Leppa's third year.

[knaf]

Last of the Roys posted this on the inexperience Watch thread "I stumbled across a spreadsheet today that I had made at the end of the 2013 home and away season of our list as it was. It was from early in September, so before the trading and delisting / retirements (i.e. before the go home 5 was official).

Anyway, out of the 40 players that were on our main list back then (just under two years ago), only 20 players are left (19 if you take out Maguire). Of the 6 that were on our Rookie list back then, the only one left is Bourke.

Interestingly, at the end of 2013 our 40 player main list had an average experience of 74 games each. Before last week's game, our current 40 player main list had an average experience of 62.8 games each."
My perception is that Leppa inherited a basket case and this statement goes someway to support this perception. Leppa has been rebuilding the list basically from scratch. My perception is that we have a better list now than we did when he took over in terms of the number of players with potential to improve but I don't have the time to do a player to player analysis to prove this statement.

 

[lukiuslion]

'Nearly made the finals' arguments have always been pretty weak.

The above things Kevvo mentions were happening (very special year).

It's almost like saying we should've employed Mark Harvey as head coach because he was the one who took us to within two kicks of the finals. Forgetting also that Ross Lyon played a terrible Fremantle side because he thought he was safe of getting a home final, and that's the only reason that his team almost lost.

We did ok in 2013 - but there is no doubt Leppa took over a list in need of a total re-structure, he could have tried to preserve what we had and maybe scraped through to another finals series. but it was obvious that group and our list profile needed a complete overhaul. and he did it. and I approve.

 

[dlanod]

We also weren't one kick away from the finals, we were two (Carlton won later that weekend by a kick, rendering our loss irrelevant).

 

[lukiuslion]

Last of the Roys posted this on the inexperience Watch thread "I stumbled across a spreadsheet today that I had made at the end of the 2013 home and away season of our list as it was. It was from early in September, so before the trading and delisting / retirements (i.e. before the go home 5 was official).

Anyway, out of the 40 players that were on our main list back then (just under two years ago), only 20 players are left (19 if you take out Maguire). Of the 6 that were on our Rookie list back then, the only one left is Bourke.

Interestingly, at the end of 2013 our 40 player main list had an average experience of 74 games each. Before last week's game, our current 40 player main list had an average experience of 62.8 games each."
My perception is that Leppa inherited a basket case and this statement goes someway to support this perception. Leppa has been rebuilding the list basically from scratch. My perception is that we have a better list now than we did when he took over in terms of the number of players with potential to improve but I don't have the time to do a player to player analysis to prove this statement.

As I said in response to JN - there is no doubt a complete overhaul was needed and the go home 5 made it even worse.

 

[jackess]

Last of the Roys posted this on the inexperience Watch thread "I stumbled across a spreadsheet today that I had made at the end of the 2013 home and away season of our list as it was. It was from early in September, so before the trading and delisting / retirements (i.e. before the go home 5 was official).

Anyway, out of the 40 players that were on our main list back then (just under two years ago), only 20 players are left (19 if you take out Maguire). Of the 6 that were on our Rookie list back then, the only one left is Bourke.

Interestingly, at the end of 2013 our 40 player main list had an average experience of 74 games each. Before last week's game, our current 40 player main list had an average experience of 62.8 games each."
My perception is that Leppa inherited a basket case and this statement goes someway to support this perception. Leppa has been rebuilding the list basically from scratch. My perception is that we have a better list now than we did when he took over in terms of the number of players with potential to improve but I don't have the time to do a player to player analysis to prove this statement.

There's more potential to improve but we have to start playing some decent footy at some point. Last season was a writeoff, this season is almost a writeoff and it's great to get experience into the kids but there's no guarantee that we'll one day start to play some decent footy.

 

[jackess]

As I said in response to JN - there is no doubt a complete overhaul was needed and the go home 5 made it even worse.

Did we need a complete overhaul? The recruiting of Bundy and Beams aided it and will Moloney, McGrath, Brown and Black retiring our hand was forced.

We picked up Clayton, Watts, McGrath and McGuiness very late in the draft last year and while McGrath looked quite good maybe keeping Lisle, Michael and Raines instead of Clayton, Watts and McGuiness might have been a better move.

 

[dlanod]

We picked up Clayton, Watts, McGrath and McGuiness very late in the draft last year and while McGrath looked quite good maybe keeping Lisle, Michael and Raines instead of Clayton, Watts and McGuiness might have been a better move.

They may well have gotten us more wins this year, but would they have done so going over the next five years? At some point you have to pull the plug on players that are not evaluated as being at AFL standard and replace them with youngsters who may or may not be, and then rinse and repeat. It's how teams improve.

 

[jackess]

They may well have gotten us more wins this year, but would they have done so going over the next five years? At some point you have to pull the plug on players that are not evaluated as being at AFL standard and replace them with youngsters who may or may not be, and then rinse and repeat. It's how teams improve.

What's the likelihood that 4 of the last 15 picks in a draft play any games?

If Raines, Lisle and Michael had managed 20 games between them over 2 seasons that would quite probably be more than Watts, McGuiness and Clayton play over their career.

 

[dlanod]

What's the likelihood that 4 of the last 15 picks in a draft play any games?

If Raines, Lisle and Michael had managed 20 games between them over 2 seasons that would quite probably be more than Watts, McGuiness and Clayton play over their career.

Except they wouldn't be holding out Watts, McGuiness and Clayton. They'd be holding out McGrath, Close and Andrews (looking back to our pre-injury teams), or more likely still be in the reserves playing with Watts, McGuiness and Clayton since they'd already shown they were marginal prospects at AFL level.

 

[lukiuslion]

Did we need a complete overhaul? The recruiting of Bundy and Beams aided it and will Moloney, McGrath, Brown and Black retiring our hand was forced.

We picked up Clayton, Watts, McGrath and McGuiness very late in the draft last year and while McGrath looked quite good maybe keeping Lisle, Michael and Raines instead of Clayton, Watts and McGuiness might have been a better move.

Yeah, we were totally reliant on Brown both structurally and Psychologically and he was about to retire, Simon Black had just retired. In terms of Key position players we had NONE ready to go under an ageing Merrett and Brown etc. NONE in that prime age group. There was this massive gulf in our age structure, we had a bunch of decent 23 year olds, and a bunch of decent 29 year olds but almost no one worth mentioning coming into into their prime (27ish). And we were about to have 5 GOOD young players walk out, who were the next crop who were just getting to that point where they were going to start taking responsibility for their positions - which left a huge gap and just generally.. The only thing we had going for us was the RRR's, Zorks, greeney and a few decent young blokes, we didn't have an exceptional talent pool across the board.

I think all considered I was crying out for a total re-build overhaul at the time. That team the way it was, or even with minor changes, would have never competed for a top 4 spot.

 

[POBT]

Worth noting that Leppa didn't inherit the side that Voss left. Voss left the club with a list that included the go-home 5. While Leppa technically took over with those guys on the list, in reality those guys had made their minds up to leave.

I'm not interested in re-visiting whether Voss caused the go-home 5 to leave or whether sacking Voss was a cause but the one bloke who wasn't to blame for their departure was Leppa - he was left to pick up the pieces.

Now, the argument could be made that the go-home 5 had minimal impact on our 2013 season which is at least partly true. But the long term state of the list clearly went backwards with the departure of 5 highly rated young players in whom we had invested 2-3 years of development.

 

[Ironmonger]

Worth noting that Leppa didn't inherit the side that Voss left. Voss left the club with a list that included the go-home 5. While Leppa technically took over with those guys on the list, in reality those guys had made their minds up to leave.

I'm not interested in re-visiting whether Voss caused the go-home 5 to leave or whether sacking Voss was a cause but the one bloke who wasn't to blame for their departure was Leppa - he was left to pick up the pieces.

Now, the argument could be made that the go-home 5 had minimal impact on our 2013 season which is at least partly true. But the long term state of the list clearly went backwards with the departure of 5 highly rated young players in whom we had invested 2-3 years of development.

But surely that's been largely offset by the addition of Beams, Christensen, Robinson and the unexpected emergence of Martin?

 

[lukiuslion]

Worth noting that Leppa didn't inherit the side that Voss left. Voss left the club with a list that included the go-home 5. While Leppa technically took over with those guys on the list, in reality those guys had made their minds up to leave.

I'm not interested in re-visiting whether Voss caused the go-home 5 to leave or whether sacking Voss was a cause but the one bloke who wasn't to blame for their departure was Leppa - he was left to pick up the pieces.

Now, the argument could be made that the go-home 5 had minimal impact on our 2013 season which is at least partly true. But the long term state of the list clearly went backwards with the departure of 5 highly rated young players in whom we had invested 2-3 years of development.

Yeah that's it, the go home 5 didn't cause any immediate crises and why they left is not important, but they added to the need to go re-structure the playing list and widened an already massive hole in our age profile.

 

[POBT]

But surely that's been largely offset by the addition of Beams, Christensen, Robinson and the unexpected emergence of Martin?

Not really the point though. The thread of the conversation related to Leppa inheriting a side that was "one kick away from finals". That side that Voss/Harvey coached was not the side Leppa got to coach in 2014. Obviously, that happens every year but this was pretty much a unique scenario which should be factored into "what Leppa took over".

I'm not saying all of this to justify where we are at as a club. I said at the top of the thread that Leppa needs the side to perform next year or he simply can't survive. But it is not reasonable to compare 2014 performances with what happened the previous year.

 

[jackess]

Except they wouldn't be holding out Watts, McGuiness and Clayton. They'd be holding out McGrath, Close and Andrews (looking back to our pre-injury teams), or more likely still be in the reserves playing with Watts, McGuiness and Clayton since they'd already shown they were marginal prospects at AFL level.

They wouldn't be best 22 they'd only be depth but I would've preferred at least two of them for another year or 2 than having 4 very speculative picks at the end of the draft which were far more likely to be misses than hits. This is compounded by the fact we'll lose Staker, Maguire and McGuane at the end of the season.

 

[lukiuslion]

But surely that's been largely offset by the addition of Beams, Christensen, Robinson and the unexpected emergence of Martin?

Yeah but we needed them too. They are in the Rocky and Rich development category, so its GREAT we got them in to build our midfield core. But that didn't solve our age profile issues or our Key position issues.

what we really needed was Beams, Charlie Dixon, Sam Reid, Alex Rance, and about 4-5 other 24-25 year olds that play various positions if we were going to cover the impending lose of players and rebalance our list/ age profile. The go Home 5 was the nail in coffin, even with those Guys if they had stayed, it was still nasty.

I firmly believe that our list was in horrible shape in 2013, it still is in many ways. Goose, Staker, Merrett (less likely) retiring will help the balance more, issue is - it looks like we might get even worse again before we get better still.

 

[Ironmonger]

Not really the point though. The thread of the conversation related to Leppa inheriting a side that was "one kick away from finals". That side that Voss/Harvey coached was not the side Leppa got to coach in 2014. Obviously, that happens every year but this was pretty much a unique scenario which should be factored into "what Leppa took over".

I'm not saying all of this to justify where we are at as a club. I said at the top of the thread that Leppa needs the side to perform next year or he simply can't survive. But it is not reasonable to compare 2014 performances with what happened the previous year.

I meant in relation to the years of development that we lost. My bad for not being clear about that. It seems like we've gained more years of development than we've lost over the past couple of years.

On the impact of the go-home five, though, it struck me recently that they're indirectly contributing to our injury list. Without them we wouldn't have Paine and West, we probably would've let Staker go, and may not have recruited McGuane.

That is the reality of course when you're needing to quickly replace experience. You're prepared to overlook certain issues, like injury history, that might be a dealbreaker for other clubs.

Yeah but we needed them too. They are in the Rocky and Rich development category, so its GREAT we got them in to build our midfield core. But that didn't solve our age profile issues or our Key position issues.

what we really needed was Beams, Charlie Dixon, Sam Reid, Alex Rance, and about 4-5 other 24-25 year olds that play various positions if we were going to cover the impending lose of players and rebalance our list/ age profile. The go Home 5 was the nail in coffin, even with those Guys if they had stayed, it was still nasty.

I firmly believe that our list was in horrible shape in 2013, it still is in many ways. Goose, Staker, Merrett (less likely) retiring will help the balance more, issue is - it looks like we might get even worse again before we get better still.

This is true. We certainly had existing issues in 2013 that are coming home to roost now.

I might possibly be out of sync with the broader discussion, but I'd have thought that the specific harm of the years of development lost through the go-home five has been alleviated by events since then.

Part of my frustration with Leppitsch is that he came into the club at a time when we desperately needed some stability, and instead he's put players into different parts of the ground and played a lot of kids. He might well be proven right, ultimately, but right now I'm not convinced his way was the right way.

 

[lukiuslion]

I meant in relation to the years of development that we lost. My bad for not being clear about that. It seems like we've gained more years of development than we've lost over the past couple of years.

On the impact of the go-home five, though, it struck me recently that they're indirectly contributing to our injury list. Without them we wouldn't have Paine and West, we probably would've let Staker go, and may not have recruited McGuane.

That is the reality of course when you're needing to quickly replace experience. You're prepared to overlook certain issues, like injury history, that might be a dealbreaker for other clubs.



This is true. We certainly had existing issues in 2013 that are coming home to roost now.

I might possibly be out of sync with the broader discussion, but I'd have thought that the specific harm of the years of development lost through the go-home five has been alleviated by events since then.

Part of my frustration with Leppitsch is that he came into the club at a time when we desperately needed some stability, and instead he's put players into different parts of the ground and played a lot of kids. He might well be proven right, ultimately, but right now I'm not convinced his way was the right way.

I know I am fence sitting a bit on this thread, but I also have many doubts about the way he has handled certain elements - for example, I distinctly remember his first interview on SEN, he said - "I got straight in and started looking over and evaluating the list and we desperately need to focus on our Key Position stocks, its an area we are looking really poor in" and nearly 2 years later, we are in an arguably worse position with our Key Positions. I know it's the list managers job, but there are some areas he has me scratching my head. My biggest concern was the first 5 rounds this year, and the fact effort was so horrible. Just so hard to know, given his task and our horrible situation (compromised drafts, injury, financial, players leaving, non footy state) if any other coach would do any better. hence this thread and what to do next. lol I DON'T KNOW!!!!!!!!!!

 

[James North]

Wanting KP players is one thing - convincing them to come to our team, or finishing last and picking them first in the draft is another.

He's definitely in a bind.

 

[Viceregal]

We also weren't one kick away from the finals, we were two (Carlton won later that weekend by a kick, rendering our loss irrelevant).

And a higher placed team being kicked out of the finals thus making the 9th spot a 'finalist'

 

[jackess]

And a higher placed team being kicked out of the finals thus making the 9th spot a 'finalist'

It would still have been 11 wins and a percentage of 90. Would love that next season.

 

[Hirsty23]

Need to stick with Leppa for a couple more years yet. He has taken on a very challenging task with us! When you look back at our list, we have drafted extremely well, lets look at how much better off we would be with Yeo, Polec and Docherty in the current side. To lose such talent at once has set us back years, nobody else in the league has had to face the exodus we have. There is a distinct lack of depth in our list as a result, with the injuries we've had this year Leppas job has only been made harder, i'm sorry but players like Cutler, Bourke, Beasley, Bewick, Lester, O'Brien and Dawson aren't getting games for any other side in the league at this point.

 

[Royboys44]

Need to stick with Leppa for a couple more years yet. He has taken on a very challenging task with us! When you look back at our list, we have drafted extremely well, lets look at how much better off we would be with Yeo, Polec and Docherty in the current side. To lose such talent at once has set us back years, nobody else in the league has had to face the exodus we have. There is a distinct lack of depth in our list as a result, with the injuries we've had this year Leppas job has only been made harder, i'm sorry but players like Cutler, Bourke, Beasley, Bewick, Lester, O'Brien and Dawson aren't getting games for any other side in the league at this point.

This is the truth and it shows that we have a significant depth and structure problem. This will take time. Stick with him and let him develop his list.

 

[HowYouDoin]

Removing the coach seems like the easiest fix for poorly performed teams. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't go well, the team spends another few years treading water. I think the board needs to really understand well where the list is at before they move on the coach.

Thompson was seemingly only weeks away from sacking at Geelong when they began to turn the corner. Clarkson wasn't looking particularly destined for a long career before Hawthorn began to develop. Arguably Hardwick might have gone last year if Richmond hadn't had their late season surge. I'm sure there are other examples as well.

Patience with a coach is often critical with young developing teams. When things start to click it can happen quite quickly. Plus sacking a coach can reset everyone for a season or so while they start all over again with the new bloke. Some coaches have a dream run because they arrive at the right time. I reckon Eade thought he was going to GC at the perfect time. Now...not so much.

By all means review Leppa at the end of each season. But there is a big difference between getting a better coach, and just getting a different coach. A smart board will only move when they know they have a better plan with a better coach.

I'm sorry, but most coaches do not last when your team is at the bottom of the ladder for 3 years in a row. If we repeat our efforts next year, leppa will be gone.

 

[WA Lion]

I'm sorry, but most coaches do not last when your team is at the bottom of the ladder for 3 years in a row. If we repeat our efforts next year, leppa will be gone.

Yes they do tend to get the boot in those circumstances, but perhaps the point is they shouldn't. A little more patience might see the coaches plans actually come to fruition.

Clearly, if a team is getting hammered every week after 3 years then there may be a problem, but if after 3 years a team which has undergone a complete rebuild is consistently competitive and is showing genuine signs of on field improvement then surely a little extra patience is warranted rather than just start again with yet another coach with their own ideas.