2015 - Our Most Experienced Side

[POBT]

B: Harwood Clarke Patfull
HB: Adcock Maguire Bewick
C: Rich Rockliff Hanley
HF: Zorko McGuane Mayes
F: Staker Merrett Green
R: Leuenberger Redden Lester
I: Martin Beams Paparone Golby

I am assuming the delistings go as most people expect. I've also left out West on the assumption he'll be out of footy for a little while.

What I found interesting is that I could name a relatively well balanced 22 without having to pick a single first year player. That's a positive, even if it is on the assumption that Staker and McGuane somehow get their bodies right. And it isn't an awful side on paper - with the midfield a real highlight.

However, the next most experienced player is Taylor with 22 games. I think it is less than ideal to only have 23 players (including West) with more than a single season of senior experience under their belts. I know there is a reluctance to trade for "list cloggers" but I certainly wouldn't oppose the club scouting around for some mature options.

 

[JasRulz63]

Average of 91.2 games for that side. The side that ran out last night averaged 43.1 games. Pretty evident that there's a whole lot of 'experience' (in terms of those on our list) to come back into the side.

 

[a mayes ing]

B: Harwood Clarke Patfull
HB: Adcock Maguire Bewick
C: Rich Rockliff Hanley
HF: Zorko McGuane Mayes
F: Staker Merrett Green
R: Leuenberger Redden Lester
I: Martin Beams Paparone Golby

I am assuming the delistings go as most people expect. I've also left out West on the assumption he'll be out of footy for a little while.

What I found interesting is that I could name a relatively well balanced 22 without having to pick a single first year player. That's a positive, even if it is on the assumption that Staker and McGuane somehow get their bodies right. And it isn't an awful side on paper - with the midfield a real highlight.

However, the next most experienced player is Taylor with 22 games. I think it is less than ideal to only have 23 players (including West) with more than a single season of senior experience under their belts. I know there is a reluctance to trade for "list cloggers" but I certainly wouldn't oppose the club scouting around for some mature options.

Looks pretty good. I would probably drop one of McGuane or Staker and put Close in there. Has to get games into him and l would also drop someone for Cutler or Dizzy. The faster they get to 50, the better.

 

[POBT]

Looks pretty good. I would probably drop one of McGuane or Staker and put Close in there. Has to get games into him and l would also drop someone for Cutler or Dizzy. The faster they get to 50, the better.

I think you've missed the point of the thread.

 

[snooplions]

I think you've missed the point of the thread.

What is the point of the thread? What is to be discussed? The above side is the most experienced side at this point, it's set in stone and unlike discussing best 22 I don't know what can be debated or discussed. Please enlighten me.

 

[a mayes ing]

I think you've missed the point of the thread.

I knew what the thread is but l am not sure what else is to be discussed unless you want everyone to agree with you which is boring. As snooplions said.

 

[jackess]

What is the point of the thread? What is to be discussed? The above side is the most experienced side at this point, it's set in stone and unlike discussing best 22 I don't know what can be debated or discussed. Please enlighten me.

Read the final sentence in the OP to find the point of discussion.

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

Experience is just one criterion. If we were going to recruit for experienced players that aren't A graders we may as well not bother. Polks is almost the perfect profile in terms of age and experience, but unfortunately is a C grader to use Leppa's measure. If we can't get an A grader, stick with what we have and be patient.

 

[a mayes ing]

Experience is just one criterion. If we were going to recruit for experienced players that aren't A graders we may as well not bother. Polks is almost the perfect profile in terms of age and experience, but unfortunately is a C grader to use Leppa's measure. If we can't get an A grader, stick with what we have and be patient.

This, and the fact that Leppa has already said we arre after A graders and not B/C graders.

 

[John_Proctor]

It's an interesting team. To think that 6-8 players who've played most of the games this year aren't in it shows the depth we've grown this year.

Giving that team creates the challenge of who you drop for the kids...
Taylor,gardiner,aish,close,mcstay, freeman, etc.

Good work.

 

[POBT]

I knew what the thread is but l am not sure what else is to be discussed unless you want everyone to agree with you which is boring. As snooplions said.

Apologies that the thread didn't meet your exacting standards.

I'd have thought making an observation and then asserting a point of view for others to consider was kind of the object of a discussion forum.

I suppose I could have made completely erroneous and uniformed assessments of players but I kinda figured others have cornered that market.

 

[POBT]

What is the point of the thread? What is to be discussed? The above side is the most experienced side at this point, it's set in stone and unlike discussing best 22 I don't know what can be debated or discussed. Please enlighten me.

It proves I can count to 23. That has to be worth something.

 

[POBT]

Experience is just one criterion. If we were going to recruit for experienced players that aren't A graders we may as well not bother. Polks is almost the perfect profile in terms of age and experience, but unfortunately is a C grader to use Leppa's measure. If we can't get an A grader, stick with what we have and be patient.

Sometimes players can develop better alongside experience. For example, I think Goose did wonders for our tall defenders this year with his calmness and willingness sacrifice his own game to help out. A bit like Beamer and Black last year for our mids.

If we recruit only teenagers this year, will our list balance be right? Could we actually be setting up a list profile that hinders development? Or is the experience gained in past seasons by Rockliff and co enough to balance things out?

Each week we have a thread where we are markedly younger than the opposition. Trade week is one way to help address an imbalance

Just putting it out there.

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

Sometimes players can develop better alongside experience. For example, I think Goose did wonders for our tall defenders this year with his calmness and willingness sacrifice his own game to help out. A bit like Beamer and Black last year for our mids.

If we recruit only teenagers this year, will our list balance be right? Could we actually be setting up a list profile that hinders development? Or is the experience gained in past seasons by Rockliff and co enough to balance things out?

Each week we have a thread where we are markedly younger than the opposition. Trade week is one way to help address an imbalance

Just putting it out there.

Wholeheartedly appreciate the debate. In fact we are probably not greatly at odds. The point I have attempted to make, perhaps clumsily, is that experience is good provided they are worth their place on merit. Goose, Beamer and Blacky clearly were, others not so. A or even B grade players with experience who are tradeable to us are thin on the ground.

 

[POBT]

Wholeheartedly appreciate the debate. In fact we are probably not greatly at odds. The point I have attempted to make, perhaps clumsily, is that experience is good provided they are worth their place on merit. Goose, Beamer and Blacky clearly were, others not so. A or even B grade players with experience who are tradeable to us are thin on the ground.

Appreciate the reply. I guess I would make a few points in response:

1. As John says, very few players are "guns". Most are just average footballers. Therefore, in all forms of recruitment (trade, draft, free agency), you will end up being sorely disappointed if you expect A graders every time (or even B graders).

2. There is a place for the "role player" in most sides - the guy who does something which betters the team, even if he may not be the best footballer going around.

3. If we only targeted A graders, we would not have signed Moloney or traded for Martin. Neither was an A grader. Granted, we also would have avoided Lisle but I'm not convinced focusing your trading based on a player's "grade" is necessarily the answer. I think it has to be about getting players in who improve and/or complement your existing list. And I think experience is something we lack and so recruiting an experienced player who we "think" might play a role might end up being worthwhile.

4. Not every recruit has to be there as a best 22 player. Ben Hudson would be a great example of a guy who probably wasn't signed because he was going to be our number 1 ruckman.


I certainly don't want to sign someone just because of their age. But I really hope we don't take a "youth at all costs" approach to list management because I think that is fraught with danger. If the right player is not available, then happy to keep with the kids. But getting 1 or 2 years from a mature head may not be a bad thing, even if they aren't a "gun".

 

[Tairy Greene]

POBT I also noticed you only have one Beams name on the team sheet or are you expecting Dayne to actually push his younger brother out of the side?

 

[POBT]

POBT I also noticed you only have one Beams name on the team sheet or are you expecting Dayne to actually push his younger brother out of the side?

Good point Tairy. An error on my part. From recollection, Paparone is the least experienced player in the named side so he will drop out.

 

[Viceregal]

Sometimes players can develop better alongside experience. For example, I think Goose did wonders for our tall defenders this year with his calmness and willingness sacrifice his own game to help out. A bit like Beamer and Black last year for our mids.

If we recruit only teenagers this year, will our list balance be right? Could we actually be setting up a list profile that hinders development? Or is the experience gained in past seasons by Rockliff and co enough to balance things out?

Each week we have a thread where we are markedly younger than the opposition. Trade week is one way to help address an imbalance

Just putting it out there.

*nods* If the aim is solely to get 50 games into the ones you identify as your future team as fast as possible then we could just pick and play - this year we had to just play and made progress but that is certainly counter balanced by what they learn by playing ... as mentioned above did Clarke learn more by playing with Goose this year than he would have without him (with say Bourke next to him instead) - I would say yes absolutely.

All our youngsters can't play the same next year as they did this year unless you want Rich etc to sit out (not happening) - I don't know enough about player development to judge but are 11 games in the firsts each with specific things to learn and then practice in the seconds a good developmental option or just have half of them play as much as they can and see how they go (we are already ahead of where they would normally have been had the list been full)

Re the OP question - someone else's list clogger can be our great pickup (a certain older ruckman who moved to yet another club springs to mind) but I think our current list management team have a better understanding of where our team is at atm and far less pressure from Board level to get immediate success.

 

[Crawb]

B: Harwood Clarke Patfull
HB: Adcock Maguire Bewick
C: Rich Rockliff Hanley
HF: Zorko McGuane Mayes
F: Staker Merrett Green
R: Leuenberger Redden Lester
I: Martin Beams Paparone Golby

Dayne or Claye?

Seriously though, I think our list is in a good spot and shaping up well for a decent team in a few years time.

 

[lions2010]

B: Harwood Clarke Patfull
HB: Adcock Maguire Bewick
C: Rich Rockliff Hanley
HF: Zorko McGuane Mayes
F: Staker Merrett Green
R: Leuenberger Redden Lester
I: Martin Beams Paparone Golby

I am assuming the delistings go as most people expect. I've also left out West on the assumption he'll be out of footy for a little while.

What I found interesting is that I could name a relatively well balanced 22 without having to pick a single first year player. That's a positive, even if it is on the assumption that Staker and McGuane somehow get their bodies right. And it isn't an awful side on paper - with the midfield a real highlight.

However, the next most experienced player is Taylor with 22 games. I think it is less than ideal to only have 23 players (including West) with more than a single season of senior experience under their belts. I know there is a reluctance to trade for "list cloggers" but I certainly wouldn't oppose the club scouting around for some mature options.

The most experienced side isn't necessarily the best side. Any side with McGuane in it makes less excited about the team. Therefore while I agree he would make the team on most experience, it doesn't mean its the best.

 

[BigEasyPeasy]

Interesting discussion. For a while now I've thought that there has been an overemphasis on a 'cyclical' approach. Within this ideology, teams try and recruit as many young, 'star' players as possible, and bring them through together, and thus open a 'premiership window' (a phrase I really don't like, I think teams should aim for sustained success.) I see a number of issues with this:

- As POBs says, there is a case that young talent will not develop optimally in the absence of experience.
- As noted in the 'inexperience watch' thread, young teams lose more often than not. I fear this encourages a losing culture, potentially takes the joy out of the game, makes it tough for membership etc.
- Drafting is intensely scrutinised, and huge (I would suggest foolish) emphasis is placed on draft picks.
- Back to back years of more miss than hit drafting can leave huge holes in the list (think back to our massive 23-27 y.o hole over the past 5 years).

It's a balancing act. Of course youth must be injected at some stage, but I agree it must be tempered by clever recruiting, and the maintenance of a stable list capable of sustained success. It's more attractive for members, it's better for the bottom line, it's better for the players etc. Given our retirements this year, I completely agree that through trading/ alternative means, experience needs to be added to our list.

 

[lions2010]

Interesting discussion. For a while now I've thought that there has been an overemphasis on a 'cyclical' approach. Within this ideology, teams try and recruit as many young, 'star' players as possible, and bring them through together, and thus open a 'premiership window' (a phrase I really don't like, I think teams should aim for sustained success.) I see a number of issues with this:

- As POBs says, there is a case that young talent will not develop optimally in the absence of experience.
- As noted in the 'inexperience watch' thread, young teams lose more often than not. I fear this encourages a losing culture, potentially takes the joy out of the game, makes it tough for membership etc.
- Drafting is intensely scrutinised, and huge (I would suggest foolish) emphasis is placed on draft picks.
- Back to back years of more miss than hit drafting can leave huge holes in the list (think back to our massive 23-27 y.o hole over the past 5 years).

It's a balancing act. Of course youth must be injected at some stage, but I agree it must be tempered by clever recruiting, and the maintenance of a stable list capable of sustained success. It's more attractive for members, it's better for the bottom line, it's better for the players etc. Given our retirements this year, I completely agree that through trading/ alternative means, experience needs to be added to our list.

Its a easy formula for long term success, and don't deviate from the plan.
Keep drafting and develop a core group that will play 8-10 years together, then bring in role players once the core has developed.

There are only two teams who successfully gave done this in last 10-12 years which is Hawthorn and Geelong. They got there core right first.

Other clubs have tried, and failed. They got too excited and deviated from the plan, and this doesn't bring long term success.

I do believe now that the lions are close with this core. It has probably taken a little longer but last years draft fit them over the line. 1 to 2 more years further developing the core then the lions will be right up there.

 

[AFLQLD]

If the right player is not available, then happy to keep with the kids. But getting 1 or 2 years from a mature head may not be a bad thing, even if they aren't a "gun".

This is the key as I see it. We aim to get the right player, gun or not. If we can't get a gun but can get a good mature player who fills a need and adds experience then it is a win for us. Both Moloney and Martin worked out in their own ways even though each has been affected by injury. Hudson worked out well when we needed him. Who knows what McGuane might manage for us next season.

The trick is to have a net gain in the playing group going forward, whatever we do. I think, against all the odds, we may have managed that long term after the drama of the Go Home 5 - net gain in the long term because of some great drafting. We lost (limited) experience but gained better, more enduring talent overall I believe. In fact it may end up being one of the great silver linings of all time five years from now.

I haven't heard of too many players being shopped around or becoming free agents this year who are realistic for us or who really fill a need. But things will no doubt develop over the next month. If the right player comes up at the right price...

 

[Ironmonger]

Agree with the OP’s point – we need to pad out our depth a bit. One or two players would make a big difference.

I’m pretty sure I drew up a similar team at the start of this season, to show that if we wanted to we could still field an experienced side. But Leppitsch flagged from very early on that getting games into the debutants was a priority – three picked in round one, over one hundred games in total played by Brisbane Lions in their first year of senior footy.

And players who were (probably) in my side tended to get a short window to prove that they could stick around. Polkinghorne, Raines, Lisle, and Moloney were out of the team as soon as they stopped performing, while Martin, Bewick and Harwood made the most of their chances when they got them.

So looking at that team makes me wonder which of the 22 are in the same category next season, who need to be continually proving themselves to get games ahead of kids. I’d say Harwood, Maguire, Bewick, McGuane, Staker, Merrett, Lester, Beams and Golby (nine in total) are in that category. You could probably add Paine and West when he’s fit as players who probably won’t get any leeway.

Unless Leppitsch changes his strategy, to field a competitive, experienced side we’ll need about six of those nine to be in form, and no more than one or two of the 22 players listed to be injured. The remaining four or five spots in the 22 to be made up by the likes of Taylor, Aish, Gardiner, and whoever of the kids makes the biggest strides in the off-season.

It’s possible, but it’s very unlikely. Once again we’ll have a very low tolerance for injuries and poor form before we struggle to be competitive, even if we add one or two more experienced players in the off-season.

So at this early stage the team’s prospects in 2015 actually look soberly similar to 2014. And I expect that Lepppitsch will continue to try and accelerate the development of the youngsters and get the most promising up to 30, 40, 50 games as soon as possible, which will again mean reducing our chances to win individual games.

One thing we can be grateful for is that our best kids have so far stayed fit enough to get a consistent run of games, and if that continues our experience profile will look a bit more healthy by the end of next year.

 

[matwt73]

This year has been all about the kids.

Partly because it had to be and partly because Leppa may have figured he had nothing to lose.

I am hoping (expecting) that next year will see us consolidate a little, and be in a position where we do not need to hand out 10 debut's. As exciting as it has been I hope that Leppa has not become seduced by the excitement of potential and blooding rookies, and will look to establish his most competitive side week on week. To build on the OP's first point, if that side could be made more competitive by bringing in some more experienced players from outside, i would say go for it.