Analysis 2018 List Management discussion Part 1 (continued in Part 2 - see OP for link)

[Beer n Skittles]

So the Hawks won 3 flags with 3 tall forwards? Cats won 3 flags with 3 tall forwards? Someone better tell Scoot and Clarkson that their way of thinking is outdated

3 tall forwards was a fad. Lasted for 10 years or so. The move back to the one or two key forwards of the prior hundred years or so isn't some new fad.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

I actually put it down to their coach.
Their midfield was no better then most good sides. I don't think many sides had four forwards running around together that had kicked 46 goals or more in a season

Coach definitely. Also kicking skills around the ground were elite.

Those forwards kicking goals doesn't surprise me when the delivery and system was as good as you'll ever see.

 

[Arr0w]

Ok. Send me a link which shows every recruiter rating Lukosius the best. You want to talk facts, then provide them and I'll shut up.

Again, you twist the facts, I will keep pointing it out until I can't be bothered.

" I never said anything about any recruiter of how they rated Lukosius"

You on the other hand

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/carltons-2018-draft-thread.1187246/page-66#post-55460706

"As for recruiters all saying Lukosius is the best player, I doubt that is actually the case"

 

[Arr0w]

3 tall forwards was a fad.

So when did it change?

 

[Blue_Fusion]

So, Geelong had better mids and Hawthorn better forwards? And Geelong lost a gun that they were better able to cover than the gun that the Hawks lost?
But Hawthorn were more successful...

Again, I'll say to you what I said the HavUEvaSeenTheRain, their success wasn't just on the back of their forward line.

Their midfield was very, very good too. Better than Geelong's tall forwards.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Again, you twist the facts, I will keep pointing it out until I can't be bothered.

" I never said anything about any recruiter of how they rated Lukosius"

You on the other hand

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/carltons-2018-draft-thread.1187246/page-66#post-55460706

"As for recruiters all saying Lukosius is the best player, I doubt that is actually the case"

So? I do doubt that's the case. He said every recruiter rates Lukosius #1 'without a doubt'. That's his opinion and I'm not going to go off what someone on here reckons.

Just as I thought though, you can't provide any proof that all recruiters rate Lukosius the best.

 

[Beer n Skittles]

So when did it change?

Started to change when teams realised they couldn't get away with plonking a second ruck in the forward line anymore

 

[HARKER]

Of course development is important, but I am not worried about the now, I have always been interested in how we continue to evolve through list management. The club has finally moved away from the short term and concentrating on the long game. Jones is a vital component in what we want to achieve. After him, we have Weitering and Macreadie, who I believe has strong attributes to play further up the ground, but let's say he remains a KPD. Marchbank is a 3rd tall and IMO, will always be so, along the lines of a Lever type. That to me is thin, not for the now.

Not sure where this throwing darts comes from, surely we have seen enough of SOS's mantra, that there is more strategy behind selections.
I have never said, don't draft mids, ever. The trade/draft period will once again, be balanced as it has been over the last 3 years, of mids and talls

Since we started talking about our surplus of talls in October, the media have caught on and now their bashing not only ourselves but The Dogs also.
It's all getting a little tiresome, but I do wonder what the logic was in to keep adding these talls. What fits for me is that Weitering was slated to be a forward, but now the brakes have come upon that notion and we seem to have more tall backs than we can possibly utilise to maximum effect.

I'm happy for the club to persist with Weitering forward and to nurture Macreadie into the key back we'll need in years to come.
To now wave the white flag and leave Weitering back, whilst re-training Macreadie to become something else, could be a problem for Macreadie, leaving him homeless. This is one of the reasons I don't like having too many of one type and oddly enough the List Manager (Terry Wallace) has started banging on about the same thing in recent weeks.

 

[Arr0w]

So? I do doubt that's the case. He said every recruiter rates Lukosius #1 'without a doubt'. That's his opinion and I'm not going to go off what someone on here reckons.

Just as I thought though, you can't provide any proof that all recruiters rate Lukosius the best.

I have never mentioned how any recruiter rates any kid.

 

[Arr0w]

Started to change when teams realised they couldn't get away with plonking a second ruck in the forward line anymore

Again which was when, what year?

 

[Beer n Skittles]

Again which was when, what year?

I don't know, why don't you tell me what you're fishing for instead of playing 100 questions?

 

[Arr0w]

Since we started talking about our surplus of talls in October, the media have caught on and now their bashing not only ourselves but The Dogs also.
It's all getting a little tiresome, but I do wonder what the logic was in to keep adding these talls. What fits for me is that Weitering was slated to be a forward, but now the brakes have come upon that notion and we seem to have more tall backs than we can possibly utilise to maximum effect.

I'm happy for the club to persist with Weitering forward and to nurture Macreadie into the key back we'll need in years to come.
To now wave the white flag and leave Weitering back, whilst re-training Macreadie to become something else, could be a problem for Macreadie, leaving him homeless. This is one of the reasons I don't like having too many of one type and oddly enough the List Manager (Terry Wallace) has started banging on about the same thing in recent weeks.

Well Wallace has very little credibility when it comes to list management

 

[CJMB]

But we have 3 tall forwards? So why do you want another? We have Charlie, Harry, Casboult(for now), Kerr, we won't skip out on Ben. TDK can go forward.

2 of them are going really well. It would be stupid to ignore our midfield woes. We can't hope to woo free agents, we haven't got much trade value, where are they going to come from if not the draft? Later picks? Sorry, but that's low percentage and I'm not interested in that.

Let’s keep it realistic: Charlie is going really well,Levi is short term, Harry is only 4 games in, Pat and Tom are yet to debut and Ben hasn’t even been drafted yet. H, P, T & B may all come on but also there’s a chance they won’t.

Similar can be said about our younger mids. Cripps is a gun, Fish looking good. Murph, Ed, Kerridge, Thomas, Mullett, aren’t the long term future, some might be gone come September. SPS, Kennedy, Lang, Dow, O’Brien, Cuningham, Pickett have all shown something, some more than others, but all still have a way to go. Ideally all the younger lot continue to improve and stay on the list but ultimately nothing is guaranteed.

It’s hard to see us drafting 5 key forwards and do crazy things to the list balance, but if the club believes that the best available at our first (or second) pick is a tall then I’m ok with that. We’ve drafted more mids and flanker types than talls over the last 2 years and I reckon that trend continues. Maybe another Kennedy/Lang type trade or two as well to add to the stocks.

We’ll be alright.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Stamos]

but I do wonder what the logic was in to keep adding these talls.

Well, Rowe and ASOS are close to the end. When we took Macreadie, SOS thought he was just too good to pass on, and at that point there probably wasn't a person in the world who thought Jones would again become a best 22 player. The only reason he was still on the list was his contract. Since then, we've only taken TDK who is seen as a likely ruck (unless you count O'Shea as a tall, and I still can't get my head around that pick).

I think we've often selected teams that are too tall, and our midfield is obviously lacking depth, but I don't think we're really too tall heavy as a list.

 

[Arr0w]

I don't know, why don't you tell me what you're fishing for instead of playing 100 questions?

Not fishing for anything Skittles. IMO, a trend needs to be considered over a longer period than just one year. Dogs won a flag, then quickly went backward. Tigers win a flag, due to a whole host of reasons, yet the only(main) reason offered up is they have a smaller line up. Way too simplistic analysis

 

[HARKER]

3 tall forwards was a fad. Lasted for 10 years or so. The move back to the one or two key forwards of the prior hundred years or so isn't some new fad.

What's good today, isn't so good tomorrow.
We see it all the time and no one method is a template for all future methods.

Not saying it's going to work, but having three mobile tall forwards receiving from quality kicks, the likes of Williamson, O'Brien, Fisher, SPS etc may work and no need to slot the name Lukosius in there if Weitering gets back on track along with CCurnow and McKay developing further.
Don't know. It may work.

 

[Jimmae]

Since we started talking about our surplus of talls in October, the media have caught on and now their bashing not only ourselves but The Dogs also.
It's all getting a little tiresome, but I do wonder what the logic was in to keep adding these talls. What fits for me is that Weitering was slated to be a forward, but now the brakes have come upon that notion and we seem to have more tall backs than we can possibly utilise to maximum effect.

I'm happy for the club to persist with Weitering forward and to nurture Macreadie into the key back we'll need in years to come.
To now wave the white flag and leave Weitering back, whilst re-training Macreadie to become something else, could be a problem for Macreadie, leaving him homeless. This is one of the reasons I don't like having too many of one type and oddly enough the List Manager (Terry Wallace) has started banging on about the same thing in recent weeks.

In 2018, we're probably moving on Rowe, ASOS and JGM, while we might move on Kerr (please no one ask me why, I've covered this and we might re-rookie him if we do so). In 2019, we'll probably bid farewell to Levi, Phillips and Lobbe, maybe even sooner to one of the rucks if they stay in their perpetual cycles of injury.

Additionally, Jones may turn into trade bait. I know some were howling that down earlier, but they now can see that execution of the system was an issue (and the coaches have confessed to this to varying extents over the last 3 weeks). Even before that point, Macreadie has a part to play, and will be under no pressure to push himself too hard to perform in a senior role for the team before he's ready.

Weitering's on-field position will have zero impact on Macreadie's senior opportunities by next year at the latest, but I suspect he's already making in-roads in the minds of the match committee since he's resumed from his quad injury. We'll get a better look at him on Channel 7 this weekend.

That we have two extra key talls in a transitional period when our senior depth sucks is hardly a shock, it's the selections of both O'Shea and Shaw that have compounded our midfield problems.


PS - Weitering is not a key forward. He's like someone secretly tried to clone Harry Taylor, ffs.

 

[HARKER]

Well, Rowe and ASOS are close to the end. When we took Macreadie, SOS thought he was just too good to pass on, and at that point there probably wasn't a person in the world who thought Jones would again become a best 22 player. The only reason he was still on the list was his contract. Since then, we've only taken TDK who is seen as a likely ruck (unless you count O'Shea as a tall, and I still can't get my head around that pick).

I think we've often selected teams that are too tall, and our midfield is obviously lacking depth, but I don't think we're really too tall heavy as a list.

I hear you and which is why it will be interesting what we do at years end, but for now we're oddly shaped as a list, with too many tall backs and little rebounding players and mids, so which game were we going to play?

The list at our disposal and attacking game-style we wanted to adopt were somewhat at odds with one another.

 

[BlueRenaissance]

Again which was when, what year?

Arrow, it is not about year exactly. It is about number of teams changing from what was quite common, that is having (or trying to find) 3 quality talls up forward.

Some teams have changed their approach in 2017/18, most notably the Tigers (first) and now Pies. How both these teams fair in 2018 will play a large part on how the rest of the league react. Either they back in their own policy of 3 talls or change.

The Tigers winning a flag (and doggies before them - considered a smaller running side by perception) lends more credence to this change.

Plenty of clubs still going with 3 or more talls, Adelaide, Bombers to name two straight off.

But make no mistake, the gauntlet has been thrown down and clubs are monitoring what the Tigers and Pies can achieve with this set up. This 'might' have repercussions on drafting if the Tigers waltz in to another flag with the Pies not far behind.

 

[HARKER]

In 2018, we're probably moving on Rowe, ASOS and JGM, while we might move on Kerr (please no one ask me why, I've covered this and we might re-rookie him if we do so). In 2019, we'll probably bid farewell to Levi, Phillips and Lobbe, maybe even sooner to one of the rucks if they stay in their perpetual cycles of injury.

Additionally, Jones may turn into trade bait. I know some were howling that down earlier, but they now can see that execution of the system was an issue (and the coaches have confessed to this to varying extents over the last 3 weeks). Even before that point, Macreadie has a part to play, and will be under no pressure to push himself too hard to perform in a senior role for the team before he's ready.

Weitering's on-field position will have zero impact on Macreadie's senior opportunities by next year at the latest, but I suspect he's already making in-roads in the minds of the match committee since he's resumed from his quad injury. We'll get a better look at him on Channel 7 this weekend.

That we have two extra key talls in a transitional period when our senior depth sucks is hardly a shock, it's the selections of both O'Shea and Shaw that have compounded our midfield problems.


PS - Weitering is not a key forward. He's like someone secretly tried to clone Harry Taylor, ffs.

Again, I know what you're saying but in the meantime, we could have a wasted development year for some individuals.....Macreadie being of note.

PS - Weitering didn't start off playing forward last year for fun and had have he performed the way the coaches envisaged, we wouldn't even be discussing him as being a back-man. Things just didn't work out the way we thought they would. It happens.

 

[Stamos]

I hear you and which is why it will be interesting what we do at years end, but for now we're oddly shaped as a list, with too many tall backs and little rebounding players and mids, so which game were we going to play?

The list at our disposal and attacking game-style we wanted to adopt were somewhat at odds with one another.

Well to be fair, you add in Williamson, Pickett, Lang and Murphy and suddenly the more attacking game style looks a lot more realistic.

 

[katmanblue]

Of course we do. But i think we all know SOS wont take short cuts. Lets just keep supporting the club and the direction they have taken.

So many on here are quick to say its wrong. But fact is, it cannot be judged yet.

There is no rush. It comes down to getting it right

Agreed 100%.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Beer n Skittles]

Not fishing for anything Skittles. IMO, a trend needs to be considered over a longer period than just one year. Dogs won a flag, then quickly went backward. Tigers win a flag, due to a whole host of reasons, yet the only(main) reason offered up is they have a smaller line up. Way too simplistic analysis

I was really just trying to play devils advocate to your claim that the smaller forward lines are a fad to be honest. Pretty easy to claim any trend in the game a fad to suit whatever argument you like.
Tigers won the flag with pressure and defending right up the ground. Need a lot of small runners to keep it up for 4 quarters, and to prevent the ball from rebounding in the first place. Not necessarily saying that Carlton should be trying to replicate them.

What's good today, isn't so good tomorrow.
We see it all the time and no one method is a template for all future methods.

Not saying it's going to work, but having three mobile tall forwards receiving from quality kicks, the likes of Williamson, O'Brien, Fisher, SPS etc may work and no need to slot the name Lukosius in there if Weitering gets back on track along with CCurnow and McKay developing further.
Don't know. It may work.

My worry is more when the opposition have the ball. When we get pressure on the ball carrier our defenders (especially Weitering) look amazing. When we don't our defenders (especially Weitering) look poor.

 

[F_therest]

Yet even with Geelong having a superior midfield and backline, Hawthorn achieved more with the better forward line.

I don't think this means much in the argument about recruiting more tall forwards.

The main reason Hawthorn's forward line was amazing over their premiership years were their smaller forwards like Rioli, Poppy & Breust applying defensive pressure and impacting the scoreboard...which continued to be crucial to the Bulldogs and Richmond's success.

Roughead is a genuine KPF but Gunston was more third tall type and is quite athletic.

They did play the extra ruckman in Hale, but the game has changed since then. Notice Hawthorn and Clarko don't play 2 ruckmen anymore.

 

[Jimmae]

Again, I know what you're saying but in the meantime, we could have a wasted development year for some individuals.....Macreadie being of note.

PS - Weitering didn't start off playing forward last year for fun and had have he performed the way the coaches envisaged, we wouldn't even be discussing him as being a back-man. Things just didn't work out the way we thought they would. It happens.

Macreadie deserves to be in the VFL right now, so there's no problem there.

The coaches have high hopes for a lot of things for some decent reasons, but they clearly overlook the athletic demands in a lot of facets of football - match day and beyond - and miss where a few players' natural and likely positions lie, and some cases overestimate their AFL viability.

Weiters is a champion CHB who can pinch hit as a forward, and he's obviously carrying a few things. I don't think he's a wimp like you (and sometimes even Bolton) portray him as: I think he's a consummate professional who knows his body better than most footballers do. Unfortunately, we have physios, medicos, fitness coaches and a sports science team who don't seem to know that much about performance management compared to teams like St Kilda, Richmond and Sydney.

I mean we've got:

- 4 blokes who've had quad issues in the last 3 weeks, one turning theirs into a more significant injury
- a back stress reaction after they had back-hamstring issues last year as an 18 year old being thrust into the senior team
- 5 players with foot/ankle related issues
- 3 hamstring strains, one that triggered an Achilles recurrence with how it was managed
- a groin strain

That's nuts, and it's an area of managing the list we don't seem to do enough about.