Training 2019 Preseason

Remove this Banner Ad

StCicatriz said:
depends how you look at the opportunity the SSP presents you with. if you look at it as JUST a temporary measure and almost like a fail safe then the rowe situation is the right call, you can debate the name, but the method is right.

if you look at it as more than that and an opportunity to unearth another mature age talent who will be at the club longer than one season, then the Rowe method doesn't hold up!

there's a third option here of listing a junior missed from the draft. although i don't think this really applies to us. basically what the GC chose to do.

the mid-season draft vs SSP is another discussion altogether
Click to expand...
Lets be honest, the SSP is a scrap heap. We aren't getting stars or long term players from it, given the reason it's there is because a player already listed is unavailable. So when that player is available again, we need to make a call on the SSP drafted player. I think it's a good initiative by the AFL but definitely not something to bank our future on.
 
plugger66 said:
That may or may not be true. Be interesting to know the facts. The thing is we need a ready made player we know who can play afl. Like I said we have already taken 3 mature age players.
Click to expand...

its an extension on the rookie list rules according to the AFL web site, so you treat it pretty much like how you treat the rookie list
 

Log in to remove this ad.

George said:
Lets be honest, the SSP is a scrap heap. We aren't getting stars or long term players from it, given the reason it's there is because a player already listed is unavailable. So when that player is available again, we need to make a call on the SSP drafted player. I think it's a good initiative by the AFL but definitely not something to bank our future on.
Click to expand...

i'm not so certain of that, the way i look at it, is how its designed. to be an extension on the rookie list. basically you have more rookie list picks, if a player gets injured and is placed on the LTI.

i don't think we should be flippant with it, every list spot is an opportunity. now the percentage chance of someone making it from an SSP based on the well documented draft percentages would tell you its low, lower than say a first rounder. but it's still an opportunity, none the less.

how you use that opportunity is debatable. personally i would have liked someone coming in like we did with Marsh, but i think the issue here is who we are replacing.

in rowe's case, he isn't replacing roberton. he's replacing carlisle. they just structured it differently to keep the door open for carlisle returning. so when you look at carlisle its incredibly hard to find someone who is 198cm with an AFL ready body. they don't grow on trees. they're extremely rare in the state leagues and if they aren't in the state league, they haven't done a pre-season. so from that perspective people should be happy.

what i do question is if there is a need to replace carlisle and instead look at maximising the opportunity to find more talent. i guess what i am saying is do we think having a burner player to support the upcoming seasons results is more important than say finding another long term best 22, regardless of position.

any SSP selection means you pass on the mid season draft right?
 
Last edited:
Yep end of the year we get first rights on Marsh and Rowe. If not then they go into the DFA pool again. Same deal as the players Essendon signed for the drug cheating.

Rowe is a stop gap but I think Marsh could prove something here. He has the talent, just a matter of him putting it together mentally. Would be a great foil for Acres with one back, one forward and both able to transition on ball.
 
If there's room, I'd prefer battle forward. He's a serious threat in the air, massive tank (which is arguably more important for an up and back forward), and kicks straight. Also when you combine him with long and parker, defenders will be sh*tting themselves.

But we can only play three of Bruce, Battle, Membrey, King. And I think it'd be Bruce and Battle vying for the last spot. I'd go Battle personally but I know that's not a popular opinion around here. I think Bruce's injury has been quite the career move ;)
 
MOLTEN GANGLANDS said:
If there's room, I'd prefer battle forward. He's a serious threat in the air, massive tank (which is arguably more important for an up and back forward), and kicks straight. Also when you combine him with long and parker, defenders will be sh*tting themselves.

But we can only play three of Bruce, Battle, Membrey, King. And I think it'd be Bruce and Battle vying for the last spot. I'd go Battle personally but I know that's not a popular opinion around here. I think Bruce's injury has been quite the career move ;)
Click to expand...
I'm with you on Battle fwd now.
He has a real presence about him.
 
plugger66 said:
I think the 2 we brought in can play forward and back. Marsh can even play on ball. I would be extremely disappointed if we gave up on the battle experiment already. It’s not like we need him up forward yet.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't. Best team in roles of strength
 
George said:
Lets be honest, the SSP is a scrap heap. We aren't getting stars or long term players from it, given the reason it's there is because a player already listed is unavailable. So when that player is available again, we need to make a call on the SSP drafted player. I think it's a good initiative by the AFL but definitely not something to bank our future on.
Click to expand...

Generally that may be true, but Marsh could be one that doesn’t fit the mould. Pies people generally think he had a lot to offer judging by comments on their board. If he hadn’t had his documented mental health issues he would still have been on the Pies list.

Maybe he’ll turn out to be a piece of good luck out of the adversity.
 
New 22 for round 1:

Geary Joyce Webster
Battle Marsh Savage
Billings Ross Newnes
Kent Bruce Gresham
Parker Marshall Membrey
Pierce Steven Steele

Hind, Lonie, Long, Clark

Unlucky to miss out are Dunstan and Sinclair. McCartin, Acres and Hannebery are all out with injury.



St Kilda and proud.
 
MOLTEN GANGLANDS said:
If there's room, I'd prefer battle forward. He's a serious threat in the air, massive tank (which is arguably more important for an up and back forward), and kicks straight. Also when you combine him with long and parker, defenders will be sh*tting themselves.

But we can only play three of Bruce, Battle, Membrey, King. And I think it'd be Bruce and Battle vying for the last spot. I'd go Battle personally but I know that's not a popular opinion around here. I think Bruce's injury has been quite the career move ;)
Click to expand...

Wing.

Give him this year to learn in the back line then next year he starts on the wing and moves forward or back as needed.

Marshall into the ruck? Battle goes forward, Bruce pushes deeper.

Need to double team Buddy? Battle starts on the back of the square and rolls in as the 7th defender.

Game in the balance? Battle plays true wing as a link up out of defence, using his kicking to deliver inside 50 and then pushing end to end with his elite tank.

Richardson 2008
Riewoldt 2016
Battle 2020
 
The SPP is whatever you make of it. I think you'll find that clubs start becoming more strategic with it, as they do with all rules.

For example, allowing players on the LTI to effectively not take up a list spot enables clubs to pick young players in the national draft who are long term prospects but currently have serious injuries and who might otherwise have slid or not been picked all together. This is what happened with Bytel and Moore (but not by design because we didn't expect Bytel to be out for the season).
 
Looking at the warm up and it seems like Perse's Laundry Basket is lining up for the Zebs tonight.

Presumably a good performance would see him in the mix for Round 1

11948kl.jpg
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

SaintersUnite said:
New 22 for round 1:

Geary Joyce Webster
Battle Marsh Savage
Billings Ross Newnes
Kent Bruce Gresham
Parker Marshall Membrey
Pierce Steven Steele

Hind, Lonie, Long, Clark

Unlucky to miss out are Dunstan and Sinclair. McCartin, Acres and Hannebery are all out with injury.



St Kilda and proud.
Click to expand...

Is Acres actually listed as injured?
 
StCicatriz said:
i'm not so certain of that, the way i look at it, is how its designed. to be an extension on the rookie list. basically you have more rookie list picks, if a player gets injured and is placed on the LTI.

i don't think we should be flippant with it, every list spot is an opportunity. now the percentage chance of someone making it from an SSP based on the well documented draft percentages would tell you its low, lower than say a first rounder. but it's still an opportunity, none the less.

how you use that opportunity is debatable. personally i would have liked someone coming in like we did with Marsh, but i think the issue here is who we are replacing.

in rowe's case, he isn't replacing roberton. he's replacing carlisle. they just structured it differently to keep the door open for carlisle returning. so when you look at carlisle its incredibly hard to find someone who is 198cm with an AFL ready body. they don't grow on trees. they're extremely rare in the state leagues and if they aren't in the state league, they haven't done a pre-season. so from that perspective people should be happy.

what i do question is if there is a need to replace carlisle and instead look at maximising the opportunity to find more talent. i guess what i am saying is do we think having a burner player to support the upcoming seasons results is more important than say finding another long term best 22, regardless of position.

any SSP selection means you pass on the mid season draft right?
Click to expand...
Yes but you can only have so many list spots and your list has to be filled by early December of the previous year, so if you are bringing in players from the SSP then you need to make a decision on them at the end of the year in that are they better than the player they are replacing or not, and in most cases no otherwise they'd be on an AFL list already. I see the SSP as a way to immediately cope with long term injuries. There's a reason the players selected via the SSP are selected there and not in the draft/trade period. I'd be amazed if we keep Marsh or Rowe for more than this year, which would effectively mean we rate either of them better than what we have now (Joyce, Clavarino, Carlisle, Roberton, Wilkie).

Diehard Saint said:
Generally that may be true, but Marsh could be one that doesn’t fit the mould. Pies people generally think he had a lot to offer judging by comments on their board. If he hadn’t had his documented mental health issues he would still have been on the Pies list.

Maybe he’ll turn out to be a piece of good luck out of the adversity.
Click to expand...
Hopefully, but realistically I can't see us keeping him for any longer than this season.
 
George said:
Lets be honest, the SSP is a scrap heap. We aren't getting stars or long term players from it, given the reason it's there is because a player already listed is unavailable. So when that player is available again, we need to make a call on the SSP drafted player. I think it's a good initiative by the AFL but definitely not something to bank our future on.
Click to expand...

Agreed, reminds me of what someone posted a while ago about Saints recruiting being based on the statue of liberty quote:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
 
plugger66 said:
But the others haven’t even trained under an afl system for 3 years and the other 6 months. Let’s see how fit they are before we move everyone around. Surely that’s better for the team short term
Click to expand...
Fair enough
 
Longmembrey said:
Agreed, reminds me of what someone posted a while ago about Saints recruiting being based on the statue of liberty quote:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
Click to expand...
That may have been me

2lshbw6.jpg
 
George said:
Hopefully, but realistically I can't see us keeping him for any longer than this season.
Click to expand...

Well he’s got a year to prove you wrong.
Really hope he does because that’ll mean for once something went our way.
We could rookie him surely, no guarantee that Robbo, or even Carlisle, actually get back on the park.
 
StCicatriz said:
depends how you look at the opportunity the SSP presents you with. if you look at it as JUST a temporary measure and almost like a fail safe then the rowe situation is the right call, you can debate the name, but the method is right.

if you look at it as more than that and an opportunity to unearth another mature age talent who will be at the club longer than one season, then the Rowe method doesn't hold up!

there's a third option here of listing a junior missed from the draft. although i don't think this really applies to us. basically what the GC chose to do.

the mid-season draft vs SSP is another discussion altogether
Click to expand...
Hey, you aren't Freo Doker on Facebook by any chance?
Funniest parody account on footy I have seen. You would love it.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top