Analysis Critical analysis of our current position.

[_Mike_]

If I look at the years we should have at least played in a GF

- 85 - we had a spine, dominant ruckman, FF, FB, a really good center line and crumbing goal sneaks.
- 97 - enough said
- 09 - look at the teams we'd beaten 3 weeks into the finals season. A win over Geelong in the QF would have put us against Collingwood in the prelim. Window missed

The years we shouldnt have

- 92 - WC & Geelong were the form teams
- 08 - we were really good, but not good enough
- 10 - we weren't really there - injuries hurt us.. Hall - 1 year too late

 

[lachy]

If I look at the years we should have at least played in a GF

- 85 - we had a spine, dominant ruckman, FF, FB, a really good center line and crumbing goal sneaks.
- 97 - enough said
- 09 - look at the teams we'd beaten 3 weeks into the finals season. A win over Geelong in the QF would have put us against Collingwood in the prelim. Window missed

The years we shouldnt have

- 92 - WC & Geelong were the form teams
- 08 - we were really good, but not good enough
- 10 - we weren't really there - injuries hurt us.. Hall - 1 year too late

Having sat through all these games the follow on question is would we have been good enough in the GF to.

85 we as supporters all point to our early season run away victory against the bombers. However, in fairness we forget the 4 goal loss later in the season where the bombers were up by 11 goals and we kicked the last 7 once the game was over. However, yes this was an opportunity missed

97 of most concern was we had 3 injured and 1 suspended (Cook) players after the prelim that would not have been available against the Saints. However, a Huge missed opportunity

09 you are right Mike it was the QF loss that hurt most. We never beat Geelong in a final in this period so whilst a GF berth would have been nice I believe 85 and 97 to be bigger opportunities missed

 

[lachy]

Other than Sydney with their COLA, can anyone name a team that did not drop well out of finals contention to rebuild for the next assault as seems to be prof's assertion, that we did on purpose not through natural process.

the closest I can come to is Geelong. However, in saying that they dropped 1th in 1999, 12th in 2001 and 10th in 2006 before their assault began.

Why did I mention those years, in 99 Geelong had their own superdraft where they chose Corey, Chapman, Ling and Enright. They also traded their disgruntled captain Clobert for a reasonably important player in Cam Mooney.

01 they drafted a couple of handy types in Bartel, Kelly and Johnson and 06 a guy called Selwood.

Throughout this period at a time when you only had to give up a 3rd round draft pick for a father son they also got Ablett, Scarlett and Hawkins.

I have looked at every challenging team since 2001 which is enough time for all pre draft, salary cap players to have washed through the system. All serious challenges have taken 5 to 7 years for their core to come through to seriously challenge. The depth of that core has determined in longevity.

it is fine to say we are not in the position we are in now because of a natural drop off in the list. But I cannot find a single example to show there is another way, as I said other than Sydney, the protected species.

And FWIW in none of the examples have those clubs that actually tanked and did not do it naturally due to aged lists have they been remotely successful.

There is a massive difference between excepting your current list is not good enough then rebuilding as apposed to tanking ie Melbourne and Carlton. Our current position is where it is as we recognised the current group would not get us there and went about rebuilding which hopefully will get us as serious challenges in the next couple of years, but we hardly ripped everything apart and proof of this is 2013 the apparent 2nd year of the rebuild we lost 1 less game than 2011!!! 3 of our best players over the weekend were 30 plus year olds in Murphy, Boyd and Morris.

So if either the Prof or if anyone else thinks like him, give an example of a club that has been a serious challenger for any period of time without a rebuild

 

[Butane]

There hasn't been enough years to study rebuilding in the modern-ish era anyway and with free agency getting bigger, rebuilding as we thought we understood it 10 years ago won't be the same . It's so easy to say Geelong rebuilt to win the 2007 flag by quoting where they finished 10 years early but then never bring up the clubs that sucked 10 years earlier and just happened to suck in 2007 too.

Hawthorn blew first round picks when they were 'rebuilding' - Dowler pick 6 in '05 and Mitch Thorp at pick 6 in '06 - Even Ellis at pick 3 looks bad in hindsight. If Franklin had of gone to Richmond instead of Tambling they never would have got the flag and we wouldn't be talking about it. 10 years of planning and a club snakes you for 1 player and you don't get a flag. Doesn't sound right does it. Why not try and be good every year so when the door cracks open you can snatch one like Sydney/Geelong/Fremantle/Hawthorn try and do every year. You will not see those clubs aim to finish bottom for 3-4 years before attacking the flag again a decade later.

Why don't we name all the clubs that have rebuilt and not won a flag? Which is pretty much every club besides Hawthorn/Geelong/Sydney if you want to get picky about it and name every club that has had a poor season at some point in the last 20 years.

 

[lachy]

There hasn't been enough years to study rebuilding in the modern-ish era anyway and with free agency getting bigger, rebuilding as we thought we understood it 10 years ago won't be the same It may not be the same but other than Sydney, the exception for all with its COLA it has not proven successful for any other club as yet either. It's so easy to say Geelong rebuilt to win the 2007 flag by quoting where they finished 10 years early but then never bring up the clubs that sucked 10 years earlier and just happened to suck in 2007 too Its easy to say as it is a fact, it happend.

Hawthorn blew first round picks when they were 'rebuilding' - Dowler pick 6 in '05 and Mitch Thorp at pick 6 in '06 - Even Ellis at pick 3 looks bad in hindsight. If Franklin had of gone to Richmond instead of Tambling they never would have got the flag and we wouldn't be talking about it. 10 years of planning and a club snakes you for 1 player and you don't get a flag where has anyone said all rebuilds are successful, show me the successful non rebuilds. Doesn't sound right does it. Why not try and be good every year so when the door cracks open you can snatch one like Sydney/Geelong/Fremantle/Hawthorn try and do every year Given Geelong Hawthorn and Fremantle rebuilt to get there how does this support any argument?. You will not see those clubs aim to finish bottom for 3-4 years before attacking the flag again a decade later No club aims to finish in the bottom 3 or 4 other than Melbourne and Carlton and I have stated this exception as tanking itself creates a culture that is hard to break. Our so called destruction never placed us in the bottom 3 and 2 years in we only lost 1 more game than 2011.

Why don't we name all the clubs that have rebuilt and not won a flag? Which is pretty much every club besides Hawthorn/Geelong/Sydney Again Hawthorn and Geelong did rebuild if you want to get picky about it and name every club that has had a poor season at some point in the last 20 years. Again, it is a natural cycle that you either embrace and try and maximise, Geelong, Hawthorn, St Kilda, Fremantle, Collingwood, Us to a certain extent or bury your head in the sand and be consistently mediocre [/QUOTE]

 

[ivan rassmussen]

If I look at the years we should have at least played in a GF

- 85 - we had a spine, dominant ruckman, FF, FB, a really good center line and crumbing goal sneaks.
- 97 - enough said
- 09 - look at the teams we'd beaten 3 weeks into the finals season. A win over Geelong in the QF would have put us against Collingwood in the prelim. Window missed

The years we shouldnt have

- 92 - WC & Geelong were the form teams
- 08 - we were really good, but not good enough
- 10 - we weren't really there - injuries hurt us.. Hall - 1 year too late

85 we had a FB, FF and Foster at CHB. Our one weakness to some degree was Groena at CHF, as Sewell played more as a third tall at either end. In fact we were as strong across the board as any team we have ever fielded - defence: M Ford, McLean, B Cordy, Kennedy, Foster, Kellett, midfield: Hawkins, Royal, Wallis, Daniels, Buhagiar, Maylin, MacPherson, forward: Edmond, Beasley, Bamblett.

Many of those listed all good seasons simultaneously in 85, plus we had goalkickers everywhere:
Royal - 37
Buhagiar - 36
MacPherson - 39
Edmond - 38
Bamblett - 51
Beasley - 105

We had injuries to several defenders during the finals, and tried to use Neil Peart as a stop-gap.

Ian Williams only played 3 games - he was a highly-skilled forward, very under-rated.

Some great stand-alone performances too - Emmett Dunne took Salmon to the cleaners at Windy Hill as a one-off game for the year.

In the end, it wasn't enough, but we had the toughness to match the Bombres - just never got to face them in a final.

As for 92, we finished above WCE, and beat them easily at WO late in the season. We had their measure in Melb, but again never got to face them, and could never get over Geelong.

 

[ErnieSigley]

How so as many bad choices now?

Probably as much then.
It will be a miracle if all of draft picks/trades over the past 3 years turn out to be regular players, some have already failed.

We were in a premiership window when we traded for players like Sherman, Moles, etc. In theory, they were the type of players we needed. Bad luck they didn't work out.
We weren't in a premiership window when we traded for and rookied players like Austin, Young and Goodes.

 

[ErnieSigley]

85 we had a FB, FF and Foster at CHB. Our one weakness to some degree was Groena at CHF, as Sewell played more as a third tall at either end. In fact we were as strong across the board as any team we have ever fielded - defence: M Ford, McLean, B Cordy, Kennedy, Foster, Kellett, midfield: Hawkins, Royal, Wallis, Daniels, Buhagiar, Maylin, MacPherson, forward: Edmond, Beasley, Bamblett.

Many of those listed all good seasons simultaneously in 85, plus we had goalkickers everywhere:
Royal - 37
Buhagiar - 36
MacPherson - 39
Edmond - 38
Bamblett - 51
Beasley - 105

We had injuries to several defenders during the finals, and tried to use Neil Peart as a stop-gap.

Ian Williams only played 3 games - he was a highly-skilled forward, very under-rated.

Some great stand-alone performances too - Emmett Dunne took Salmon to the cleaners at Windy Hill as a one-off game for the year.

In the end, it wasn't enough, but we had the toughness to match the Bombres - just never got to face them in a final.

As for 92, we finished above WCE, and beat them easily at WO late in the season. We had their measure in Melb, but again never got to face them, and could never get over Geelong.

Egan, Whitten and Templeton were the missing links.

 

[_Mike_]

Egan, Whitten and Templeton were the missing links.

By that logic, so was Bernie Quinlan..

 

[Sharkey66]

Both Richmond and Essendon should right now be powerhouses in the top 6, but both shot themselves in the foot with their rebuilds. (They both may still get there this year).
Essendon had a great list, well structured and were just about to make a run for the flag when the asada crap happened. Lost players, lost momentum, lost years.
Richmond were building nicely, had a great core of kids through the draft, but mistimed their run, started topping up with role players 2 years to early. Needed to stay with the draft and pick quality kids rather than all the castoffs from other clubs.
Carlton also changed direction with a new coach finding his players were not capable of playing the way he wanted them to play. Lost players topped up with low grade players and fell short on their run.
The lesson here for us is that we cannot start topping up too early with fringe players as we need to have the quality kids coming through behind our core,keep improving the quality of the bottom half of the list.
Looking at the kids from the last draft i think we are doing ok on that front.

 

[ErnieSigley]

By that logic, so was Bernie Quinlan..

Not sure what you are on about.
Quinlan left in the 70s, Templeton was gone 2 yrs?
Whitten jnr and Egan were at the club injured I believe.

 

[_Mike_]

Not sure what you are on about.
Quinlan left in the 70s, Templeton was gone 2 yrs?
Whitten jnr and Egan were at the club injured I believe.

Had we not "sold" Quinlan, we'd had another KPF available who kicked over 80 goals in 1985, compared to Templeton who's knees were shot around that time

 

[ErnieSigley]

Had we not "sold" Quinlan, we'd had another KPF available who kicked over 80 goals in 1985, compared to Templeton who's knees were shot around that time

Who ever you want.

We needed a chf better than Peart or Groano.
Either was better.

 

[Flags_In_The_Bag]

Probably as much then.
It will be a miracle if all of draft picks/trades over the past 3 years turn out to be regular players, some have already failed.

We were in a premiership window when we traded for players like Sherman, Moles, etc. In theory, they were the type of players we needed. Bad luck they didn't work out.
We weren't in a premiership window when we traded for and rookied players like Austin, Young and Goodes.

Seems to me most are going to turn out alright so far.

 

[theAthenian]

Not sure what you are on about.
Quinlan left in the 70s, Templeton was gone 2 yrs?
Whitten jnr and Egan were at the club injured I believe.

while Quinlan left after 77
whitten never saw micky coach as he had retired end 82
egan was past his best due to injury

 

[Proffessor]

Other than Sydney with their COLA, can anyone name a team that did not drop well out of finals contention to rebuild for the next assault as seems to be prof's assertion, that we did on purpose not through natural process.

the closest I can come to is Geelong. However, in saying that they dropped 1th in 1999, 12th in 2001 and 10th in 2006 before their assault began.

Why did I mention those years, in 99 Geelong had their own superdraft where they chose Corey, Chapman, Ling and Enright. They also traded their disgruntled captain Clobert for a reasonably important player in Cam Mooney.

01 they drafted a couple of handy types in Bartel, Kelly and Johnson and 06 a guy called Selwood.

Throughout this period at a time when you only had to give up a 3rd round draft pick for a father son they also got Ablett, Scarlett and Hawkins.

I have looked at every challenging team since 2001 which is enough time for all pre draft, salary cap players to have washed through the system. All serious challenges have taken 5 to 7 years for their core to come through to seriously challenge. The depth of that core has determined in longevity.

it is fine to say we are not in the position we are in now because of a natural drop off in the list. But I cannot find a single example to show there is another way, as I said other than Sydney, the protected species.

And FWIW in none of the examples have those clubs that actually tanked and did not do it naturally due to aged lists have they been remotely successful.

There is a massive difference between excepting your current list is not good enough then rebuilding as apposed to tanking ie Melbourne and Carlton. Our current position is where it is as we recognised the current group would not get us there and went about rebuilding which hopefully will get us as serious challenges in the next couple of years, but we hardly ripped everything apart and proof of this is 2013 the apparent 2nd year of the rebuild we lost 1 less game than 2011!!! 3 of our best players over the weekend were 30 plus year olds in Murphy, Boyd and Morris.

So if either the Prof or if anyone else thinks like him, give an example of a club that has been a serious challenger for any period of time without a rebuild

You are so devoted to your 'rebuild' philosophy, that you seem to see 'rebuilds' everywhere, even when they didn't exist or at least were far from intentional.

Teams have ups and downs. A down period followed by an up period doesn't mean that the down period was intended, or even "embraced".

What did we gain with our intentional rebuild?
In 2012, shuffling up the order to get draft pick 5 instead of what ever it may have been had we not rebuilt.
In 2013 shuffling up the order again to get draft pick 4, and 2014 shuffling up the order again to get pick 6.


Is shuffling up a few places that important, that it is worth losing several club champions including some all time greats to other clubs, reducing revenue and losing fans? We valued last year's pick 6 so highly we threw it in like a set of steak knives to get the Griffen-Boyd trade done.

What players would we definitely have missed out on had we not shuffled up a bit? Remember Stringer had the broken leg issue at draft time and many people were surprised we took Bontempelli so high.

You can believe what you want to believe, but as far as I'm concerned, if we do well in the near future it will be in spite of the McCartney 'rebuild' direction rather than as a result of it.

 

[Pannalstaroz]

You are so devoted to your 'rebuild' philosophy, that you seem to see 'rebuilds' everywhere, even when they didn't exist or at least were far from intentional.

Teams have ups and downs. A down period followed by an up period doesn't mean that the down period was intended, or even "embraced".

What did we gain with our intentional rebuild?
In 2012, shuffling up the order to get draft pick 5 instead of what ever it may have been had we not rebuilt.
In 2013 shuffling up the order again to get draft pick 4, and 2014 shuffling up the order again to get pick 6.


Is shuffling up a few places that important, that it is worth losing several club champions including some all time greats to other clubs, reducing revenue and losing fans? We valued last year's pick 6 so highly we threw it in like a set of steak knives to get the Griffen-Boyd trade done.

What players would we definitely have missed out on had we not shuffled up a bit? Remember Stringer had the broken leg issue at draft time and many people were surprised we took Bontempelli so high.

You can believe what you want to believe, but as far as I'm concerned, if we do well in the near future it will be in spite of the McCartney 'rebuild' direction rather than as a result of it.

We understand your view, just realise it's a minority view.

 

[ErnieSigley]

while Quinlan left after 77
whitten never saw micky coach as he had retired end 82
egan was past his best due to injury

That's great, I'm happy for you.
My point was we probably needed a better chf, lock down small defender and another rover.

 

[ErnieSigley]

Seems to me most are going to turn out alright so far.

Well you are wrong, I just pointed out 3.
We didn't just pick Bonti, Stringer and McCrae.
Besides some are 1 or 2 years into their career who would you know if they are right yet?

 

[lachy]

You are so devoted to your 'rebuild' philosophy, that you seem to see 'rebuilds' everywhere, even when they didn't exist or at least were far from intentional.Prof please pay attention when reading my posts, I have clearly stated that rebuilds are not intentional they occur naturally through the cycle and in fact intentional rebuilds have failed ie Carlton and Melbourne

Teams have ups and downs. A down period followed by an up period doesn't mean that the down period was intended, or even "embraced". No its a fact, where we were at the end of 2011

What did we gain with our intentional rebuild?
In 2012, shuffling up the order to get draft pick 5 instead of what ever it may have been had we not rebuilt.
In 2013 shuffling up the order again to get draft pick 4, and 2014 shuffling up the order again to get pick 6. in 2013 we lost 1 more game than 2011 are you saying we intentionally went bad in 2011 to? Also picks 5, 4 and 6 we must be seriously bad at intentional rebuilds as other clubs who have done it end up with picks 1 and 2 yet we cannot even make the bottom 3


Is shuffling up a few places that important, that it is worth losing several club champions including some all time greats to other clubs, reducing revenue and losing fans? We valued last year's pick 6 so highly we threw it in like a set of steak knives to get the Griffen-Boyd trade done. Who was the club champion we lost in their prime again? Didn't know players ability did not deteriorate with age and don't mention the other 9 A graders we lost at the end of Eades period through that dreaded retirement

What players would we definitely have missed out on had we not shuffled up a bit? Remember Stringer had the broken leg issue at draft time and many people were surprised we took Bontempelli so high. How long is a piece of string, unless you know the recruiters from other clubs you will never know either. FACT is we did get these players. Is there a massive element of luck, as Butane pointed out yes there is, look at the Hawks drafts after the Buddy, Roughy and Lewis draft. The idea of the draft is the lower you finish due to a weaker list, the better draft picks you get to strengthen your list and sometimes you need to take risks to pick up good quality players as the Hawks did with Croad, Hay and Thompson all giving them top 10 draft picks. Did they intentionally bottom out, no, did they make the most of it, yes despite draft failures

You can believe what you want to believe, but as far as I'm concerned, if we do well in the near future it will be in spite of the McCartney 'rebuild' direction rather than as a result of it .Believe in what you want, I will believe our unintentional rebuild commenced in 2011 under Rocket when we continued to fall dramatically off the pace and he played 9 first year players[/QUOTE]

 

[BEaston]

We understand your view, just realise it's an ignorant view.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Flags_In_The_Bag]

Well you are wrong, I just pointed out 3.
We didn't just pick Bonti, Stringer and McCrae.
Besides some are 1 or 2 years into their career who would you know if they are right yet?

As in what i have seen so far i think most will turn out ok, who are you to say im wrong clown, its called an opinion, Im sure you have a few of those that turn out not what you stated.

 

[ErnieSigley]

As in what i have seen so far i think most will turn out ok, who are you to say im wrong clown, its called an opinion, Im sure you have a few of those that turn out not what you stated.

You probably think Bmac would still make a good coach!

If names like Young, Austin, Panos aren't proof to you then nothing is.
Pearce remains on the list from that same draft, was lucky last year but is odds on to go this one.
Prudden from 2 years back is another walking the tight rope.
Going no where with Goodes for a draft 2 seasons ago
Fuller has hardly played, again lucky to on the list still.
Maybe the rest might make 50 games each, but that would be wishful thinking.

Facts not opinions!

 

[theAthenian]

That's great, I'm happy for you.
My point was we probably needed a better chf, lock down small defender and another rover.

Your opinion will be more respected when its more full of fact rather than distorted Ernie(from Seasame St) logic
Your anger i would suggest and spite probably stems from being ignored a lot in social circles due to the fact that u talk crap fluently

 

[Butane]

Most Western Bulldogs supporters I know would agree with Proff. To call him the minority or call him personally ignorant is baseless. At the very least his posts are well thought out and explain themselves unlike those two cheap attacks which added nothing and proved less.