Guys who are ready to take the next step

[bergholt]

I'm not a big SuperCoacher but I have a theory about players I thought you guys might interested in.

I reckon young guys are usually ready to take a big step up between about 40 and 60 games.

This makes sense to me when I glance at a few St Kilda players. Jack Steven was at 51 games at the start of 2013, and that was the year he became A-grade. David Armitage was on 50 at the start of 2011, and that year he lifted his disposal average from 15 to 20. Going back a bit further, Riewoldt was on 50 games at the start of 2004, that year he got 17 Brownlow votes.

I'm sure there are plenty who don't follow that pattern (Selwood types) but I wonder if there's enough there for it to be useful in finding guys who could be handy picks at a reasonable price.

If so, here's the list of who it would be this year. This is the guys between 40 and 60 games who are also less than 25 at the start of the year.

Adelaide: Brown (46 games total/22 games last year)
Brisbane: Green (54/20), Harwood (56/14), Lester (52/14), Golby (51/12)
Carlton: none
Collingwood: Keeffe (40/18), Elliott (52/17), Fasolo (52/12), Adams (43/12), Sinclair (44/5)
Essendon: Colyer (46/12)
Fremantle: Sutcliffe (47/24), Neale (46/23), Walters (50/8)
Geelong: Blicavs (45/23), Murdoch (42/23), Stanley (58/19), Caddy (58/16)
Gold Coast: Lynch (60/22), O'Meara (44/22), May (53/19), Thompson (53/19), Matera (55/16), Hall (46/16), Dixon (49/14), Russell (56/13)
GWS: D Smith (59/21), Treloar (58/20), Kennedy (54/20), Tomlinson (45/19), Shiel (50/17), Bugg (49/17), Greene (53/15), Cameron (51/14), Coniglio (44/14), Hampton (46/11)
Hawthorn: Duryea (41/23), Hill (51/22)
Melbourne: McDonald (60/21)
North Melbourne: Black (47/25), Mullett (48/17), Jacobs (47/14), Harper (40/0)
Port Adelaide: Pittard (56/25), Wines (49/25), Polec (40/24), Jonas (56/22), O'Shea (58/12), Moore (50/9)
Richmond: Grimes (45/19), Batchelor (52/13)
St Kilda: Newnes (47/22), Weller (48/16)
Sydney: Rampe (48/25), Rohan (43/16), Johnson (45/0)
West Coast: Cripps (50/19), Sheppard (59/14), Yeo (40/13), Lucas (42/7)
Western Bulldogs: Stevens (50/20), Wallis (56/13)

Obviously this is a general rule so I wouldn't take it as gospel. Pick Kane Lucas - for instance - at your peril. But I wonder if this is a useful list to glance over before picking mid-priced guys? Thoughts? Am I completely off track here?

 

[bergholt]

Also, this might also give a pointer to how well a side is going to go. If lots of guys take the next step at the same time the team can improve fast, as we've seen with Port. Which is basically another way of saying LOL Carlton. Ellard and White are their only two players in this games bracket but they didn't make the list because they're 26 by the start of the year. Casboult and Rowe are just below the games cutoff but they're too old as well. Not much middle there - looks even worse than the Saints list.

 

[Werewolf]

I have a little theory about 4th year players stepping up, but in reality it can happen earlier or later. If you think a player can increase their average score from the previous year, they're generally a decent choice

 

[timtamWB]

Poor Carlton Not that I feel sorry for them. It's actually quite amusing.

On the Bulldogs front, Stevens could explode or he could stagnate. It would be an absolutely huge gamble. And one that's not worth the risk.

I love Wallis, but he's not an SC type player. And there's a high chance he'll still be a tagger.

Bontempelli is good enough to go bang and jump up to premium status. He doesn't look out of place at all and can play literally anywhere on the field, and his gamestyle is suited to supercoach.

Biggs is one who could be a good scorer, but as a midfielder he's not worth it unfortunately. As a defender, he'd be a popular pick and quite rightly so.

If you're looking for a left field option, Nathan Hrovat isn't a bad selection. He's capable of getting the ball and being very damaging with it, as well as having the opportunity to bag a few goals, and have lots of inside 50's. It'd be a risk, but one that could pay off. He's just a natural footballer.

 

[MightyMark]

Caddy is Geelongs best bet, but who knows.

Blicavs and/or Stanley might end up in defence, and Murdoch hasn't shown enough to say he will step up into the big leagues yet.

GWS and GC are looking good for the next few years, a lot of those guys should go bang this year. Port too, which is a worry.

 

[Krujan]

Also, this might also give a pointer to how well a side is going to go. If lots of guys take the next step at the same time the team can improve fast, as we've seen with Port. Which is basically another way of saying LOL Carlton. Ellard and White are their only two players in this games bracket but they didn't make the list because they're 26 by the start of the year. Casboult and Rowe are just below the games cutoff but they're too old as well. Not much middle there - looks even worse than the Saints list.

LOL under your logic GWS will win the flag easily this year since they have 10 guys who have played between 40-60 games.

You make it sound like Carltons overall list is old which is not the case. We have gun youngsters coming through who will be in that 40-60 game bracket by the end this year.

Casboult 36
Docherty 29
Bell 29
Menzel 26

What we do have that Doggies, GWS etc don't have are a core group of players who are at their peak (25-28 yrs) to keep the team competitive at least until the younger players & draftees from the last 2 years come through.

 

[Krujan]

Poor Carlton Not that I feel sorry for them. It's actually quite amusing.

On the Bulldogs front, Stevens could explode or he could stagnate. It would be an absolutely huge gamble. And one that's not worth the risk.

I love Wallis, but he's not an SC type player. And there's a high chance he'll still be a tagger.

Bontempelli is good enough to go bang and jump up to premium status. He doesn't look out of place at all and can play literally anywhere on the field, and his gamestyle is suited to supercoach.

Biggs is one who could be a good scorer, but as a midfielder he's not worth it unfortunately. As a defender, he'd be a popular pick and quite rightly so.

If you're looking for a left field option, Nathan Hrovat isn't a bad selection. He's capable of getting the ball and being very damaging with it, as well as having the opportunity to bag a few goals, and have lots of inside 50's. It'd be a risk, but one that could pay off. He's just a natural footballer.

You feel sorry for Carlton yet you list spud a like Stevens, plodder in Wallis, Biggs, who has played only 3 career games & Hrovat who has done * all in few career games.

Only gun youngster you listed is Bonte who could be a SC gun sooner than later.

 

[cdcanman]

Also, this might also give a pointer to how well a side is going to go. If lots of guys take the next step at the same time the team can improve fast, as we've seen with Port. Which is basically another way of saying LOL Carlton. Ellard and White are their only two players in this games bracket but they didn't make the list because they're 26 by the start of the year. Casboult and Rowe are just below the games cutoff but they're too old as well. Not much middle there - looks even worse than the Saints list.

This notion of 'age profiles' and 'games played' models that create 'premiership windows' is complete, media driven bollocks. Created by so-called experts to fill column space in newspapers. Don't fall into the trap of reading any more into it than that. There is no one way to build a list. There is no one model to ready a side for premiership success. Each team's 'build' is unique to the circumstances that they find themselves in. Any team that tries to copy or follow how another team has done it, trying to create a similar age/games played profile is destined for failure. Just my opinion.
Your initial post relating to a SC theory about possible break-out players was an interesting read though. Always good hearing how others select their teams, evaluate talent/risk. Maybe should have left it at that though. Again, just my opinion

 

[Ashton Agar]

Just waiting for David Zaharakis to move into the elite category. Just lacks a bit of consistency.

 

[MightyMark]

This notion of 'age profiles' and 'games played' models that create 'premiership windows' is complete, media driven bollocks. Created by so-called experts to fill column space in newspapers. Don't fall into the trap of reading any more into it than that. There is no one way to build a list. There is no one model to ready a side for premiership success. Each team's 'build' is unique to the circumstances that they find themselves in. Any team that tries to copy or follow how another team has done it, trying to create a similar age/games played profile is destined for failure. Just my opinion.
Your initial post relating to a SC theory about possible break-out players was an interesting read though. Always good hearing how others select their teams, evaluate talent/risk. Maybe should have left it at that though. Again, just my opinion

Wouldn't call it bollocks. Whilst bringing in players to fill specific roles, the core of any premiership team is good recruiting over the course of a few years, and having a group of young players come through together and peak around the same time.

Geelong's run was built on the back of the 1999 and 2001 draft where we took 10 of our key players in J. Corey, Enright, Chapman, Ling, Hunt, Bartel, Johnson, Kelly, Rooke and Ablett.

Having some quality older players (Milburn, Scarlett, Harley and Mooney) helps, and so does some smart recruiting (Ottens)

It's hard for teams to do what Hawthorn has done, and recruit the bulk of their team from current players.

But a couple of good years of recruiting is enough to give any team the base they need to make a run for a flag.

Age profiles have their merits, because it takes players a few years to build their bodies and fitness up, and to perfect their skills and roles.

 

[BILC]

Neither from the Tigers are worth a look in.

Grimes & Batchelor will probably play lock down roles when they play, Grimes has played a sweeper role before but with that and his injury history the risk is too high. Can't really say I like anyone from that list, their all at that awkward price where you might as well just go with a rookie.

 

[MightyMark]

Neither from the Tigers are worth a look in.

Grimes & Batchelor will probably play lock down roles when they play, Grimes has played a sweeper role before but with that and his injury history the risk is too high. Can't really say I like anyone from that list, their all at that awkward price where you might as well just go with a rookie.

Polec, Rampe, Newnes, Fasolo, Cripps, D. Smith, T. Lynch and Neale all look decent.

Wines, O'Meara, Treloar, Greene and Caddy all on the cusp of elite in the next year or so.

 

[cdcanman]

Wouldn;t call it bollocks. Whilst bringing in players to fill specific roles, the core of any premiership team is good recruiting over the course of a few years, and having a group of young players come through together and peak around the same time.

Geelong's run was built on the back of the 1999 and 2001 draft where we took 10 of our key players in J. Corey, Enright, Chapman, Ling, Hunt, Bartel, Johnson, Kelly, Rooke and Ablett.

Having some quality older players (Milburn, Scarlett, Harley and Mooney) helps, and so does some smart recruiting (Ottens)

It's hard for teams to do what Hawthorn has done, and recruit the bulk of their team from current players.

But a couple of good years of recruiting is enough to give any team the base they need to make a run for a flag.

Age profiles have their merits, because it takes players a few years to build their bodies and fitness up, and to perfect their skills and roles.

I understand what you are saying. Despite your assertions to the contrary, Hawthorn's recent success was also built through the draft primarily. A couple of homerun years, and nearly a decade of consistent draft success.
Your point about 'having a group of young players come through together and peak around the same time' just occurs naturally when you draft well doesn't it? When the majority of your draft selections were good ones, players good enough to play 150+ games? I don't think it is any more complicated than that. Clubs hope that every player they pick is successful and turns out to be a good selection.
My point is more about the notion that seems to be prevalent in some circles at the moment that successful teams need to have X number players who have played between 20-50 games, and X number between 50-80 games, and X number more than 150 games, and so on, in order to be in their 'premiership window'. There is no one model to success. Plenty of successful teams shoot many a whole in such simple theories or models such as these.

 

[BILC]

Polec, Rampe, Newnes, Fasolo, Cripps, D. Smith, T. Lynch and Neale all look decent.

Wines, O'Meara, Treloar, Greene and Caddy all on the cusp of elite in the next year or so.

Wines is actually in my team.

Wouldn't touch any of the others, just better options out there. Don't understand the Newnes hype, scores weren't fantastic last year, one of those guys everyones picking because he's apparently tearing up the track...

 

[MightyMark]

I understand what you are saying. Despite your assertions to the contrary, Hawthorn's recent success was also built through the draft primarily. A couple of homerun years, and nearly a decade of consistent draft success.
Your point about 'having a group of young players come through together and peak around the same time' just occurs naturally when you draft well doesn't it? When the majority of your draft selections were good ones, players good enough to play 150+ games? I don't think it is any more complicated than that. Clubs hope that every player they pick is successful and turns out to be a good selection.
My point is more about the notion that seems to be prevalent in some circles at the moment that successful teams need to have X number players who have played between 20-50 games, and X number between 50-80 games, and X number more than 150 games, and so on, in order to be in their 'premiership window'. There is no one model to success. Plenty of successful teams shoot many a whole in such simple theories or models such as these.

Yeah Hawthorn had a good run, but I didn't put them in the same bracket as Geelong, as they were a little more spread out, and half their team was traded in. The premise is the same, Roughhead, Lewis and Franklin all came in 2004 which has handy for them.

Good drafting is always the key but just as important is the ability to develop the talent (look at Melbourne).

The rule of having players in certain brackets is fairly generalized, if you could fill your team with 30 year olds like Ablett, Bartel, Hodge, Mitchell, SJ etc you would, but its hard for players to keep up the standard to that age. Having players in their mid 20's with a few season under their belt is easier to aim for, and gives you a better chance of having 10+ players peaking at the same time.

The only model to success is good recruiting, good development, good structure and good player management. A lot has to happen to get it all right though, very few teams manage to do it. It isn't luck that see's teams stay up the top for several years these days (although a good injury run is luck we could all use)

 

[MightyMark]

Wines is actually in my team.

Wouldn't touch any of the others, just better options out there. Don't understand the Newnes hype, scores weren't fantastic last year, one of those guys everyones picking because he's apparently tearing up the track...

He is in the bracket for a break out. 50 games, 22, settled in a role and showed enough last year to say he is capable of further improvement.

nothing is for certain, but he has all the hallmarks of a break out year, and really all he has to do is manage mid 90's and he will be a steal. Less pressure than most break out contenders.

 

[ScrewInStuds]

You feel sorry for Carlton yet you list spud a like Stevens, plodder in Wallis, Biggs, who has played only 3 career games & Hrovat who has done **** all in few career games.

Only gun youngster you listed is Bonte who could be a SC gun sooner than later.

In all fairness, if Biggs was playing at Carlton and not Sydney I reckon he would be deeply entrenched in your best 22 by now (see Everitt, who only got a real run at it with the Swans in 2013 due to injury).

With that said, I think that the BF circle jerk about how bad Carlton's list is has gone a bit over the top - I personally see them finishing higher than Collingwood this year.

 

[BILC]

He is in the bracket for a break out. 50 games, 22, settled in a role and showed enough last year to say he is capable of further improvement.

nothing is for certain, but he has all the hallmarks of a break out year, and really all he has to do is manage mid 90's and he will be a steal. Less pressure than most break out contenders.

Do you really think he can average mid 90's?

No doubt he will improve, but to risk a premium defender spot on a guy in a team who's likely to finish on the bottom of the ladder to raise his average 15 points? Has all the hallmarks of a round 4 panic sideways trade I think.

 

[timtamWB]

You feel sorry for Carlton yet you list spud a like Stevens, plodder in Wallis, Biggs, who has played only 3 career games & Hrovat who has done **** all in few career games.

Only gun youngster you listed is Bonte who could be a SC gun sooner than later.

I mentioned Wallis and Stevens only because they were in the opening post.

Biggs I mentioned because he's just a bit more expensive than rookie price, but said he's not worth it as a midfielder.

As for Hrovat, if you think he's done * all I think you need to watch the Dogs more.

 

[KardiniaPark]

Caddy is Geelongs best bet, but who knows.

Blicavs and/or Stanley might end up in defence, and Murdoch hasn't shown enough to say he will step up into the big leagues yet.

GWS and GC are looking good for the next few years, a lot of those guys should go bang this year. Port too, which is a worry.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Blicavs on a wing permanently. He needs to be released, his run is wasted playing deep back and that's why he was recruited. I'm seriously considering him. He's actually in my team right now as R2. In before toxic I think he's got more upside than Kruezer/Berger/Witts at the same price because of this midfield time.

I think he's going to get an opportunity to get the ball in his hands a lot more often, two years in the system will have allowed him to understand space and movement a lot better and he can pick up some cheaper touches. I had a look last night but from memory his average in the last six games last year was around 95? Including two tonnes in the two finals. I might not have the courage to keep him but it did allow me to go Bellchambers to Bennell.

 

[toxic]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Blicavs on a wing permanently. He needs to be released, his run is wasted playing deep back and that's why he was recruited. I'm seriously considering him. He's actually in my team right now as R2. In before toxic I think he's got more upside than Kruezer/Berger/Witts at the same price because of this midfield time.

I think he's going to get an opportunity to get the ball in his hands a lot more often, two years in the system will have allowed him to understand space and movement a lot better and he can pick up some cheaper touches. I had a look last night but from memory his average in the last six games last year was around 95? Including two tonnes in the two finals. I might not have the courage to keep him but it did allow me to go Bellchambers to Bennell.

OMG

 

[MightyMark]

Do you really think he can average mid 90's?

No doubt he will improve, but to risk a premium defender spot on a guy in a team who's likely to finish on the bottom of the ladder to raise his average 15 points? Has all the hallmarks of a round 4 panic sideways trade I think.

I do, I think he can, whether or not he will is a different story, ere go the risk factor.

The hallmarks for a break out player and very similar to that of a round 4 panic trade to be honest. The whole reason I only ever take one or 2 risks to start with each year. Anymore and you asking for trouble.

The backline this year is shot, so I am more comfortable taking a risk, because there are no set guns in the backs, its all based on opinion at the moment.

 

[MightyMark]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Blicavs on a wing permanently. He needs to be released, his run is wasted playing deep back and that's why he was recruited. I'm seriously considering him. He's actually in my team right now as R2. In before toxic I think he's got more upside than Kruezer/Berger/Witts at the same price because of this midfield time.

I think he's going to get an opportunity to get the ball in his hands a lot more often, two years in the system will have allowed him to understand space and movement a lot better and he can pick up some cheaper touches. I had a look last night but from memory his average in the last six games last year was around 95? Including two tonnes in the two finals. I might not have the courage to keep him but it did allow me to go Bellchambers to Bennell.

One of Stanley or Blicavs will end up down back. Blicavs can still use his run out of the backline, Mackie and Enright wont be around forever.

 

[KardiniaPark]

One of Stanley or Blicavs will end up down back. Blicavs can still use his run out of the backline, Mackie and Enright wont be around forever.

I think it's futile trying to turn him into a defender. I guess we'll see come nab cup.

 

[toxic]

I think it's futile trying to turn him into a defender. I guess we'll see come nab cup.

He'll be your R1 by season start, all your rucks will have some bloody injury by then