Sinclair moving back to rookie list ... or not

[The Punter]

I think you'll find Ross and Ray are back, so Sinclair and Saad are going back down. If Siposs is back by the mid-season upgrade, then we'll need that just to keep Schneider up, who would be top 5 B&F right now (with Armitage, Steven, Fisher and Bruce).

Now chances are someone else will go down soon so that won't be a problem, but there is a tiny chance we've see Sinclair playing for St Kilda for the last time this season.

Almost certain to be elevated at the end of the year though.

 

[Stewart66]

Shown plenty long year will get upgrade , not a problem was going to need rest soon anyway.

 

[dewah07]

BOOOO this rule, why the hell does any sport have this rule..

should just be you can upgrade any rookie and bring down any senior player for no reason but the rookie is a jet

 

[gilbert the best]

the year so far for Sinclair has been a big success, at the start of the year he would have thought of playing the whole season for sandi, the 5 or 6 games he has played have been a bonus for him, and the saints, he has proved he can play, and if he had to spend rest of the year at sandi wouldn't do him any harm, as he knows he will be upgraded next year. sandi will be good for him, and allows the saints room to try a few different options getting games into kids.

 

[ike2112]

Unfortunately rookies are only in because there are players missing out of the senior core. We seem to have a really clean bill of health so spots in the VFL team and the upgraded rookies are a victim of that positive news. We probably know more about him that a few of our senior listed players who might be playing for their careers.

This is a sign, good or bad, that we consider a guy we just grabbed in the rookie draft who looks about 14 years old, is already a better option than:
Minchington (despite being on list 3+ years)
Templeton (stalled a little)
Saad (people underestimate how much he'd have lost in his time out, but I also think he shows little sign of the club's apparent hope he can run through MF a bit)
Murdoch (who is played mostly forward)
Siposs (albeit injured)

Our issue with the rule is one thing, but we also have to wonder why we would all rather see Lonie plus 2 guys on the rookie list (Schneids and Sinclair) over a range of guys who are on our main list. Suggests to me we still have some list-clearing to be done!
The bit I don't quite understand is that if we are saying Schneider is elevated instead of Markworth, then I think the Siposs injury means we can keep one more elevated, so we've just chosen Saad ahead of Sinclair. I'm not sure I'd have done the same - would potentially have kept Sinclair ahead until round 11 then switched them around, purely to keep his run going for now. But giving him half a year seems ok to me, and for all I know he might be starting to struggle with the physical side and Richo thinks he needs a little break.

Could be worse - remember at one point during offseason there was a chance we weren't going to elevate Mav! The rule exists to allow them to come in to cover injuries, which is what they did. In theory now the injured are back, those who were injured should be the preferred player. In reality I reckon if we are honest we would rather someone else got injured!
As much as Farren Ray is a handy player, do we need him now? Roberton was filling his role and to be honest I preferred his work. Ross being back is good, it potentially means less rotations through the middle for the forwards.

 

[Persevering Saint]

I see where you're coming from, Ike, but I think there's another possibility. It could be that we don't think that Sinclair is necessarily better than any of those players. It could be that we recognised that we had a limited window in which to develop him in the way we wanted to for the year.

What I mean is, the club may have pencilled in that, ideally, Sincs would get about 10 games for the year, and that Minch would get about 12. They may well have also expected that, come what may, Schneids would be upgraded mid year. So, given that circumstance, there is a high likelihood that Sincs would have no way at all of playing his 10 ideal games in the second half of the year. But we could guarantee, given the LTIs at the beginning of the year, that he could play those 10 games NOW. So, once he returns to the rookie list, Minch comes in, and lo and behold, gets HIS 12 games.

What I mean is, it might be that Sincs was chosen simply because of the limited window afforded by LTIs, and they decided to strike while the iron was hot (to mix metaphors, but anyway). It thus may have no reflection on him being better than other players.

 

[Big Mart]

Won't hurt him

 

[ike2112]

I see where you're coming from, Ike, but I think there's another possibility. It could be that we don't think that Sinclair is necessarily better than any of those players. It could be that we recognised that we had a limited window in which to develop him in the way we wanted to for the year.

What I mean is, the club may have pencilled in that, ideally, Sincs would get about 10 games for the year, and that Minch would get about 12. They may well have also expected that, come what may, Schneids would be upgraded mid year. So, given that circumstance, there is a high likelihood that Sincs would have no way at all of playing his 10 ideal games in the second half of the year. But we could guarantee, given the LTIs at the beginning of the year, that he could play those 10 games NOW. So, once he returns to the rookie list, Minch comes in, and lo and behold, gets HIS 12 games.

What I mean is, it might be that Sincs was chosen simply because of the limited window afforded by LTIs, and they decided to strike while the iron was hot (to mix metaphors, but anyway). It thus may have no reflection on him being better than other players.

That's fair enough, would make sense although that would be making some key assumptions that Minch and/or Saad a) don't get injured, and b) deserve games.

I still think unless he's getting worn down already, would have kept him in the side on merit until round 11, that's when you can swap it all around.

Schneids is elevated all year for Markworth. All we did here was choose to keep Saad elevated for 4 more weeks instead of Sinclair.
I'd have kept Sinclair elevated, then at round 11, if Saad deserved it and there were no other injuries, swapped them. That said I wonder if they also had in mind that injuries might see Sinclair back later in the year for more games anyway, so give him a rest now.

Also now we are downgrading him, I'd vouch for giving him literally a week off. This would also leave us only the 15 eligible for Sandy this week, so nobody having to play Dev league and Defacto's blood pressure gets a rest!

 

[Winmar2Lockett]

The nerve damage Eli suffered in his arm injury was such that he wasn't expected to play until the 2nd half of the season.

The fact that he's back playing is a tribute to how hard he has worked.

He's another that we just need to be patient with.

 

[ike2112]

I dunno. The game has moved away from players who can't push up the ground and make an impact. I had many arguments with people on here regarding picking Saad and stand by my view that he should be nowhere near our list.

The club has mentioned twice - both times they've recruited him - about having an expectation he can play a bit of midfield/wing. Given they've had Lonie and Billings around ball-ups and Sinclair attending restarts and all those guys are a bit lightweight (acknowleding Billings is filling out a bit) there's no reason Saad couldn't give it a shot. I think they'll try him there in next few weeks, cos we've already seen just leaving him up forward isn't productive.

 

[The Punter]

I think there is an assumption that blokes are on the rookie list because they are ranked 40-45 on the list.

Adam Schneider is on the rookie list because we wanted to use four National Draft picks. No other reason. We could move him to the rookie list easily because no one else wanted to recruit him.

 

[Billy Bob65]

So during the post match members video by Alan Richardson he mentioned that Sinclair will now be dropping out of the primary list and back into Rookie Status.

I thought Ahmed Saad would have been the first dropped seeing as he wasn't even getting a game and Sinclair was playing fairly well.
Not sure if Saad is also being dropped back as well. Do we have two long term injury guys back this week?

Bit sad for Sinclair as he is currently number 2 on the AFL Player Rankings for 1st year players

Sinclair had to drop back because when you promote someone you link them to a specific player on LTI and Sinclair was the player linked to Ross who is ready to return. Saad is linked to Markworth and Schneider to Siposs so they both get to stay elevated for now.

I thought they'd changed the rule to reflect common sense so that you could pick and choose which rookie you sent back (if you had multiple LTIs and rookies promoted), so that clubs didn't have to send guys back that were playing seniors back instead of those playing state leagues just because they were unlucky to be linked to the wrong guy. Evidently not.

 

[Billy Bob65]

What's the rules of the mid season Rookie upgrades?
Can you upgrade any rookies?
Can you only upgrade a certain amount?
Does someone else need to drop down into that Rookie spot?

Any rookie
You only can elevate 1 (which unless Siposs has a setback will be Schneider)
No

 

[mad-saint-guy]

Schneids is elevated all year for Markworth. All we did here was choose to keep Saad elevated for 4 more weeks instead of Sinclair.
I'd have kept Sinclair elevated, then at round 11, if Saad deserved it and there were no other injuries, swapped them. That said I wonder if they also had in mind that injuries might see Sinclair back later in the year for more games anyway, so give him a rest now.

Also now we are downgrading him, I'd vouch for giving him literally a week off. This would also leave us only the 15 eligible for Sandy this week, so nobody having to play Dev league and Defacto's blood pressure gets a rest!

Markworth is expected back around mid-year. Chose to have a different operation which will give him a chance to play footy this year and make a claim for another year on the list.

I would be very, very disappointed with the club if we choose to elevate Schneider in round 11 ahead of Sinclair. We need those guys playing as much senior footy as possible. Another 10 games into Sinclair will be a whole lot better for us in 2016/2017 than another 10 from Schneider before he retires.

 

[VDS66]

The club would have drafted Sinclair if it had another spot. As such they rookied him. i suspect he'll be back mid year.

 

[WWSD]

I love what I've seen from Jack Sinclair this season. Gives you 100% each game and goes hard at the footy. Disappointed that he's been been put back onto the rookie list but it's good to know that you've got a future star player at your club.

 

[bird_man]

I wonder if they were to do the 2014 draft again, where he would be drafted. He'd almost have to go first round wouldn't he?

 

[mad-saint-guy]

I wonder if they were to do the 2014 draft again, where he would be drafted. He'd almost have to go first round wouldn't he?

I'd say he'd be third round. He has been impressive but you also have to account for the fact that he is about 12-18 months older than most of last years draftees. He has shown that he has the skill, composure and goal sense to forge an AFL career, we now need to see what his long-term role will be and where his ceiling is. He could be a solid small forward and occasional midfielder who gets 15 disposals per game and 30 goals per year, or he could develop into a serious goalkicking mid racking up 22ish disposals per game. It's a shame he isn't 5-6 cm taller because then I think he would definitely have a future in the midfield. He's tough and throws himself around but there isn't much of him, which could mean he struggles as a permanent mid.

 

[bird_man]

I'd say he'd be third round. He has been impressive but you also have to account for the fact that he is about 12-18 months older than most of last years draftees. He has shown that he has the skill, composure and goal sense to forge an AFL career, we now need to see what his long-term role will be and where his ceiling is. He could be a solid small forward and occasional midfielder who gets 15 disposals per game and 30 goals per year, or he could develop into a serious goalkicking mid racking up 22ish disposals per game. It's a shame he isn't 5-6 cm taller because then I think he would definitely have a future in the midfield. He's tough and throws himself around but there isn't much of him, which could mean he struggles as a permanent mid.

That's true, he is a year older then the other fella's, but we also have to remember last year was the first year that he had really concentrated on football. Before then he was a cricketer first. So he really isn't any further in front as far as development goes. Such a skilful player, he has a very bright future IMO.

 

[Persevering Saint]

I wonder if they were to do the 2014 draft again, where he would be drafted. He'd almost have to go first round wouldn't he?

Certainly for Carlton.

 

[gringo2011]

That's true, he is a year older then the other fella's, but we also have to remember last year was the first year that he had really concentrated on football. Before then he was a cricketer first. So he really isn't any further in front as far as development goes. Such a skilful player, he has a very bright future IMO.

I spoke to him preseason and he said he has been best friends with Billings since he was little. Was playing footy, cricket, basketball etc with Billings. The last year was their first apart. He said he asked at Port Melbourne what he needed to do to get drafted to an AFL club. Exceeded the suggested program and spent every moment he could spare in the gym. It's a great story of determination from a kid and makes him that much more likeable. He stood out next to the other new recruits because he looked like he had Curren's build. He is a genuinely nice kid too, very respectful and positive.

 

[hayes]

I'd say he'd be third round. He has been impressive but you also have to account for the fact that he is about 12-18 months older than most of last years draftees. He has shown that he has the skill, composure and goal sense to forge an AFL career, we now need to see what his long-term role will be and where his ceiling is. He could be a solid small forward and occasional midfielder who gets 15 disposals per game and 30 goals per year, or he could develop into a serious goalkicking mid racking up 22ish disposals per game. It's a shame he isn't 5-6 cm taller because then I think he would definitely have a future in the midfield. He's tough and throws himself around but there isn't much of him, which could mean he struggles as a permanent mid.

1cm shorter than Shiel and Treloar my friend. As long as he's good enough he'll be fine, he's been taking centre bounces so I'd be pretty confident that's where he'll end up.

 

[ike2112]

1cm shorter than Shiel and Treloar my friend. As long as he's good enough he'll be fine, he's been taking centre bounces so I'd be pretty confident that's where he'll end up.

He also, even in just his 2nd AFL game, looked like one of those people who has plenty of time. Never seems rushed. Which is great when you consider how the knock on us is that our disposal goes to s**t if you pressure us - Sinclair and Lonie gave us an instant boost there.

 

[lenny_07]

Keep him on the rookie list for the rest of the year. His determination to succeed will have him in the best at Sandringham every week. He will train harder, he will get bigger and stronger. He will get elevated at years end. He will play 22 games in the guts next year.

And he will win the rising star in 2016.

 

[dewah07]

I'd say he'd be third round. He has been impressive but you also have to account for the fact that he is about 12-18 months older than most of last years draftees. He has shown that he has the skill, composure and goal sense to forge an AFL career, we now need to see what his long-term role will be and where his ceiling is. He could be a solid small forward and occasional midfielder who gets 15 disposals per game and 30 goals per year, or he could develop into a serious goalkicking mid racking up 22ish disposals per game. It's a shame he isn't 5-6 cm taller because then I think he would definitely have a future in the midfield. He's tough and throws himself around but there isn't much of him, which could mean he struggles as a permanent mid.

Being 19 shouldn't factor into it. He's had 1 afl preseason, 1 season with all coaches Etccc.

He im guessing redraft he goes 2nd round