2017 Chat with the Club - now with answers see OP

[Samcro24]

Wrong.

That wasn't the "official" song, It's what they played at the MCG on GF day. Every other game, at least home, used the current version. In fact I was wrong, the current version was around in 97.

 

[Doc_]

That wasn't the "official" song, It's what they played at the MCG on GF day. Every other game, at least home, used the current version. In fact I was wrong, the current version was around in 97.

Nurse!

 

[Tex Danger]

O

And that's what I've been saying all preseason.

So effectively keeping Thommo has meant we've passed on a late pick in the draft or rookie list and passing had nothing to do with lack of available talent.

So who was that I was in discussion with about this, Pdub Carmo ?

or u could look at it as the club still wouldn't have picked another player as they know Thommo will be gone from the list so in planning that transition he already counts as a player off the list. A new draftee would have that number higher and do farther from that target number

 

[Pea Nut]

That wasn't the "official" song, It's what they played at the MCG on GF day. Every other game, at least home, used the current version. In fact I was wrong, the current version was around in 97.

If so, that's a surprise to me. I moved to QLD in the late 90's and would only really see the Crows play live at the Gabba. I didn't pick up on the change of lyrics until the mid to late 2000's I reckon. Disliked it then and probably dislike it more now.

 

[Samcro24]

If so, that's a surprise to me. I moved to QLD in the late 90's and would only really see the Crows play live at the Gabba. I didn't pick up on the change of lyrics until the mid to late 2000's I reckon. Disliked it then and probably dislike it more now.

If you go onto YouTube search jeff albertson, he has a few vids from the era. Seems the gf version was in use for the 97 minor round, but the current version was used in finals, except the gf. It then became the song for 98- again except the gf, which is odd because the current version was played a week prior at the prelim.

 

[Elite Crow]

O

or u could look at it as the club still wouldn't have picked another player as they know Thommo will be gone from the list so in planning that transition he already counts as a player off the list. A new draftee would have that number higher and do farther from that target number

You can get rid of a rookie after a year

 

[1970crow]

You can get rid of a rookie after a year

Which is why the reason makes no sense at all. It's rubbish, but we're not getting anything different to what's already in the public domain. I'm only 22 minutes in so far, but there wasn't anything in the interview that hasn't already been mentioned in the public space. What was worthy of reminding many of us, is that just because we see the same coaches completing their contracted periods doesn't mean that a power of work isn't happening behind the scenes. I remember an interview with Burton where he was talking about the various areas they'd been researching and making changes. It's easy to forget that side of it just because Doc is still the stoppage coach.

I think it's a huge challenge for the Casters to run an interesting interview whilst not really being able to address the topics that we devote most of our time arguing about here. As they say, asking those questions just results in the stock standard answers, which we get every week anyway. Let's face it, the AFL industry doesn't really say much publicly these days, it's all media trained boredom, Wood and Goddard recent exceptions who have actually spoken their mind.

 

[Elite Crow]

Which is why the reason makes no sense at all. It's rubbish, but we're not getting anything different to what's already in the public domain. I'm only 22 minutes in so far, but there wasn't anything in the interview that hasn't already been mentioned in the public space. What was worthy of reminding many of us, is that just because we see the same coaches completing their contracted periods doesn't mean that a power of work isn't happening behind the scenes. I remember an interview with Burton where he was talking about the various areas they'd been researching and making changes. It's easy to forget that side of it just because Doc is still the stoppage coach.

I think it's a huge challenge for the Casters to run an interesting interview whilst not really being able to address the topics that we devote most of our time arguing about here. As they say, asking those questions just results in the stock standard answers, which we get every week anyway. Let's face it, the AFL industry doesn't really say much publicly these days, it's all media trained boredom, Wood and Goddard recent exceptions who have actually spoken their mind.

If it was talent based why wouldn't they just say that? If he's right and most clubs are going in short then what he said makes sense.

I think it's time to acknowledge Thommo stopped us using a late pick.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

If it was talent based why wouldn't they just say that? If he's right and most clubs are going in short then what he said makes sense.

I think it's time to acknowledge Thommo stopped us using a late pick.

Thommo didn't stop us taking another pick as we had a vacancy.

 

[Pdub]

Thommo didn't stop us taking another pick as we had a vacancy.

He won't accept that as a reason. Nor will he consider that if we didn't keep Thommo we may have just gone 2 short. Or that when Thommo was re-contracted the team actually sat down and considered what type of players will be available in the rookie draft and if Thommo will provide more to the side as midfielder depth than any available rookie ever could.

 

[Geoffa32]

I think Thommo is better than the kid we would have picked up after Ben Jarman.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[FR0GGY]

I think Thommo is better than the kid we would have picked up after Ben Jarman.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

That's true, but the kid after Ben Jarman wouldn't have been playing, however someone like CEY might be if thommo wasn't there?

 

[Geoffa32]

That's true, but the kid after Ben Jarman wouldn't have been playing, however someone like CEY might be if thommo wasn't there?

True.

I think we need to wait and see how Thommo is used this year before forming a full opinion.

I hope he is seen as depth/insurance as Pods was his final season and not a lock round 1 and best 22 player.


Our midfield is a bit shallow and it will be good to have him smashing the SANFL and having the young guys learn off him there and then be ready to slot in if an AFL regular is injured or drops form.

I hope that is his role this year.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[marty36]

I think Thommo is better than the kid we would have picked up after Ben Jarman.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Thommo is probably 2nd behind Sloane in the mid the way the season is shaping up with Brads injury

 

[Elite Crow]

Thommo didn't stop us taking another pick as we had a vacancy.

Did you not comprehend what Fagan said? When asked why we went short he said it was because of keeping list numbers down. They weren't going to use those picks.

So if Thommo wasn't on the list would we had gone one more short or picked up a player?

 

[Elite Crow]

He won't accept that as a reason. Nor will he consider that if we didn't keep Thommo we may have just gone 2 short. Or that when Thommo was re-contracted the team actually sat down and considered what type of players will be available in the rookie draft and if Thommo will provide more to the side as midfielder depth than any available rookie ever could.

I don't really consider your opinion as fact, sorry if you do.

The club does not know in advance what players are guaranteed to be there at the rookie draft.

Rookie drafts are a gamble and I'd rather gamble on a player that might turn into a Cameron or a Laird or a Hartigan, than one stuttering year from Thommo. That's short sighted and poor list management.

 

[Pdub]

I don't really consider your opinion as fact, sorry if you do.

The club does not know in advance what players are guaranteed to be there at the rookie draft.

Rookie drafts are a gamble and I'd rather gamble on a player that might turn into a Cameron or a Laird or a Hartigan, than one stuttering year from Thommo. That's short sighted and poor list management.

Nothing is stated as fact, but it's been obvious for a long time you do consider your own opinion as fact.

Cameron and Laird were players who were taken in the rookie draft, not skipped. They were players we rated and wanted in our side, so we picked them. You are wanting them to pick a player they don't really rate instead of Thommo.

Look, here's an argument for you, you could say we shouldn't have signed up Thommo so we could upgrade both Greenwood and Keath. I could accept that because you can measure both sides. You can have an opinion that both Greenwood and Keath might be better for the side than one of them and Thommo. It's still an opinion, but at least it's about players that we know actually exist and are real. It's a stretch to say it would be better to have a hypothetical rookie who we didn't rate very highly or not at all instead of Thommo.

 

[Geoffa32]

I had a listen to the interview this morning. Great work by those involved in bith the podcast and meeting.

Two things stood out for me was the way Andrew sees the membership number and memberships going forward.

I have always said the raw membership figure posted by clubs is pointless. Love that Fages sees it that way too. What I liked hearing was that he sees there can alternative ways that he wants the club to engage with the surveyed 600k supporters we have and turn that engagement into dollars for the club.

I see womans footy being a step towards this. It engages a group of our supporters who otherwise would not actively support the club. But would tick the "Adelaide Crows" box in a survey.

After hearing him talk about this alternative thinking towards revenue generation via membership I can see why we actively pursued a Womans team.


The AFL is starting to go beyond the thinking of merely gettjng x amount of people to buy a supporter package for AFL games as the main source of supporter generated income and a future need to get value for the club and casual supporters (who would never attend a game) who previously had little to do with the club. Great to hear our CEO is forward thinking and able to see that.

Also pretty happy to hear about our media production busjness making money providing a service to other organisations.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Elite Crow]

Nothing is stated as fact, but it's been obvious for a long time you do consider your own opinion as fact.

Cameron and Laird were players who were taken in the rookie draft, not skipped. They were players we rated and wanted in our side, so we picked them. You are wanting them to pick a player they don't really rate instead of Thommo.

Look, here's an argument for you, you could say we shouldn't have signed up Thommo so we could upgrade both Greenwood and Keath. I could accept that because you can measure both sides. You can have an opinion that both Greenwood and Keath might be better for the side than one of them and Thommo. It's still an opinion, but at least it's about players that we know actually exist and are real. It's a stretch to say it would be better to have a hypothetical rookie who we didn't rate very highly or not at all instead of Thommo.

We went in with a predetermined list number. Fact.
We went in short because of list sizes. Fact.
Thommo is on the list. Fact.
This will be Thommos last year. Fact.

Would we have gone in two short if Thommo wasn't on the list? Maybe but that would have been dumb.

Could a rookie have a longer career than Thommo? Maybe, lets see what happens in the next few years when we watch the players selected play. Odds are though that at least one of them will make it.

So we have two differing opinions, yours which is the same as the clubs again and mine which if it came off, would have made us a better club than one year of a staggering Thommo. If it didn't work what have we lost?

 

[feenix67]

Interestingly Hamish noted we had a strategy of definitely taking 4 but maybe a 5th for the right player - which it turned out we used. So there was some degree of flexibility there.

 

[Elite Crow]

Interestingly Hamish noted we had a strategy of definitely taking 4 but maybe a 5th for the right player - which it turned out we used. So there was some degree of flexibility there.

I think the flexibility was whether we took one on the list or a rookie instead.

And if it wasn't and we had planned on going in 2 short, I doubt we would have deviated from our plan by picking up 2 players, otherwise why bother having the plan. The end result though is we are short on our list because of list management.

Also was it asked why we don't have a pregame Village like Port?

 

[Pdub]

We went in with a predetermined list number. Fact.
We went in short because of list sizes. Fact.
Thommo is on the list. Fact.
This will be Thommos last year. Fact.

Would we have gone in two short if Thommo wasn't on the list? Maybe but that would have been dumb.

Could a rookie have a longer career than Thommo? Maybe, lets see what happens in the next few years when we watch the players selected play. Odds are though that at least one of them will make it.

So we have two differing opinions, yours which is the same as the clubs again and mine which if it came off, would have made us a better club than one year of a staggering Thommo. If it didn't work what have we lost?

This "you always align with the club" stuff is dumb and as someone who gets upset when people say you are always negative it's astounding you can't see your hypocrisy.

I'm not saying "this is a great decision" I'm not patting the club on the back and shouting "AFC #1".

All I'm saying is there are genuine reasons we kept him on the list, and I can see those reasons and why they make those decisions. But to you, anyone who doesn't act like the comic book guy on the Simpsons is a sycophant. Just saying something isn't the worst decision ever and the reason we haven't won the premiership in 20 years, does not mean you think it's the best decision ever made. There's a s**t load of ground in between those two opposites.

All Fagan has done is given a reason why it's advantageous for the club to go one short, if it was more advantageous to pick up a player they liked (i.e they believe that player is worth their time and resources), I'm certain they would have done so.

Yes, the odds say there will be a good player who we didn't pick, that's because you are betting against the field. The odds also say that the guy Essendon took at #1 won't be the best player in the draft. The odds don't say that picking a player you don't rate very highly just for the sake of it will give you a good chance to find that player.

Adding a player to the list is not a free hit, the player requires development, they take away time from the development coaches from players the club rates higher. Thommo doesn't take any time from the development coaches, the opposite actually he is able to work as a development coach and help train the young midfielders. He also adds depth if we need it in an area of the field we are very short.

Do I think Thommo should be played in every game? no, absolutely not.
Is Thommo going to do more for our list in 2017 than a roll of the dice rookie rated below B. jarman? most likely, yes.
Do I see benefit in him staying on the list to add midfield depth and leadership in the SANFL? absolutely.

 

[Elite Crow]

This "you always align with the club" stuff is dumb and as someone who gets upset when people say you are always negative it's astounding you can't see your hypocrisy.

I'm not saying "this is a great decision" I'm not patting the club on the back and shouting "AFC #1".

All I'm saying is there are genuine reasons we kept him on the list, and I can see those reasons and why they make those decisions. But to you, anyone who doesn't act like the comic book guy on the Simpsons is a sycophant. Just saying something isn't the worst decision ever and the reason we haven't won the premiership in 20 years, does not mean you think it's the best decision ever made. There's a s**t load of ground in between those two opposites.

All Fagan has done is given a reason why it's advantageous for the club to go one short, if it was more advantageous to pick up a player they liked (i.e they believe that player is worth their time and resources), I'm certain they would have done so.

Yes, the odds say there will be a good player who we didn't pick, that's because you are betting against the field. The odds also say that the guy Essendon took at #1 won't be the best player in the draft. The odds don't say that picking a player you don't rate very highly just for the sake of it will give you a good chance to find that player.

Adding a player to the list is not a free hit, the player requires development, they take away time from the development coaches from players the club rates higher. Thommo doesn't take any time from the development coaches, the opposite actually he is able to work as a development coach and help train the young midfielders. He also adds depth if we need it in an area of the field we are very short.

Do I think Thommo should be played in every game? no, absolutely not.
Is Thommo going to do more for our list in 2017 than a roll of the dice rookie rated below B. jarman? most likely, yes.
Do I see benefit in him staying on the list to add midfield depth and leadership in the SANFL? absolutely.

But your opinion always sides with the club, that's why I make a point of it.

Fagan didn't say it was more advantageous, he said that's why we did it.

So your list management strategy is to focus on just the year ahead? That's where we strongly disagree, especially given the output Thommo will produce in 2017.

 

[feenix67]

Also was it asked why we don't have a pregame Village like Port?

Nope, nobody asked us to.

 

[Pdub]

But your opinion always sides with the club, that's why I make a point of it.

Fagan didn't say it was more advantageous, he said that's why we did it.

So you're saying what i'm saying is different to what the club is saying, but I always side with the club?

So your list management strategy is to focus on just the year ahead? That's where we strongly disagree, especially given the output Thommo will produce in 2017.

Did our club only make one decision in the off season? was the only change we considered Thommo or an unrated rookie draft pick? we didn't take any other players? Come on man, try harder than this, don't create straw men.