, and after all that time we still don't know.

how do we not have any real heads up about what he would and would not respond to? instead all we have is blame attribution, which is cold comfort for the significance of the investment.

fightingdreamer88

23 Apr 2008, 20:25

Don't underestimate how firmly Collingwood put the cue in the rack a few years ago to get the cream of the crop (Pendlebury and Thomas for two). Also, of their 9 debutants, I wonder how many will show the benefit of their early promotion long term? Nichols, Cook and Cox have yet to reappear, Goldsack and Clarke appear to have the 2nd year blues, Toovey wasn't showing much when he went down, Dick has stuffed a knee, and Stanley and Reid are somewhere between the seniors and the magoos.

I was thinking about this the other day - how many youngsters are actually benefiting in the medium to long run from heavy early exposure? Here's a few players who spring to mind:

Rivers - Rising Star winner who now struggles all the time with injury and from what I hear isn't producing standout football.

Pearce - Rising Star winner who has been terrible so far this year year, finds himself back in the magoos now.

Westhoff - struggling to recapture form this year.

Collingwood contingent Crow-mo mentioned - nearly all struggling.

Hurn - West Coast supporters feel he isn't taking big steps.

I say horses for courses but still...food for thought.

Messiah

24 Apr 2008, 11:24

Gotta say this is the best debate I've ever seen you involved with Crow-Mo, well played.:thumbsu:

At least its not just a supercilious one liner for a change.:cool:

SAINTS 4 07 FLAG

24 Apr 2008, 11:56

Matt Rendell is the ex st kilda bloke yeah ?

Stiffy_18

24 Apr 2008, 12:02

Matt Rendell is the ex st kilda bloke yeah ?
Ex St. Kilda assistant coach

Campbell's Chunky

24 Apr 2008, 14:38

Matt Rendell is the ex st kilda bloke yeah ?
Recruiting and coaching are two different things.

He looks too nice to be a coach.

Crow-mo

24 Apr 2008, 18:10

At least its not just a superciliou