Team Rd 1

[WALL-e]

BTW, I am in favour of playing developing players etc, but I just don't see the benefit of throwing them to the slaughter until the have at least given some indication they're ready. Like Smith is doing now.

 

[KUNG FU]

BTW, I am in favour of playing developing players etc, but I just don't see the benefit of throwing them to the slaughter until the have at least given some indication they're ready. Like Smith is doing now.

Yep same. Smith is ready. I will join the whining brigade if he doesn't debut before round 5. So many other names that have been thrown up on this board were not and are not.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Haven't they? Dangerfield, Otten, Walker, Martin, Davis, Sloane, Henderson, Jaensch, all already look up to best 22 standard after only being on our list a few years. Bar a couple of matches late in 07, none of that list has been playing more than three years. Gunston, McKernan and Petrenko all appear poised to take that next step. That's a pretty heady list for a three year drafting period (I'm ignoring the 2010 draft at this stage, though Smith and Callinan both look like great selections already). Sure, they haven't gone out and had finals success yet but that's more of a reflection on our senior squad, not the up-and-comers.

I'd say developing that list of players to AFL standard is a great reflection on our club - whether the majority of the plaudits should be given to the recruiting team or the youth development team is another debate, however.

Each to their own I guess, if you're happy with how things are going....congratulations to you. I am not. Sine we finished 10th last year I guess we just have different level of expectations where we want them to meet.

How should our development have been handled, then?

With all due respect, I'll pass on this question as we are just going over old ground. Been done to death.

 

[cmndstab]

Each to their own I guess, if you're happy with how things are going....congratulations to you. I am not. Sine we finished 10th last year I guess we just have different level of expectations where we want them to meet.

I'm not really happy with how things have been progressing, but youth development is not one of the areas I'm concerned about. Our youth development has been good - it's our senior players that have failed to reach the heights we needed to be better than 10th in 2010, and to push further into the finals the years before that.

If anything, it's been our strong youth development that's kept us as competitive as we have been over the 08-10 period, as mediocre a standard as that is.

With all due respect, I'll pass on this question as we are just going over old ground. Been done to death.

Fair call mate.

 

[Team DJ]

FB: Johncock Rutten Davis
HB: Otton Sellar Doughty
C: Van Berlo Thompson Mckay
HF: Porplyzia McKernan Knights
FF: Dangerfield Tippett Walker
R: Jacobs Douglas Vince

Int: Tambling Reilly Henderson (Sub) Sloane

Emg: Maric Martin Callinan

This team doesnt have a true second ruckman, but does include Sellar, McKernan and Tippett who can all relieve in the ruck. These guys can all also play key post providing a lot of flexibility especially with henderson off the bench. Sloane as the sub, will offer a heap of enthusiasm and run on the field late lifting the tired legs around.
Stevens doesnt get a look in, misses out to sellar/mckernan as they can also ruck

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Yep same. Smith is ready. I will join the whining brigade if he doesn't debut before round 5. So many other names that have been thrown up on this board were not and are not.

Sorry but I don't believe you.

You (and all those who support the current selection strategy) will find some acceptable reason to justify it when Craig inevitably leaves him out.

The other players are in good form... it's a tough away trip, not the time to debut a youngster... we're winning so no need to make changes... we're playing xxxx team so who would he match up against... we needed to go with the extra tall... his SANFL team had the bye last week so he'll be a bit rusty... we're playing a big-bodied team...

Smith won't play. And the Craig apologists will be running through their list of excuses why Craig was right and another youngster couldn't possibly take the field.

Oh, I'm sure he'll have quite a few games as the travelling emergency though.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

I'm not really happy with how things have been progressing, but youth development is not one of the areas I'm concerned about. Our youth development has been good - it's our senior players that have failed to reach the heights we needed to be better than 10th in 2010, and to push further into the finals the years before that.

If anything, it's been our strong youth development that's kept us as competitive as we have been over the 08-10 period, as mediocre a standard as that is.

Without going over old ground, this is why I beleive certain players (no names, no pack-drills) should have been relieved of their duties 24 to 36 months ago and then the younger players would be more advanced now. I'm not saying the younger guys are crap, I'm just saying I'm not happy with how fast they are development. The process should have been done at a much quicker rate than it is.

 

[Vader]

Carl - can you honestly find a position for Smith in our best 22? Heck, I can't even find a spot for him in the 27 I named for R1. Why the obsession with playing him early, long before his selection ahead of other juniors can be even close to justified?

It's not like he'll be omitted just to play an out of form veteran - there are just too many other kids in the queue alongside him, players like Martin, Otten, Henderson & Sloane. If he's to be selected, then (at least) one of these will have to miss out - so who would you drop?

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Carl - can you honestly find a position for Smith in our best 22? Heck, I can't even find a spot for him in the 27 I named for R1. Why the obsession with playing him early, long before his selection ahead of other juniors can be even close to justified?

It's not like he'll be omitted just to play an out of form veteran - there are just too many other kids in the queue alongside him, players like Martin, Otten, Henderson & Sloane. If he's to be selected, then (at least) one of these will have to miss out - so who would you drop?

You have a very solid point, but what if its Symes picked in from of him who should not be on an AFL list let along in the perceived best 22 players of that club. His skills are disgraceful.

 

[Vader]

You have a very solid point, but what if its Symes picked in from of him who should not be on an AFL list let along in the perceived best 22 players of that club. His skills are disgraceful.

I had Symes on the emergency list, meaning that he'd be player #26 or #27 on my rankings. Right now, he deserves to be ahead of Smith. I don't expect that state of affairs to remain constant for very long - it may even be reversed by the end of the MMC.

Like you, I'm not a fan of Symes' skills. However, he does provide us with a hard-nut inside ball winner - an area where we don't exactly have an abundance of talent.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Carl - can you honestly find a position for Smith in our best 22? Heck, I can't even find a spot for him in the 27 I named for R1. Why the obsession with playing him early, long before his selection ahead of other juniors can be even close to justified?

It's not like he'll be omitted just to play an out of form veteran - there are just too many other kids in the queue alongside him, players like Martin, Otten, Henderson & Sloane. If he's to be selected, then (at least) one of these will have to miss out - so who would you drop?

So you agree that Smith won't play? That's what I think too. I picked "0 games" in a poll thread a while ago about how many games our first round pick would play.

I highlighted best 22 because that is the key question. Does anyone think we're a chance to win a premiership this season? If yes, then fine. Smith doesn't play. Pick our Best 22 every week.

If no, then Smith must play. He's our first round pick, we were crap last season and a heap of spots have opened up, he's a midfielder not a 2-3 year key position project player and he has already banked a season of senior football.

Best 22 now? No. Next premiership team? Yes. So he plays.

 

[Vader]

I think he'll play this year - probably around 5-7 games, starting from the middle of the season once the usual injuries begin to take their toll, opening up positions for players 25-30 in the pecking order. I think he's more advanced than most of our recent 1st round draft picks - he'll probably get similar treatment to VB, who played 7 games in his debut season.

I certainly don't see him in our team in R1, while we have minimal injuries to contend with. Next premiership team? I certainly hope so - so he plays as soon as he becomes one of our best 22 players available.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Carl,

I think we're on the same sort of wave length regarding NC and his develop philosophies.

So to be fair to him, just before Christmas he did an interview (before his USA junket) and he said something along the lines of expecting the first round draft pick (Smith) to be ready to step into the side by round 3 or 4. Now, I don't know if he will select him but I got the impression that NC expects him to play early in the season. How early, god only knows but sometime in the first half of the season.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I think he'll play this year - probably around 5-7 games, starting from the middle of the season once the usual injuries begin to take their toll, opening up positions for players 25-30 in the pecking order. I think he's more advanced than most of our recent 1st round draft picks - he'll probably get similar treatment to VB, who played 7 games in his debut season.

I certainly don't see him in our team in R1, while we have minimal injuries to contend with. Next premiership team? I certainly hope so - so he plays as soon as he becomes one of our best 22 players available.

This has been the mentility throughout Neil's tenure.

I'm not sure it is right. I prefer the Malthouse method where spots in the team are sometimes engineered and the introduction of young players is a planned, deliberate process. Rather than a completely random one (injuries).

 

[Vader]

This has been the mentility throughout Neil's tenure.

I'm not sure it is right. I prefer the Malthouse method where spots in the team are sometimes engineered and the introduction of young players is a planned, deliberate process. Rather than a completely random one (injuries).

I think you've fallen for Malthouse's propaganda. Collingwood dropped those senior players because they'd been overtaken by the youngsters, not because they were being rotated. Note that every one of the players who got "rotated" was delisted (or traded) at the end of the year?

Malthouse does exactly the same thing as Craig - he plays what he considers to be his best 22 available players every week. The only difference being what the younger players are expected to do to prove that they are better than the incumbents. Craig probably errs a little on the conservative side in that regard, favouring experience over youth where Malthouse favours youth over experience to a slightly greater degree.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I think you've fallen for Malthouse's propaganda. Collingwood dropped those senior players because they'd been overtaken by the youngsters, not because they were being rotated. Note that every one of the players who got "rotated" was delisted (or traded) at the end of the year?

Malthouse does exactly the same thing as Craig - he plays what he considers to be his best 22 available players every week. The only difference being what the younger players are expected to do to prove that they are better than the incumbents. Craig probably errs a little on the conservative side in that regard, favouring experience over youth where Malthouse favours youth over experience to a slightly greater degree.

This has been happening for years with Malthouse. It wasn't just last season. Though there is no way O'Bree, Presti or Lockyer would have played SANFL (or been delisted) under Craig. There is no way Sidebottom or Beams would have played matches in their first season. There's no way Craig would have debuted 10 payers during a finals year.

How many senior players have played SANFL football under Craig? There is barely a single example over six full seasons of coaching. Has their form been that good?

Just have a gander at the Collingwood vs Adelaide differentials in terms of games played by its draftees taken during the Craig era. This is not Malthouse propaganda. There is a distinct difference in the approach of the two clubs.

The Craig apologists often pipe up with "oh but Collingwood had all these ready made players but Craig didn't" which is of course drivel. Collingwood's youngsters performed well in many cases so people make the hindsight judgment, see, they were ready. Actually they only turned out to be ready. They were intuitive, speculative selections that could have easily failed but the important thing is that Malthouse wanted to see for himself what they were like in senior company. We assume that our mid-rangers are better and the kids wallow in the lower leagues. The SANFL is not a finishing school and it is frustrating that we treat it as such.

Collingwood
2003 - 0 games (Billy Morrison)
2003 - 0 games (Brayden Shaw)
2003 - 0 games (Brent Hall)
2003 - 0 games (Heath Shaw)
2003 - 8 games (Julian Rowe)
2004 - 13 games (Chris Egan)
2004 - 6 games (Sean Rusling)
2004 - 15 games (Travis Cloke)
2005 - 16 games (Dale Thomas)
2005 - 9 games (Scott Pendlebury)
2005 - 0 games (Danny Stanley)
2005 - 0 games (Ryan Cook)
2005 - 0 games (John Anthony)
2006 - 3 games (Ben Reid)
2006 - 0 games (Nathan Brown)
2006 - 0 games (Chris Dawes)
2006 - 6 games (Brad Dick)
2006 - 17 games (Tyson Goldsack)
2007 - 6 games (John McCarthy)
2007 - 0 games (Tobias Thoolen)
2007 - 0 games (Jaxson Barham)
2008 - 11 games (Steele Sidebottom)
2008 - 18 games (Dayne Beams)
2008 - 0 games (Jarrod Blight)
2008 - 0 games (Luke Rounds)
2009 - 0 games (Ben Sinclair)
2009 - 0 games (Josh Thomas)

Adelaide
2003 - 5 games (Fergus Watts)
2003 - 0 games (Joshua Krueger)
2004 - 0 games (John Meesen)
2004 - 11 games (Nathan van Berlo)
2004 - 0 games (Chad Gibson)
2004 - 0 games (Ivan Maric)
2004 - 2 games (Chris Knights)
2005 - 3 games (Richard Douglas)
2005 - 0 games (Darren Pfeiffer)
2005 - 4 games (Bernie Vince)
2005 - 0 games (Alan Obst)
2006 - 0 games (James Sellar)
2006 - 0 games (Kurt Tippett)
2006 - 0 games (David Mackay)
2007 - 2 games (Patrick Dangerfield)
2007 - 2 games (Andy Otten)
2007 - 3 games (Jarrhan Jacky)
2007 - 0 games (Myke Cook)
2007 - 0 games (Tony Armstrong)
2007 - 0 games (Aaron Kite)
2007 - 0 games (Taylor Walker)
2008 - 0 games (Phil Davis)
2008 - 1 game (Shaun McKernan)
2008 - 1 game (Rory Sloane)
2008 - 0 games (Tom Lee)
2008 - 0 games (Will Young)
2009 - 0 games (Daniel Talia)
2009 - 2 games (Jack Gunston)
2009 - 0 games (Sam Shaw)
2009 - 0 games (James Craig)

Collingwood
Drafted: 27
Debuted in their First Year: 12
Total Games: 128
Players in Double Figures: 6

Adelaide
Drafted: 30
Debuted in First Year: 11
Total Games: 36
Players in Double Figures: 1

 

[SydCrow]

Even looking at the list since Craig took over, ie 2005, Mick does seem to have a different philosophy.

But is anyone questioning the development of Otten, Danger, Mackay, Sloane, Davis, Martin, Tippett, Hendo, Tex (OK ), Jaensch, etc etc etc?

I guess the question is would they be as well developed now with more games in their first year?

 

[Tex200]

Its an interesting debate. NC has long been a strong advocate of SANFL based development and takes any opportunity to praise it. I cant quote him but after the NAB cup game when asked about Smith but he saod words the effect of what a great breeding ground the SANFL is.

The numbers comparison with MM is interesting and there seems no doubt that one coach loves his local comp and sees that is the best development tool, whereas MM possibly does not have that faith in the VFL and so tries to get his players into AFl via a more direct route. But as with so many things its hard to generalise. VB, Dangerfiled, Tippett all were fast tracked.

I think its very difficult to measure the quality of the 2 competitions...we have a game against them but does that really prove one is better than the other? In the end it comes down to 2 different philosophies a nd the quality of player each produces. Just at present the points go to MM but I have a strong feeling that 2011 will see NC catching up and getting a return on some SANFL investments.

 

[SydCrow]

the Foxtel Cup will prove once and for all which is the strongest comp

oh wait ...

 

[Bovo]

I think you've fallen for Malthouse's propaganda. Collingwood dropped those senior players because they'd been overtaken by the youngsters, not because they were being rotated. Note that every one of the players who got "rotated" was delisted (or traded) at the end of the year?

Malthouse does exactly the same thing as Craig - he plays what he considers to be his best 22 available players every week. The only difference being what the younger players are expected to do to prove that they are better than the incumbents. Craig probably errs a little on the conservative side in that regard, favouring experience over youth where Malthouse favours youth over experience to a slightly greater degree.

The Crows and Collingwood comparisons are very misleading. Collingwood has their own VFL team that they send their players to. They have an opportunity to groom a player for AFL. The Crows spread the love amongst SANFL teams who all have different strategies. Although we plead with the SANFL coaches, players are not always aligned to the needs of the Crows. Craig will give a kid an opportunity if an opportunity rises, but it would be foolish for a club who believes they can play finals to introduce inexperience and throw kids in the deep end to speed up their development at the detriment of winning games.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The Crows and Collingwood comparisons are very misleading. Collingwood has their own VFL team that they send their players to. They have an opportunity to groom a player for AFL. The Crows spread the love amongst SANFL teams who all have different strategies. Although we plead with the SANFL coaches, players are not always aligned to the needs of the Crows. Craig will give a kid an opportunity if an opportunity rises, but it would be foolish for a club who believes they can play finals to introduce inexperience and throw kids in the deep end to speed up their development at the detriment of winning games.

Agree that the SANFL-VFL scenarios are different but the comparison with Fremantle is even more lopsided.

Fremantle
2003 - 2 games (Ryley Dunn)
2003 - 0 games (David Mundy)
2003 - 0 games (Adam Campbell)
2003 - 0 games (Brett Peake)
2004 - 0 games (Benet Copping)
2004 - 0 games (Toby Stribling)
2005 - 5 games (Marcus Drum)
2005 - 0 games (Garrick Ibbotson)
2005 - 0 games (Robert Warnock)
2006 - 1 game (Clayton Collard)
2006 - 1 game (Brock O'Brien)
2006 - 0 games (Calib Mourish)
2007 - 20 games (Rhys Palmer)
2007 - 5 games (Clayton Hinkley)
2007 - 17 games (Chris Mayne)
2008 - 22 games (Stephen Hill)
2008 - 8 games (Hayden Ballantyne)
2008 - 22 games (Nick Suban)
2008 - 5 games (Zac Clarke)
2008 - 3 games (Michael Walters)
2008 - 0 games (Ben Bucovaz)
2008 - 3 games (Tim Ruffles)
2008 - 0 games (Chris Hall)
2009 - 23 games (Anthony Morabito)
2009 - 18 games (Nathan Fyfe)
2009 - 0 games (Joel Houghton)
2009 - 6 games (Jesse Crichton)
2009 - 13 games (Dylan Roberton)
2009 - 3 games (Justin Bollenhagen)


Adelaide
2003 - 5 games (Fergus Watts)
2003 - 0 games (Joshua Krueger)
2004 - 0 games (John Meesen)
2004 - 11 games (Nathan van Berlo)
2004 - 0 games (Chad Gibson)
2004 - 0 games (Ivan Maric)
2004 - 2 games (Chris Knights)
2005 - 3 games (Richard Douglas)
2005 - 0 games (Darren Pfeiffer)
2005 - 4 games (Bernie Vince)
2005 - 0 games (Alan Obst)
2006 - 0 games (James Sellar)
2006 - 0 games (Kurt Tippett)
2006 - 0 games (David Mackay)
2007 - 2 games (Patrick Dangerfield)
2007 - 2 games (Andy Otten)
2007 - 3 games (Jarrhan Jacky)
2007 - 0 games (Myke Cook)
2007 - 0 games (Tony Armstrong)
2007 - 0 games (Aaron Kite)
2007 - 0 games (Taylor Walker)
2008 - 0 games (Phil Davis)
2008 - 1 game (Shaun McKernan)
2008 - 1 game (Rory Sloane)
2008 - 0 games (Tom Lee)
2008 - 0 games (Will Young)
2009 - 0 games (Daniel Talia)
2009 - 2 games (Jack Gunston)
2009 - 0 games (Sam Shaw)
2009 - 0 games (James Craig)

Fremantle
Drafted: 29
Debuted in their First Year: 18
Total Games: 179
Players in Double Figures: 6

Adelaide
Drafted: 30
Debuted in First Year: 11
Total Games: 36
Players in Double Figures: 1

 

[Bovo]

Agree that the SANFL-VFL scenarios are different but the comparison with Fremantle is even more lopsided.

Fair point. However, you forget to mention a few points though:
2007 - Finished 11th
2008 - Finished 14th
2009 - Finished 14th

They needed to blood kids as they had nothing to lose. I understand they are reaping the rewards now...but it is a hard decision to find the balance between blooding kids and trying to make finals.....

 

[Vader]

Fair point. However, you forget to mention a few points though:
2007 - Finished 11th
2008 - Finished 14th
2009 - Finished 14th

They needed to blood kids as they had nothing to lose. I understand they are reaping the rewards now...but it is a hard decision to find the balance between blooding kids and trying to make finals.....

Same with Collingwood - their biggest period for blooding kids (04/05) coincided with them finishing 13th & 15th. '08 is an exceptional result though, with 2 1st year players managing 10+ games in a team which finished top-4.

 

[Bovo]

Same with Collingwood - their biggest period for blooding kids (04/05) coincided with them finishing 13th & 15th. '08 is an exceptional result though, with 2 1st year players managing 10+ games in a team which finished top-4.

And the draft concessions they reaped put them in good stead. This will be another bad year to make too many risks and end up at the bottom. All the good picks get stolen to go to another fake franchise

 

[sbenno]

Fair point. However, you forget to mention a few points though:
2007 - Finished 11th
2008 - Finished 14th
2009 - Finished 14th

They needed to blood kids as they had nothing to lose. I understand they are reaping the rewards now...but it is a hard decision to find the balance between blooding kids and trying to make finals.....

Well the converse argument (and the one I'm sure CS will take) is that Malthouse saw the opportunity to create a premiership winning side, and made the sacrifice required to forge the team. I'm not sure I entirely agree with it, but it's not without merit.

The problem with that argument is that it relies on a relatively small number of players making a significant difference. If you're blooding 2-3 youth with a couple of games, and easing your 2nd-3rd year players into the side, I don't see that they would make the difference between a side that makes the 8, and a side that finishes 11th, unless you're totally re-inventing the side with >5-6 first/second year players playing a significant number of games.

Collingwood
Drafted: 27
Debuted in their First Year: 12
Total Games: 128
Players in Double Figures: 6

Adelaide
Drafted: 30
Debuted in First Year: 11
Total Games: 36
Players in Double Figures: 1

Interesting you quote those Stats, as they appear counter to your argument. Both teams had similar number of draftees, both had similar number of first year debutants. So basically what your stats show is that Malthouse persists with his youngsters, while Craig doesn't.

So the question then should be: "Should we persist with youngsters for longer than we currently do?". Which is a pretty reasonable question.

EDIT: Just read the comparison with Freo, which is interesting, considering they have been so rubbish for so long. I'm not sure it really supports your argument, as without a couple of key players, particularly Barlow, their side collapsed last year. Doesn't really paint the same picture as the Collingwood comparison.