2015 Lions Reserves and NEAFL thread

Remove this Banner Ad

MSB ROYS said:
May just run out of time through...
Click to expand...
Look, all we need to do is to drag a 19th GWS player onto the field and call for a headcount to get their points reset back to zero ;)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

And the coaches would be happy with Evans' effort too.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Cockliff38 said:
Not sure about anyone else but I'm impressed by Hipwood's numbers from the ressies game
Click to expand...

He was playing down back and the ball would have spent a lot of time down there. It does seem he's showing more than Watts and Hammer when playing reserves which is a good sign.
 
jackess said:
He was playing down back and the ball would have spent a lot of time down there. It does seem he's showing more than Watts and Hammer when playing reserves which is a good sign.
Click to expand...
Fair point. But equal leading disposal getter for the Lions is a good sign, especially for a tall.

Note *Just going to overlook the fact that 18 was the most touches any of our players got
 
Crusha said:
Just some thoughts for discussion on how we best manage our players that don't make Senior selection each week, especially with a view to their development.

Currently we field a side in the NEAFL, with restrictions limiting us to 15 listed players on the field at any one time. That means a minimum of 3 non-listed players are required each game (actually 4 or 5 given that the 3 can't be expected to be on for every minute), currently sourced from under-age “top up” players.

Whilst this arrangement does offer some valuable experience for junior players, it does not provide the best of “environments” for our developing players, especially when the “top ups” are not of the highest possible quality (i.e. when the Qld u/18's are not available), or when there is no continuity as to who is available.

Add to that the rumours of an AFL Reserves competition possibly being revived in the not too distant future, I believe we should be adopting a strategy similar to that of the “stand alone” sides” in the VFL (i.e. those AFL clubs with virtual Reserves teams).

Their lists are 'topped up” with players who have had either AFL or VFL experience (or some other Senior level experience,) with the occasional future star thrown in (usually under the 23rd player rule). I'm not sure of the financial inducements made available to these non-listed players, but I'm guessing they would be of a similar part time player arrangement to that offered to players enticed to the non-AFL clubs in the NEAFL.

Accepting that our financial position is not the best at the moment, I don't see it beyond the realms of possibility that, with the support of our Corporate Sponsors, we could provide a combination of Football/Employment/Educational Assistance inducements for 4 or 5 players that fit that mold. If clearly thought out, 1 or more of these positions could be offered to recently retired AFL players looking for an opportunity to keep playing at a high level and dabble in some sort of part time coaching position to get them started on that path (e.g. with Lions Reserves/Lions Academy/QLD u/18's/Coaching clinics for local Junior Clubs etc etc).

For those seeing this suggestion as a negative for development of young talent, the numbers suggested would still require some “top up” players to be available each week at a minimum of 2, and possibly more dependant on the level of injured players on the Senior/Rookie lists.


The above suggestion, or something similar, is far better for listed player development, I believe, than that which we encountered this year when we often trotted out 11,12 or 13 listed players teamed up with a different set of juniors out of their depth (no fault of their own), who, I am guessing, most likely were introduced for the first time in the sheds before the game (granted there were a few “regulars”).


Again, just some thoughts for discussion.
Click to expand...

An old post, but somewhat relevant after yesterday.

Four or five players may not have made a lot of difference yesterday in particular, given our lack of listed players, but I can't see how the situation was beneficial for the development of those involved.
Something similar to above is essential if we are to provide a development environment anywhere near equal to that which the clubs in the "heartland" states make available.
New facilities are necessary, especially to aid in the recruitment of high end talent to the Club and player retention. But of more importance (to my mind anyway) is the development of our young players. They do not elect to come here ("because we have great facilities"), they are drafted, and we need to provide a better development program/environment than we have at present.
Situations like yesterday also do nothing for players hoping to work their way back into the Senior squad (eg Golby).

This is not meant as a criticism of the Club, per se, (we all know why we are in this situation [finances, etc.]), more as a discussion point for what we need to provide to improve.
 
GWS is a very strong NEAFL team. Against one of the lower Queensland sides the thrashing might have only been 100 points which wouldn't have looked so bad.
 
Mr Ripper said:
Gold Coast (with 10 top-ups) nearly beat them 2 weeks ago. It's not like they're streets ahead of us, all things being equal (ish).
Click to expand...
The difference is that most of the GWS players were high draft picks, are apparently highly rated(eg. Steele), or have a fair amount of AFL experience. It's a bit depressing looking at that GWS list. I'm not even sure who Liam Sumner is, but he was apparently a top 10 draft pick. We had Golby, a couple of late picks and a couple of rookie listed players.
 
carnthemlions said:
The difference is that most of the GWS players were high draft picks, are apparently highly rated(eg. Steele), or have a fair amount of AFL experience. It's a bit depressing looking at that GWS list. I'm not even sure who Liam Sumner is, but he was apparently a top 10 draft pick. We had Golby, a couple of late picks and a couple of rookie listed players.
Click to expand...

They also have a larger list size, so they have more AFL listed players. Balanced out a bit because they don't have many rookies from memory.
 
Quigley said:
I have heard it said that half of his disposals were from kicking it to himself from the kick ins. Not sure how close to the mark that was.
Click to expand...

I've always wondered why that's considered a kick and kicking from inside the square wasn't.

In the modern day when supercoach is so massive they should probably change it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mr Ripper
Resource Vintage Brisbane Bears/Lions Multi-Media Mega-Thread
2 3 4
Replies
87
Views
6K
McIvor
McIvor
McIvor
Non Lions Discussion 2024
64 65 66 67 68
Replies
2K
Views
46K
rye
rye
MSB ROYS
Women's Footy Lions AFLW 2024 (Season 9) Discussion
Replies
2
Views
342
The Flying Belgian
The Flying Belgian
ZoBlitz
  • Poll
Review Round 7, 2024 - GWS vs. Brisbane Lions
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
212
Views
8K
McIvor
McIvor
ZoBlitz
  • Locked
Game Day Round 7, 2024 - GWS vs. Brisbane Lions
25 26 27 28 29
Replies
710
Views
12K
ZoBlitz
ZoBlitz
Dalions
  • Locked
Preview Round 1 - Dockers v Lions
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
255
Views
9K
ZoBlitz
ZoBlitz
Section 5
  • Locked
Preview Lions v Kangaroos Gather Round 4
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
249
Views
7K
ZoBlitz
ZoBlitz

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top