Analysis Critical analysis of our current position.

[Proffessor]

It's all well and good to bash the club's philosophy in 'blowing it up' but nobody has, as yet, suggested a feasible alternative. It seems the general gist of the argument is, "We shouldn't have rebuilt, we should have.........." That's as far as the posts I've read on the topic have gone. Those that argue against making our list younger in the "McCartney years" are philosophically correct, I agree. Making your list younger is not a recipe for current success - what every side should be striving for. In practice, though, the shoddiest of shoddy list management backed us into a corner and made our position a difficult one.

In order to illustrate this I managed to track down our list from when McCartney took over in the back end of 2011.



Before McCartney had any input on the list at all, Hall, Hahn and Hudson* retired. Stack (poor player) and Schofield (personal reasons) were delisted. Josh Hill (who was very average) was traded after a mutual agreement to part ways. Of what remained, Djerkurra, Hill, Hooper, Howard, Markovic, Moles, Mulligan, Reid, Sherman, Skinner, Veszpremi, Barlow, Panos and Prato were never up to it or never wanted it enough. Addison was an average player. We're still waiting, years later, for Cordy to do something. Ditto Jones and Tutt. Roughead and Johannisen took a few years to fire. Williams, Cooney, Higgins and Wood had persistent injury troubles. That's 30 of those 44 players that were of little use to us before McCartney came to the club. You can't even name a best 22 without including a below average player.

Compounding this is the age situation. Of those not spoken about above, eight players were over the age of 28. One of these was Morris who didn't play a game the next year. Hargrave was well past his best and played only 12 games. Ditto Gilbee, who only played four. So, for starters, there's no way you can justify McCartney dragging us down between the end of 2011 and the start of 2012. Who the hell, from that list, was going to win us games?

My question is simple: how do you turn a list, with well over 50% of the players on it just about useless to us, into a competitive unit? How do you turn that list into one that competes for a flag in the short-term?

In principle I agree that these sorts of rebuilds should never be attempted - you should always be seeking to contend every year. But this only works if you manage the list appropriately over time, and draft well. During Eade's reign, we did neither. The list was in an atrocious state and we were hamstrung by it.

I don't agree with all elements of the rebuild - I believe we've gone too young, I don't believe we've been putting our best team out on the park and I don't think we did enough to add quality middle-aged players to our list during our rebuild - but the options that were available to us were few.

*Well, sorta.

Really Dannnnn? We had no alternative but to self-mutilate?

Of course we had alternatives. Firstly we could have better managed Hargrave, Gilbee and Sherman, so that they played more in 2012 and stuck around in 2013. We could have kept Lake so that we had at least 1 decent key position player in the team and/or negotiated a far better deal for him. We could have given Veszpremi, Grant and Cross more senior games because they should have easily been in our best 22. We could also have tried to play a better style of football rather than the flood back behind the ball rubbish that we played throughout McCartney's tenure. We could have selected better balanced teams so we didn't feel like we had to food back all the time. The list goes on.

Perhaps our young players would have developed better had we done some of these things. It is far too easy to blame the players that McCartney discarded for not being good enough. Eade clearly thought more highly of them than his successor, and I would value his judgement more than McCartney's.

Just like a poor tradesman blames his tools, a poor coach blames his players.

 

[BIG_BONTS]

Just like a poor tradesman blames his tools, a poor coach blames his players.

1) You do not address in simple terms how to deal with 30 out of 44 players that are not up to AFL standard. You can agree to disagree on managing one or two better or worse. Hell even if you keep Lake and take 7 off that we're still talking 50% of a list.

2) The perfect game plan would hide flaws better and maybe would be the difference between 1-2 wins but a personnel problem is a personnel problem. You can not fix this with hiring one person who is a coach. Good coach or bad coach.

3) Our list has had dramatic turnover in the last few years and whilst I disagree with going so young you cannot argue that somehow this list turnover is due to McCartney's poor game style and coaching ability. He is a well credentialed and respected coach in the industry who hasn't been out of a job for 5 minutes in the last 10-15 years.

4) I believe our current list has greater potential than our 2007-11 list. We still have some significant personnel holes with KPD and skillful and fast mids but overall there is some balance in the team - which has been McCartney's doing.

 

[Bazza Bulldog]

Perhaps our young players would have developed better had we done some of these things. It is far too easy to blame the players that McCartney discarded for not being good enough. Eade clearly thought more highly of them than his successor, and I would value his judgement more than McCartney's.

Just like a poor tradesman blames his tools, a poor coach blames his players.

Out of interest, who of the players (below) do your think could have made it had they been managed better (outside of Vespremi who you've already mentioned)?
Djerkurra, Hill, Hooper, Howard, Markovic, Moles, Mulligan, Reid, Sherman, Skinner, Veszpremi, Barlow, Panos and Prato

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Really Dannnnn? We had no alternative but to self-mutilate?

Of course we had alternatives. Firstly we could have better managed Hargrave, Gilbee and Sherman, so that they played more in 2012 and stuck around in 2013. We could have kept Lake so that we had at least 1 decent key position player in the team and/or negotiated a far better deal for him. We could have given Veszpremi, Grant and Cross more senior games because they should have easily been in our best 22. We could also have tried to play a better style of football rather than the flood back behind the ball rubbish that we played throughout McCartney's tenure. We could have selected better balanced teams so we didn't feel like we had to food back all the time. The list goes on.

Perhaps our young players would have developed better had we done some of these things. It is far too easy to blame the players that McCartney discarded for not being good enough. Eade clearly thought more highly of them than his successor, and I would value his judgement more than McCartney's.

Just like a poor tradesman blames his tools, a poor coach blames his players.

No, I believe we had alternatives - but I question their feasibility. I struggle to see how that list becomes a contender in the short term and I don't believe your alternative gives us a better future list. Perhaps Hargrave and Gilbee could have been better managed and maybe we should have done more to keep Lake; we also could have made more of an effort to keep Cross relevant. I disagree on Veszpremi, Grant and Sherman - but even if I didn't - do you really think those six players would turn us into contenders again? In 2012 Grant played 13 games and Cross 17 - reasonable numbers. Sherman played 10 and Veszpremi 8 - perhaps these could have been higher but it's not as if they weren't given any chances at all to prove their worth. Regardless, those six players aren't going to make enough of a difference to take us from bottom-feeders to contenders in 2012. Don't get me wrong, I think we could have done better than we did - and I agree with your suggestion that we could have selected better balanced teams - but I question how this helps us.

Given the large amount of older, already declining players that would have been in our best 22 if you had your way, the team that you've suggested was always going to decline post-2011/12 - even if we'd followed everything you've suggested. It's a non-negotiable - if players weren't to come through and take those spots away from those declining, we were going to fall away. So who was capable of taking those spots? We had few "young guns" - Ward, Harbrow, Wallis, Dahlhaus and Liberatore are pretty much the only ones who qualify; Higgins you could mount an argument for; but the rest of our youth was either in the 'not up to it' category or in the Cordy/Grant/Howard/Jones/Tutt mould. As such the limit to our ability in those years would have been a mediocre, middle-of-the-road team that would grant no reward other than middling draft picks. So is a future of those guys, plus the likes of Jones, Tutt, Grant, Sherman and Veszpremi, as well as some of those from my 'not up to it' list that magically develop and a few middling draft picks really better than a future of Stringer, Bontempelli, Macrae, Liberatore, Dahlhaus, Boyd, Smith, Crameri, Hunter, Hrovat, Wallis et al? Would we really be in a better place than we are now? Would we really have an extra premiership from the 2012-14 period? If you believe that the answer to both of these is no (as it is for me) then the argument for this alternative has little basis.

Your whole argument for this Utopian alternative hinges on that list of 'not up to it' players developing more than they ever did, and references back towards your distaste for McCartney and his methods. You suggest that if not for McCartney, these players would have become capable - but you make no distinction between development and talent, and instead assume that all failings are developmental. Which of the players that I deemed 'not up to it' showed any semblance of ability? Which of them showed enough to make you confident that they could make it? I look at that list and see talent in Veszpremi and Sherman and that's about it. Sydney couldn't get anything out of Vez and despite what he'd supposedly shown no team came knocking. Sherman is one that you can make a case for but he never looked comfortable at the Dogs, even under Eade. It's impossible to completely separate drafting and developing but you seem more than happy to completely rule out a failing in the drafting process in order to push it all onto the failings of the coach. Hawthorn undeniably know how to develop players - but if you were watching last night, they have some absolutely disastrous players on their list - some who have stagnated and some who just never looked up to it. Are these also the developmental failings of a poor coach? If not, then why are you prepared to give that degree of leniency to one team but not another?

I agree that the 2012-2014 period could have been better; I agree that we under-performed and I agree that this was largely due to both list strategy and poor selection philosophies - but I can't agree that this period of 'betterness' would have a) rewarded us with a flag, nor b) set us up for the future in a better way than we are now. And if neither of these occur, what exactly is our reward? How exactly is it a better solution?

 

[Pannalstaroz]

No, I believe we had alternatives - but I question their feasibility. I struggle to see how that list becomes a contender in the short term and I don't believe your alternative gives us a better future list. Perhaps Hargrave and Gilbee could have been better managed and maybe we should have done more to keep Lake; we also could have made more of an effort to keep Cross relevant. I disagree on Veszpremi, Grant and Sherman - but even if I didn't - do you really think those six players would turn us into contenders again? In 2012 Grant played 13 games and Cross 17 - reasonable numbers. Sherman played 10 and Veszpremi 8 - perhaps these could have been higher but it's not as if they weren't given any chances at all to prove their worth. Regardless, those six players aren't going to make enough of a difference to take us from bottom-feeders to contenders in 2012. Don't get me wrong, I think we could have done better than we did - and I agree with your suggestion that we could have selected better balanced teams - but I question how this helps us.

Given the large amount of older, already declining players that would have been in our best 22 if you had your way, the team that you've suggested was always going to decline post-2011/12 - even if we'd followed everything you've suggested. It's a non-negotiable - if players weren't to come through and take those spots away from those declining, we were going to fall away. So who was capable of taking those spots? We had few "young guns" - Ward, Harbrow, Wallis, Dahlhaus and Liberatore are pretty much the only ones who qualify; Higgins you could mount an argument for; but the rest of our youth was either in the 'not up to it' category or in the Cordy/Grant/Howard/Jones/Tutt mould. As such the limit to our ability in those years would have been a mediocre, middle-of-the-road team that would grant no reward other than middling draft picks. So is a future of those guys, plus the likes of Jones, Tutt, Grant, Sherman and Veszpremi, as well as some of those from my 'not up to it' list that magically develop and a few middling draft picks really better than a future of Stringer, Bontempelli, Macrae, Liberatore, Dahlhaus, Boyd, Smith, Crameri, Hunter, Hrovat, Wallis et al? Would we really be in a better place than we are now? Would we really have an extra premiership from the 2012-14 period? If you believe that the answer to both of these is no (as it is for me) then the argument for this alternative has little basis.

Your whole argument for this Utopian alternative hinges on that list of 'not up to it' players developing more than they ever did, and references back towards your distaste for McCartney and his methods. You suggest that if not for McCartney, these players would have become capable - but you make no distinction between development and talent, and instead assume that all failings are developmental. Which of the players that I deemed 'not up to it' showed any semblance of ability? Which of them showed enough to make you confident that they could make it? I look at that list and see talent in Veszpremi and Sherman and that's about it. Sydney couldn't get anything out of Vez and despite what he'd supposedly shown no team came knocking. Sherman is one that you can make a case for but he never looked comfortable at the Dogs, even under Eade. It's impossible to completely separate drafting and developing but you seem more than happy to completely rule out a failing in the drafting process in order to push it all onto the failings of the coach. Hawthorn undeniably know how to develop players - but if you were watching last night, they have some absolutely disastrous players on their list - some who have stagnated and some who just never looked up to it. Are these also the developmental failings of a poor coach? If not, then why are you prepared to give that degree of leniency to one team but not another?

I agree that the 2012-2014 period could have been better; I agree that we under-performed and I agree that this was largely due to both list strategy and poor selection philosophies - but I can't agree that this period of 'betterness' would have a) rewarded us with a flag, nor b) set us up for the future in a better way than we are now. And if neither of these occur, what exactly is our reward? How exactly is it a better solution?

^^this^^. Well written Dan.

 

[mambavino]

Absolutely spot on post Dan.

 

[BEaston]

No, I believe we had alternatives - but I question their feasibility. I struggle to see how that list becomes a contender in the short term and I don't believe your alternative gives us a better future list. Perhaps Hargrave and Gilbee could have been better managed and maybe we should have done more to keep Lake; we also could have made more of an effort to keep Cross relevant. I disagree on Veszpremi, Grant and Sherman - but even if I didn't - do you really think those six players would turn us into contenders again? In 2012 Grant played 13 games and Cross 17 - reasonable numbers. Sherman played 10 and Veszpremi 8 - perhaps these could have been higher but it's not as if they weren't given any chances at all to prove their worth. Regardless, those six players aren't going to make enough of a difference to take us from bottom-feeders to contenders in 2012. Don't get me wrong, I think we could have done better than we did - and I agree with your suggestion that we could have selected better balanced teams - but I question how this helps us.

Given the large amount of older, already declining players that would have been in our best 22 if you had your way, the team that you've suggested was always going to decline post-2011/12 - even if we'd followed everything you've suggested. It's a non-negotiable - if players weren't to come through and take those spots away from those declining, we were going to fall away. So who was capable of taking those spots? We had few "young guns" - Ward, Harbrow, Wallis, Dahlhaus and Liberatore are pretty much the only ones who qualify; Higgins you could mount an argument for; but the rest of our youth was either in the 'not up to it' category or in the Cordy/Grant/Howard/Jones/Tutt mould. As such the limit to our ability in those years would have been a mediocre, middle-of-the-road team that would grant no reward other than middling draft picks. So is a future of those guys, plus the likes of Jones, Tutt, Grant, Sherman and Veszpremi, as well as some of those from my 'not up to it' list that magically develop and a few middling draft picks really better than a future of Stringer, Bontempelli, Macrae, Liberatore, Dahlhaus, Boyd, Smith, Crameri, Hunter, Hrovat, Wallis et al? Would we really be in a better place than we are now? Would we really have an extra premiership from the 2012-14 period? If you believe that the answer to both of these is no (as it is for me) then the argument for this alternative has little basis.

Your whole argument for this Utopian alternative hinges on that list of 'not up to it' players developing more than they ever did, and references back towards your distaste for McCartney and his methods. You suggest that if not for McCartney, these players would have become capable - but you make no distinction between development and talent, and instead assume that all failings are developmental. Which of the players that I deemed 'not up to it' showed any semblance of ability? Which of them showed enough to make you confident that they could make it? I look at that list and see talent in Veszpremi and Sherman and that's about it. Sydney couldn't get anything out of Vez and despite what he'd supposedly shown no team came knocking. Sherman is one that you can make a case for but he never looked comfortable at the Dogs, even under Eade. It's impossible to completely separate drafting and developing but you seem more than happy to completely rule out a failing in the drafting process in order to push it all onto the failings of the coach. Hawthorn undeniably know how to develop players - but if you were watching last night, they have some absolutely disastrous players on their list - some who have stagnated and some who just never looked up to it. Are these also the developmental failings of a poor coach? If not, then why are you prepared to give that degree of leniency to one team but not another?

I agree that the 2012-2014 period could have been better; I agree that we under-performed and I agree that this was largely due to both list strategy and poor selection philosophies - but I can't agree that this period of 'betterness' would have a) rewarded us with a flag, nor b) set us up for the future in a better way than we are now. And if neither of these occur, what exactly is our reward? How exactly is it a better solution?

Great post Dannnnnnnnnnnnnn. So true. Don't know how anyone could argue otherwise tbh.

Maybe I should read your wall of texts more often

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I'm one of the harshest critics of McCartney's tenure but not even I deny the fact that he needed to instil a list rebuild, as to which Dan10 explains so well. What I'm critical of was the fact that he needed to instil a tactical rebuild (which I disagree with), with the pointless re-teaching of senior players to "crack in" and the like, and completely head and shoulders overturning how the club was run. Eade wasn't an unsuccessful coach - in fact one could argue after Sutton he's our most successful coach of all time - so I don't believe that we had to throw everything he taught out the window with a new coach. One other thing well as the implementation of an out-dated game style which was successful for Geelong in the 2007-9 period but horribly out of date by the time he came to the club in 2012, because contested ball and blokes behind the ball at the stoppage was a less successful tactic later on because opposing clubs had gotten used to it and could counter it.

As an aside it's amazing with hindsight how looking at that list in the 2011 pre-season we were considered among the flag favourites.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I agree that the 2012-2014 period could have been better; I agree that we under-performed and I agree that this was largely due to both list strategy and poor selection philosophies - but I can't agree that this period of 'betterness' would have a) rewarded us with a flag, nor b) set us up for the future in a better way than we are now. And if neither of these occur, what exactly is our reward? How exactly is it a better solution?

There's a few things.
Better man management and coaching would have had a better defensive structure. Talia's development was stunted after looking the goods in 2013 and with extra games and better development he'd be on a similar path to his brother, not people (rightfully so) being unsure whether he's a best 22 player.

You can make similar points for players like Wallis - a player who people are considering fringe 22 when he was the highest-rated midfielder in the rising star class of 22. That happened because of poor man-management and development.

Jones is another one that could have been good if it wasn't for the tactics (being the only key forward and having to compete in the air, the ball being bombed on his head all the time) and poor man management, but again his development was stunted.

If we had been more competitive utilising a different tactic and "trying to win" and not developed those are three players who I believe would have been much better but rather due to the selection and tactical style those three players, Talia, Wallis, Jones, would have meant that to quote you, "set us up in a better way than we are now".

And finally not to mention blokes who were the bottom of the list but who might have sprung a surprise and unexpectetly done well if we had had a "winning" culture not a "lets build from the ground up and develop" culture. I'm talking about the Panos, Tom Hill, Howard, Hooper, Vezpremi types. Give em more games and they might have better-than-expected adjusted to the AFL style of play but we'll simply never know.

FWIW I will admit and agree other players thrived in this system. Libba wouldn't have been the player that he was now, Clay Smith looked good, that we may not have otherwise had, not to mention that we would have missed out on a draft pick or two.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

There's a few things.
Better man management and coaching would have had a better defensive structure. Talia's development was stunted after looking the goods in 2013 and with extra games and better development he'd be on a similar path to his brother, not people (rightfully so) being unsure whether he's a best 22 player.

You can make similar points for players like Wallis - a player who people are considering fringe 22 when he was the highest-rated midfielder in the rising star class of 22. That happened because of poor man-management and development.

Jones is another one that could have been good if it wasn't for the tactics (being the only key forward and having to compete in the air, the ball being bombed on his head all the time) and poor man management, but again his development was stunted.

If we had been more competitive utilising a different tactic and "trying to win" and not developed those are three players who I believe would have been much better but rather due to the selection and tactical style those three players, Talia, Wallis, Jones, would have meant that to quote you, "set us up in a better way than we are now".

And finally not to mention blokes who were the bottom of the list but who might have sprung a surprise and unexpectetly done well if we had had a "winning" culture not a "lets build from the ground up and develop" culture. I'm talking about the Panos, Tom Hill, Howard, Hooper, Vezpremi types. Give em more games and they might have better-than-expected adjusted to the AFL style of play but we'll simply never know.

FWIW I will admit and agree other players thrived in this system. Libba wouldn't have been the player that he was now, Clay Smith looked good, that we may not have otherwise had, not to mention that we would have missed out on a draft pick or two.

I don't necessarily disagree with much of that but now we're arguing how McCartney went about the rebuild. McCartney's approach was imperfect and it eventually cost him his job. I'm not denying that - I'm just debating the need for a rebuild in the first place. A rebuild, in my mind, was the best move for our list, but it wasn't carried out as well as it should have been.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I don't necessarily disagree with much of that but now we're arguing how McCartney went about the rebuild. McCartney's approach was imperfect and it eventually cost him his job. I'm not denying that - I'm just debating the need for a rebuild in the first place. A rebuild, in my mind, was the best move for our list, but it wasn't carried out as well as it should have been.

I take your point but what I'm trying to say is that players were ones who suffered in rebuilding - not just the list but the head to toe restructuring of all tactics etc.

 

[Mutt]

I take your point but what I'm trying to say is that players were ones who suffered in rebuilding - not just the list but the head to toe restructuring of all tactics etc.

I think that's a fair point you make. It was more than a rebuild - it was an attempt to change just about everything about the club and the players.

The discussion about the McCartney era is becoming more balanced and even-handed among most supporters in my opinion. Even the most rusted on former Macca supporters (like me ) can see his failings and understand why he had to go. Likewise, the strident Macca critics usually agree that not all of the club's woes can be laid at McCartney's feet.

 

[maddog37]

It would make a very interesting book.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I think that's a fair point you make. It was more than a rebuild - it was an attempt to change just about everything about the club and the players.

The discussion about the McCartney era is becoming more balanced and even-handed among most supporters in my opinion. Even the most rusted on former Macca supporters (like me ) can see his failings and understand why he had to go. Likewise, the strident Macca critics usually agree that not all of the club's woes can be laid at McCartney's feet.

Yep, and I also made a point to say that whilst the development of players like Jones and that may have been stunted, I reckon in McCartney's system other players have thrived. For example there is no doubt that Libba would not have been the player he is today under a different coach.

 

[Mutt]

Yep, and I also made a point to say that whilst the development of players like Jones and that may have been stunted, I reckon in McCartney's system other players have thrived. For example there is no doubt that Libba would not have been the player he is today under a different coach.

^^^ And that's why all of your posts are worth reading mate - you don't buy into any of the group-think.

 

[Butane]

The problem with asking 'what else could they have done' is that every decision had a butterfly effect. Just simply holding on to Lake might have meant Austin isn't on the list in 2014, Cooney stays a Bulldog because they're besties and Coons and Macca's relationship was different for 3 years, then we might win a few more games in 2015 than we will now because we've just lost our best mid Libba for the season meaning the very little experience we already had is already less meaning we make an extra 500K from membership/attendance/merch and are hafla chance not to finish in the bottom 4 for another year in a row.

Of course, none of that could have happened either but you get the point. But how could it possibly be much worse? I know that it could have, in some way or form but I reckon it would have been pretty hard to stuff it more than they have. Thank god you get rewarded for sucking in the AFL and our recruiting team looks to be getting a few more right than most clubs. But I'm afraid we've become 'that' club who looks forward to draft day in February.

 

[womble54]

History shows that the list of clubs that have tried the tear down/rebuild to try and create the mythical 'young group all peaking together a few years later' have all failed tragically.

PAFC (in a largely 16 team competition)

2nd, 13th, 10th, 10th, 16th, 14th, 7th, 5th..flag favourites

It is highly likely with Libba now out (as well as Coon/Griff/Higgins gone) we will hit bottom or close to it. That would be our fifth year of a rebuild, like PAFC went through in 2012. Ours will be harder you would think maybe 15-18. However; with another top 4 draft pick or a solid trade plus the return of Libba and Smith to our midfield we could easily expect a similar trajectory in 2016-17 which is when people have been saying all along our window would start to open. 17/18 being realistic.

Really disappointed you ended up derailing your own thread with so much negativity in the last two pages. Started so promisingly and then....well....

It's tough for everyone. No one thinks the last three years have been popcorn and sunshine. We just need to get on with it and like it or not the rebuild is continuing.

 

[Butane]

PAFC (in a largely 16 team competition)

2nd, 13th, 10th, 10th, 16th, 14th, 7th, 5th..flag favourites.

There is no guarantee Port will finish higher than 5th this year and even if we were following their progression that would mean we're playing finals in 18 months! We're the youngest team in the league, with baby bookends who don't peak until their mid-late 20's(Boyd and Talia). We're not playing finals next year I'm afraid. It's not like every team in the finals has taken that exact path either, that's just 1 team that sort of fits what we're doing and is no guarantee of ultimate success.

Here's one major problem with rebuilding. You get rid of the older players over the younger players but there's no guarantee that these younger players will even be better than the older players. The more years you do this for the more your good players(normally the ones that have survived for so long) are edging retirement. So you end up like Melbourne or Richmond and Carlton of the 2000's where they have been one of the youngest teams in the AFL for nearly a decade and just treading water. We might get another top 17 year old draft pick this year but we lose Morris, or M.Boyd or Murphy or all three and then we have to replace them with our younger players who we aren't even sure are AFL standard.

It's a vicious cycle.

What happens when Wood leaves for free agency, Morris retires and Dahl or Stringer or whoever requests a trade. We get younger all over again. We get another 17 year old in who we have to wait another 3-6 years to find out if they are even worth keeping.

On the eve of another season with a bleak looking season it's hard to get excited for football at all. We're not the type of people that won't buy memberships or go to games but there are thousands of fans(that we need more than most clubs) who won't bother. And that becomes another vicious cycle of poor club needs to cut costs to make ends meet that means they are less competitive that means less money and so on...

 

[nathy]

No such thing as a rebuild, no matter how old or young a list is the coach should put the best team out to win games and aim for the finals and that is something Bevo will do unlike Macca. Yes we are young and are inexperienced but why say we are rebuilding that just puts negativity into the players. Tell me a team who has tried to bring all the players up in the same age bracket that has won a premiership. With a good game plan and team balance I still think we can make finals this year and shouldn't use "rebuilding" as an excuse if we finish near the bottom.

 

[womble54]

I still think the rebuild largely came about because of our utterly shitful drafting in the 2006-2009 era. It's left us with enourmous holes age wise which combined with campaigners like Higgins and Griffen pissing off means we are at an unenviable age spread currently. I would be surprised if anyone was saying the build we are in is an ideal one. We would definately want some more solid B+ players in the 26-30 catagory but importantly they would need to be players wanting to lead by example. We didn't have that. So we got stuck between a rock and a hard place. I still think finals by 2017 is not unrealistic. Our 2010 draft will be 25ish by then with a solid core of 22-25 year olds that seem to have talent. If we can draft well this year, the questio mark likes of Talia, Smith, Wallis etc come on then we are well placed to push forward for mine.

 

[Mattdougie]

I don't necessarily disagree with much of that but now we're arguing how McCartney went about the rebuild. McCartney's approach was imperfect and it eventually cost him his job. I'm not denying that - I'm just debating the need for a rebuild in the first place. A rebuild, in my mind, was the best move for our list, but it wasn't carried out as well as it should have been.

I can't believe I'm gonna say this but why is Macca seem to be the only guy that has paid for the poor rebuild??

The only reason the"rebuild" had been postive at all is due to first rounders and father sons.

I personally think Dalrymple has done an average job at best, his success ratio is far below his failure rate AND I'm sick to death of taking best possible when we have glaring holes in our list.

Taking Libba out of our team shows me how poor this has been and our midfield that looked promising last year now to me looks pretty poor in comparison.

Not sure list has been this bad in quite along time honestly I don't think some of the blokes people think will make it will.

 

[Mattdougie]

No such thing as a rebuild, no matter how old or young a list is the coach should put the best team out to win games and aim for the finals and that is something Bevo will do unlike Macca. Yes we are young and are inexperienced but why say we are rebuilding that just puts negativity into the players. Tell me a team who has tried to bring all the players up in the same age bracket that has won a premiership. With a good game plan and team balance I still think we can make finals this year and shouldn't use "rebuilding" as an excuse if we finish near the bottom.

Finals this year???

Are you serious mate?

 

[Pannalstaroz]

I can't believe I'm gonna say this but why is Macca seem to be the only guy that has paid for the poor rebuild??

The only reason the"rebuild" had been postive at all is due to first rounders and father sons.

I personally think Dalrymple has done an average job at best, his success ratio is far below his failure rate AND I'm sick to death of taking best possible when we have glaring holes in our list.

Taking Libba out of our team shows me how poor this has been and our midfield that looked promising last year now to me looks pretty poor in comparison.

Not sure list has been this bad in quite along time honestly I don't think some of the blokes people think will make it will.

I enjoy your posts but you'll have a hard time arguing that Dally has done anything other than a great job with the picks he has had. Top end picks and F/S picks don't guarantee you success, you still need to get them right. Howard clearly a bust but picked for the right reason, just not the right player, ie targeting an outside runner was not a bad idea, he just didn't perform. That's why I was a little skeptical of Pickett in the draft last year for GWS. I hope he turns out ok but outside silky players at the top of the draft don't always equate to success, there's often a lot more risk with them than grunt players, because you don't know if they are going to get the same space and time at AFL level that they got in the Under 18s.

 

[Proffessor]

No, I believe we had alternatives - but I question their feasibility. I struggle to see how that list becomes a contender in the short term and I don't believe your alternative gives us a better future list. Perhaps Hargrave and Gilbee could have been better managed and maybe we should have done more to keep Lake; we also could have made more of an effort to keep Cross relevant. I disagree on Veszpremi, Grant and Sherman - but even if I didn't - do you really think those six players would turn us into contenders again? In 2012 Grant played 13 games and Cross 17 - reasonable numbers. Sherman played 10 and Veszpremi 8 - perhaps these could have been higher but it's not as if they weren't given any chances at all to prove their worth. Regardless, those six players aren't going to make enough of a difference to take us from bottom-feeders to contenders in 2012. Don't get me wrong, I think we could have done better than we did - and I agree with your suggestion that we could have selected better balanced teams - but I question how this helps us.

Given the large amount of older, already declining players that would have been in our best 22 if you had your way, the team that you've suggested was always going to decline post-2011/12 - even if we'd followed everything you've suggested. It's a non-negotiable - if players weren't to come through and take those spots away from those declining, we were going to fall away. So who was capable of taking those spots? We had few "young guns" - Ward, Harbrow, Wallis, Dahlhaus and Liberatore are pretty much the only ones who qualify; Higgins you could mount an argument for; but the rest of our youth was either in the 'not up to it' category or in the Cordy/Grant/Howard/Jones/Tutt mould. As such the limit to our ability in those years would have been a mediocre, middle-of-the-road team that would grant no reward other than middling draft picks. So is a future of those guys, plus the likes of Jones, Tutt, Grant, Sherman and Veszpremi, as well as some of those from my 'not up to it' list that magically develop and a few middling draft picks really better than a future of Stringer, Bontempelli, Macrae, Liberatore, Dahlhaus, Boyd, Smith, Crameri, Hunter, Hrovat, Wallis et al? Would we really be in a better place than we are now? Would we really have an extra premiership from the 2012-14 period? If you believe that the answer to both of these is no (as it is for me) then the argument for this alternative has little basis.

Your whole argument for this Utopian alternative hinges on that list of 'not up to it' players developing more than they ever did, and references back towards your distaste for McCartney and his methods. You suggest that if not for McCartney, these players would have become capable - but you make no distinction between development and talent, and instead assume that all failings are developmental. Which of the players that I deemed 'not up to it' showed any semblance of ability? Which of them showed enough to make you confident that they could make it? I look at that list and see talent in Veszpremi and Sherman and that's about it. Sydney couldn't get anything out of Vez and despite what he'd supposedly shown no team came knocking. Sherman is one that you can make a case for but he never looked comfortable at the Dogs, even under Eade. It's impossible to completely separate drafting and developing but you seem more than happy to completely rule out a failing in the drafting process in order to push it all onto the failings of the coach. Hawthorn undeniably know how to develop players - but if you were watching last night, they have some absolutely disastrous players on their list - some who have stagnated and some who just never looked up to it. Are these also the developmental failings of a poor coach? If not, then why are you prepared to give that degree of leniency to one team but not another?

I agree that the 2012-2014 period could have been better; I agree that we under-performed and I agree that this was largely due to both list strategy and poor selection philosophies - but I can't agree that this period of 'betterness' would have a) rewarded us with a flag, nor b) set us up for the future in a better way than we are now. And if neither of these occur, what exactly is our reward? How exactly is it a better solution?

Dannnn,

Where did I say that we would have been rewarded with a flag in 2012-14, or argued that the alternatives would be anything close to utopian? I wish you (and few others) would resist the temptation and not put words into my mouth to make my position sound less reasonable.

I don't think there is much point arguing about the details of what we could have done differently, because we didn't and will never get the chance to see what would have resulted had we done so. It is easy to say that things wouldn't have been any better because no one can prove otherwise, but that doesn't make it true. In fact when you consider our current situation, it is easier to argue that doing things differently would have put the club in an improved position simply because we have sunk so low it is hard to imagine things turning out any worse.

It is understandable that many posters such as yourself struggle a little with criticisms of rebuilding philosophies, and feel the need to defend the approaches that we have taken. However rather than focusing on rationalising the decisions that the club made, I think it would be more enlightening if you looked at some of the positive aspects that could have arisen had we taken a different approach. Cooney passing to Tom Boyd, or Lake to Crameri, might have made for some good viewing.

You should also remember that the difference between the top and the bottom teams in professional sport can be smaller than they sometimes appear and as a result a few small changes can lead to teams racing up the ladder. Port Adelaide's rapid ascent with a change in coach but close to the same playing list is a good example of this.

It is also worth considering the difference that bringing Cross and Grant back in the second half of 2013 had on our own team. The inclusion of these two players (both much maligned on this forum) helped turn the team's fortunes around quite suddenly and dramatically.

By the way, what exactly did we achieve by pushing out most of our senior players and sacrificing 3 seasons that has some how set us up for the future in a better manner? What did we get that we couldn't have gained otherwise?

 

[Mattdougie]

I enjoy your posts but you'll have a hard time arguing that Dally has done anything other than a great job with the picks he has had. Top end picks and F/S picks don't guarantee you success, you still need to get them right. Howard clearly a bust but picked for the right reason, just not the right player, ie targeting an outside runner was not a bad idea, he just didn't perform. That's why I was a little skeptical of Pickett in the draft last year for GWS. I hope he turns out ok but outside silky players at the top of the draft don't always equate to success, there's often a lot more risk with them than grunt players, because you don't know if they are going to get the same space and time at AFL level that they got in the Under 18s.

Apart from Bont McRae and Stringer what has he done well mate ?

I think he has nailed 3 picks in 24 or more IMO and that's not counting this year into that equation.

I agree time will tell how it ends but at the moment I'm not exactly rapt with what he has done