Analysis What list is in the worst state?

[Shadow89]

It's an 18 team competition. The odds of any of those 4 winning a flag in the next 5 years is very remote. More-so when you consider the likelihood that next year's flag is statistically more likely to come from somebody who finishes in the finals this year.

You're quite right about dynasties, we're seeing Richmond in mid-dynasty, Port or Brisbane might be starting one and WCE and Geelong potentially too.

But I see no reason why Hawthorn and Sydney are organisationally stronger than Carlton. Hawthorn are going to spend all their time and effort on Dingley, which, from experience, isn't likely to change the world but will certainly cost plenty.

Not sure why Carlton or Melbourne don't have "a flag in them".

Interesting a Hawthorn person would take a swipe at the organisation of Melbourne and being unable to win a flag when last time Hawthorn had a down period they tried to merge with them.

It's simple really: the management at both clubs hasn't changed markedly over the past decade. Logiudice still remains at Carlton as President, and Bartlett still remains at Melbourne. This is despite the same culture of losing existing for over a decade, and literally nothing changing except the coaching staff.

Culture is built within a club, and is recognized over a very long period of time. Melbourne and Carlton have accepted 'honourable losses' for the better part of a decade, whereas clubs like Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong refuse to bottom out - Sydney is already showing signs of this. Even if Hawthorn are down for a few years, they'll rebound quicker because that 'winning culture' is ingrained in their club ethos. Nothing will change at Melbourne, Carlton, North, and Essendon for that matter, if significant cultural change doesn't occur within the administration - think Dodoro at Essendon and his stubbornness, and the rapid appointment of Rhys Shaw at North with no experienced heads around him by Ben Buckley and co. That requires more than bandaid fixes, that requires a recognition that those in charge aren't good for the club, and they need to move on.

P.S. this doesn't come from elitism or bias towards more recently successful clubs (including my own). Carlton are my second team due to my partner and my love of Cripps, Docherty and now Walsh, but the problems with their management are undeniable. The same are reflected in the other aforementioned clubs, which is a big part of the problem IMO

 

[FairKouta]

I think there are a few categories of lists. It doesn't quite marry up to where teams sit on the ladder because it doesn't factor in coaching and injuries.

Group 1: In the window, make hay for the next 2-3 years but the cliff is coming.
- West Coast
- GWS
- Collingwood

Group 2: Strong list that is younger than I imagined, which frustratingly (for oppo fans) means they're likely to stay at the top for a while.
- Richmond
- Geelong
- Doggies

Group 3: A rebuilt list that is now entering it's prime - watch out comp these guys are set for a prolonged stay in the eight.
- Port
- Lions

Group 4: A rebuilt list that is older than you would imagine - need to capitalise now - and sadly probably doesn't have the foundations for a tilt at the flag before that next rebuild in 4-5 years
- Blues
- Demons
- Saints

Group 5: Coming out of rebuild, loads of potential, too soon to tell if it will be making up the numbers or destined for a flag, but I would be quietly optimistic if I was a fan
- Suns
- Swans
- Freo

Group 6: Accept that you're in for a rebuild - or spend the next couple of years 'rewiring' and then come to terms that you need to rebuild (also known as the Ross Lyon Freo years from 2016)
- Hawks
- Crows
- Bombers
- North

Incorrect to say our list profile is as old as the demons and saints. Kruezer and Simmo retiring and if Eddie does to will put us in the same camp as you guys. Bit early to go on not having the foundation aswell. We have a core of young players in our spine.
weitering mckay curnow walsh setterfield Tdk Fisher it’s fine if you don’t rate them but they have done enough to suggest there is improvement in them. Cripps and Docherty who are in the 25-28 bracket with murphy and casboult being eased out next year. We aren’t the youngest list but we are young.
Too early to call this rebuild a fail. No one was expecting finals this year.

 

[FairKouta]

It's simple really: the management at both clubs hasn't changed markedly over the past decade. Logiudice still remains at Carlton as President, and Bartlett still remains at Melbourne. This is despite the same culture of losing existing for over a decade, and literally nothing changing except the coaching staff. Culture is built within a club, and is recognized over a very long period of time. Melbourne and Carlton have accepted 'honourable losses' for the better part of a decade, whereas clubs like Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong refuse to bottom out - Sydney is already showing signs of this. Even if Hawthorn are down for a few years, they'll rebound quicker because that 'winning culture' is ingrained in their club ethos. Nothing will change at Melbourne, Carlton, North, and Essendon for that matter, if significant cultural change doesn't occur within the administration. That requires more than bandaid fixes, that requires a recognition that those in charge aren't good for the club, and they need to move on.

P.S. this doesn't come from elitism or bias. Carlton are my second team due to my partner and my love of Cripps, Docherty and now Walsh, but the problems with their management are undeniable. The same are reflected in the other aforementioned clubs, which is a big part of the problem IMO

I mean with that logic my friend. Carlton were winning premierships in the80s and 90s so our ethos back then was ruthless and winners. Geelong from 63 to 2007 clearly had a losing culture for that period.
we have all acknowledged carlton has been s**t for a long time but it is foolish to say as a result our culture will never change. I raise you Richmond who went from underperforming to Now an almost dynasty.

 

[Fadge]

I raise you Richmond who went from underperforming to Now an almost dynasty.

How long have we been hearing this?

Richmond are the exception to the rule, rather than the rule.

My Lord, I recall a thread a number of years ago, started by and supported by Carlton supporters, equating Carlton's 2009 to Geelong's 2006 season. This is after Geelong had just won their second flag in 3 years!

The four clubs were are referencing have not contended for a flag in the modern era (20 years) of equity, corporate governance, etc.

Might they turn it around? Maybe. But based on the balance of probabilities it is certainly less likely than likely.

 

[Virgin Dog]

Incorrect to say our list profile is as old as the demons and saints. Kruezer and Simmo retiring and if Eddie does to will put us in the same camp as you guys. Bit early to go on not having the foundation aswell. We have a core of young players in our spine.
weitering mckay curnow walsh setterfield Tdk Fisher it’s fine if you don’t rate them but they have done enough to suggest there is improvement in them. Cripps and Docherty who are in the 25-28 bracket with murphy and casboult being eased out next year. We aren’t the youngest list but we are young.
Too early to call this rebuild a fail. No one was expecting finals this year.

Carlton are still reasonably old - definitely older than the Saints and Demons. These are some of the ages from the weekend:



You're currently playing a side older than both of them. You have Murphy, Simpson and Betts who could all possible retire, but then Melbourne were playing Jetta, Melksham and Brown, while Saints were playing Ryder and Geary. Carlton would be skewed a little more than the others, but overall would have around the same in terms of player age.

Looking at experience, it seems the Saints are considerably less experienced (even accounting for the outliers), and same with Melbourne.

 

[FairKouta]

How long have we been hearing this?

Richmond are the exception to the rule, rather than the rule.

My Lord, I recall a thread a number of years ago, started by and supported by Carlton supporters, equating Carlton's 2009 to Geelong's 2006 season. This is after Geelong had just won their second flag in 3 years!

The four clubs were are referencing have not contended for a flag in the modern era (20 years) of equity, corporate governance, etc.

Might they turn it around? Maybe. But based on the balance of probabilities it is certainly less likely than likely.

Point noted but the variables are different now. Carlton has finally joined the Afl after years of rubbish administration we are coming from way back but the probability is not dependent on past failures as the variables are now very different.

 

[Saint]

Carlton are still reasonably old - definitely older than the Saints and Demons. These are some of the ages from the weekend:

View attachment 962837View attachment 962838View attachment 962839View attachment 962841

You're currently playing a side older than both of them. You have Murphy, Simpson and Betts who could all possible retire, but then Melbourne were playing Jetta, Melksham and Brown, while Saints were playing Ryder and Geary. Carlton would be skewed a little more than the others, but overall would have around the same in terms of player age.

Looking at experience, it seems the Saints are considerably less experienced (even accounting for the outliers), and same with Melbourne.

You need to use ages from across the year. WCE for example probably had their youngest side in this week, they've got a lot of injuries to experienced players.

 

[FairKouta]

Carlton are still reasonably old - definitely older than the Saints and Demons. These are some of the ages from the weekend:

View attachment 962837View attachment 962838View attachment 962839View attachment 962841

You're currently playing a side older than both of them. You have Murphy, Simpson and Betts who could all possible retire, but then Melbourne were playing Jetta, Melksham and Brown, while Saints were playing Ryder and Geary. Carlton would be skewed a little more than the others, but overall would have around the same in terms of player age.

Looking at experience, it seems the Saints are considerably less experienced (even accounting for the outliers), and same with Melbourne.

Those players heavily influence numbers. Overall list profile minus simmo and kruezer retiring and eddie to follow will tell a different story.

 

[BarbieITFC]

Incorrect to say our list profile is as old as the demons and saints. Kruezer and Simmo retiring and if Eddie does to will put us in the same camp as you guys. Bit early to go on not having the foundation aswell. We have a core of young players in our spine.
weitering mckay curnow walsh setterfield Tdk Fisher it’s fine if you don’t rate them but they have done enough to suggest there is improvement in them. Cripps and Docherty who are in the 25-28 bracket with murphy and casboult being eased out next year. We aren’t the youngest list but we are young.
Too early to call this rebuild a fail. No one was expecting finals this year.

We can argue semantics, but the reality is the Blues, Demons and Saints have spent the last decade out of finals (bar the odd random year) - you've been in a really long rebuild and when I say you are not as young as you would think, it's because many of the players that are talked up as future stars are now approaching their mid-20s and whilst many are solid (and Cripps is a gun) they are not on the path to elite. Add in the likelihood that SoS's strategy of bringing in expendable Giants is proving to be flawed because in the main they were solid serviceable players - if they were going to be guns then the Giants would have worked harder to keep them.

Until the last two months I was ready to concede that Freo were heading in the same direction as the Blues, Demons and Saints - but several of our 2015 - 17 draftees - the likes of Darcy, Ryan, Logue, Cox and Tucker have started to move from average/good to good/great (not yet elite apart from Ryan) in their early-mid 20s - which I think is the single biggest reason for our growth despite the media is focusing on Brayshaw, Cerra and Serong.

 

[Freomaniac]

Adelaide, North Melb, Hawthorn and Essendon. But, the past month of footy tells me the crows wont be in the bottom 4 for too much longer.

2022 will be the year we get back into the 8

You must be confident of a crows turn around. 1st 12 games of this season, they looked like they had to hit the draft for the next 3-5 years.

I had a debate with my crow mates about this. Taylor Walker turned 30 on ANZAC day this year which was in April.

I seriously though he was going to play until he was 33 or 34 based on his 2016-19 form.

My crows mates said he will retire when he is 31 which is next season. Sadly my mates might be right.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I think there are a few categories of lists. It doesn't quite marry up to where teams sit on the ladder because it doesn't factor in coaching and injuries.

Group 1: In the window, make hay for the next 2-3 years but the cliff is coming.
- West Coast
- GWS
- Collingwood

Group 2: Strong list that is younger than I imagined, which frustratingly (for oppo fans) means they're likely to stay at the top for a while.
- Richmond
- Geelong
- Doggies

Group 3: A rebuilt list that is now entering it's prime - watch out comp these guys are set for a prolonged stay in the eight.
- Port
- Lions

Group 4: A rebuilt list that is older than you would imagine - need to capitalise now - and sadly probably doesn't have the foundations for a tilt at the flag before that next rebuild in 4-5 years
- Blues
- Demons
- Saints

Group 5: Coming out of rebuild, loads of potential, too soon to tell if it will be making up the numbers or destined for a flag, but I would be quietly optimistic if I was a fan
- Suns
- Swans
- Freo

Group 6: Accept that you're in for a rebuild - or spend the next couple of years 'rewiring' and then come to terms that you need to rebuild (also known as the Ross Lyon Freo years from 2016)
- Hawks
- Crows
- Bombers
- North

You look at lists a bit differently to me. My view is a list overall is about as good as its current best 26 or so players AND its future best 22 projected say at 2, 4 and 6 years into the future. So the overall age of a list is only of minor relevance.

To compete well, teams generally require:

- Really good onfield leadership from a group of typically senior players either around their absolute peak or only slightly past it, normally in the 26-32 age bracket. It really helps if these team leaders are also great players.

- A critical mass of highly talented 23-29 year olds, in their footballing prime. Normally about 14 of these guys in a really good team. It really helps if these great players contain a group that is also capable of leading high performance on field.

The problems I see with Hawks, Cats, and Port lists are too many of their onfield leaders and best players are in the last 1/4 or so of their careers, and a good number around the last 10% of their careers. So any future strong teams they field in the 2-4-6 year windows will largely rely upon as yet unformed leadership and gun player structures.

For the two teams out of those who are competing for the flag this year, Port and Cats, I think the older age of some of their leading players will make it tricky for them to compete with the best teams in the biggest games. Port appears to have some really talented youngsters, and whilst I wouldn’t give you much for Cats exisiting younger players, they will possibly go to the draft and get some good ones. That is if they don’t carry on trading draft picks for ready made players in the second half of their careers....

If you look at say Blues, Bulldogs or Tigers or Suns or Fremantle for a few examples, they may or may not have great teams now, but you can largely see the future structure already to possibly form strong teams in 2, 4, 6, 8 years time.

The Tigers being on that list may surprise some people but they have kept going to the draft and seem to have a good strike rate of finding good AFL players there.

Stack, Higgins, Baker, Balta, Coleman-Jones, Bolton, Rioli, Short, Castagna, Soldo, Ross, Graham, Dow, Markov, Chol is 15 players 24 or under who have already shown up well at AFL level and there is Turner, Naish, Collier-Dawkins and some others who are probably likely yet to have decent AFL careers. That is what the Hawks and Cats have lost by trading away most of their stronger draft picks to bring in ready made players in the second half of their careers. This is why the Hawks are a mess, and imo the Cats list is deceptively weak. Port have already started addressing their problem at the draft, it will be interesting to see if the other two clubs do or if they keep trading away picks for ready made players.

 

[Virgin Dog]

You need to use ages from across the year. WCE for example probably had their youngest side in this week, they've got a lot of injuries to experienced players.

I imagine this is something Champion Data will come out with at the end of the season

Those players heavily influence numbers. Overall list profile minus simmo and kruezer retiring and eddie to follow will tell a different story.

Still, it's important to look at number of players in the lower experience brackets. Saints had 15 under 100 games, Melbourne had 14 while Carlton had 12.

Would be more relevant to see what's said post-season so we can get a view of what the teams have looked like over the course of the entire year. For example, Taylor Duryea played his first game of the year for the Dogs (so usually he wouldn't be bringing that average up), and Suckling came in as injury cover. Usually we'd have Wood (about the same as Duryea age/experience wise) while Vandermeer would have played in Suckling's spot if not for injury. I can imagine the same type of thing happens with the Blues - Kreuzer and Curnow out injured could throw things out either way

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I still think the Crows are in for a difficult run for a number of years, but they do have some really good options to play with, given all their draft picks, and looming free cap space. What I like about the Crows is your coach, he seems to have done a really good job this season. The huge improvement in the last handful of performances shows they have been focussing on the right things as the season has progressed.

You have now obviously washed Gibbs through the system, and Atkins is on his bike. But before your list can really flourish you are going to need to unload the following and then get new players to a point where they are above the level of these guys:

Reasonably prominent players I think you definitely need to unload

Walker
Knight
Atkins(already gone)
Mckay(going alright but obviously getting close to retirement)
Gibbs(already retired)

You probably look like holding onto the Crouch’s to retain a competitive midfield in the short term, but that probably comes at the cost of not being able to really go places with them as your leading mids, so this is an area of concern with your list.

Apart from the above, most of the following players/roles I think you need to improve upon before your list will be good:

Jake Kelly
Matt Crouch
Hartigan
Brown
Lynch
Fogarty(could yet see a lot of natural improvement from him)

Against that, you have some really nice players if they get/stay fit:

O’Brien
Sloane
Talia
Laird(loving him in the midfield)
Milera(one of my favourite players)
Smith
Doedee
B Crouch

and the following who are showing decent promise:

Stengle
McAdam
Hamill
Schoenberg
Worrell
Keays
Himmelberg
McAsey
Sholl
McPherson

Young players I am not too sure will make it from what I have seen of them:

Poholke
Jones
Gallucci
Davis

From where I sit you are 10 good AFL footballers/role players off having a strongish list. The next 2-3 drafts and free agency/trace periods could just about correct that if you get it right, then allow another 2-3 years development after that before you can actually contend I think.

I wouldn't disagree with most of this but would like to address a couple of things from the "I think you need to improve upon before your list will be good" part of it. Many of the guys you listed were poor this season but there has been a noticeable turnaround in form in the last 4-5 weeks.

Kelly I agree with. He's got the body to play AFL but he's too slow with his disposal and not accurate enough by foot. He slows us down and stifles our ball movement and is just generally incompatible with the type of footy we're trying to play.

Matt Crouch has really turned a corner recently. He's defensive pressure has gone up, he's more direct with the footy and he's managed to hit the scoreboard. He's much closer to his best footy atm. (His form earlier in the season was putrid though)

Hartigan. I can't believe I'm going to say this because I've always disliked Hartigan but he's been good this season. Will actually be a shame if/when he goes in FA. He'd be a bargain to any team if they can get him cheap.

Brown & Lynch are more examples of guys who started the season poorly but are playing good footy right now. I don't think Lynch has a lot of footy left in him tbh but who knows?

Fogarty I agree with. Crows need to get more out of him. I reckon he needs a role change. I'd slim him down and play him as a high half forward or in the guts. He has been playing further away from goal these last couple of games and his form looks better imo.

 

[Shadow89]

I mean with that logic my friend. Carlton were winning premierships in the80s and 90s so our ethos back then was ruthless and winners. Geelong from 63 to 2007 clearly had a losing culture for that period.
we have all acknowledged carlton has been sh*t for a long time but it is foolish to say as a result our culture will never change. I raise you Richmond who went from underperforming to Now an almost dynasty.

You've misinterpreted my post mate. I wasn't saying that they CAN'T change their culture and become a winning side over a long duration, I was saying that they WON'T if they keep the same people like Logiudice who don't acknowledge the flaws of the board, and keep shafting coaches.

I think you actually have a great young core, and Teague is going to be an amazing coach. I do however, also think that Logiudice is too arrogant and ingrained in his position, to ever acknowledge that a lot of the issues over the years have stemmed from the 'quick fix' mentality of trying to patch over much larger institutional issues. Think back to recruiting Judd, sacking Ratten, installing Malthouse, then Bolton, and now Teague. All of these things have been reactionary and some have been very damaging to culture - like hiring Malthouse and him bringing Dale Thomas along and letting Betts go because you offered him unders. Putting SOS as your list manager, and him picking a lot of duds and GWS recruits that he chose while there - when it was just revealed under Sheedy and Williams that he ignored drafting choices from others within the club (wouldn't surprise me if he did the same with picks like Stocker, O'Brien, SPS, Dow etc.)

I think you guys could really contend, if you put Cain Liddle in a much more influential role, and got rid of stakeholders and the 'old crew' in Logiudice and older board members. It's evident that decisions over the years have been more financially based, with short-term success and KPI's valued over cultural values.

Apologies if you thought it was a slight at Carlton as a whole, but they're my second club due to my partner's support for them, so I'm pretty heavily invested when it comes to discussing them, lol

 

[FairKouta]

We can argue semantics, but the reality is the Blues, Demons and Saints have spent the last decade out of finals (bar the odd random year) - you've been in a really long rebuild and when I say you are not as young as you would think, it's because many of the players that are talked up as future stars are now approaching their mid-20s and whilst many are solid (and Cripps is a gun) they are not on the path to elite. Add in the likelihood that SoS's strategy of bringing in expendable Giants is proving to be flawed because in the main they were solid serviceable players - if they were going to be guns then the Giants would have worked harder to keep them.

Until the last two months I was ready to concede that Freo were heading in the same direction as the Blues, Demons and Saints - but several of our 2015 - 17 draftees - the likes of Darcy, Ryan, Logue, Cox and Tucker have started to move from average/good to good/great (not yet elite apart from Ryan) in their early-mid 20s - which I think is the single biggest reason for our growth despite the media is focusing on Brayshaw, Cerra and Serong.

Here is my point we started our current rebuild at the end of 2015 previous rebuilds and failures aren’t really relevant.

All of our draftees since then are under 23 not mid 20s so there is that. while the likes of dow Obrien haven’t shown great signs,
sps hasn’t really improved on last year The likes of fisher and cunningham Williamson and setterfield are on the improve how good they will be that time will tell.
The gaint players a majority were salary dumps to get players we targeted. Albiet pickett and keneddy seems to
Be a failed trade, however plowman pick 28 we gave up is best 22 and Marchbank is best 22 but injured.
If you have seen enough of And prepared to say these are busts then fine i note your point it’s big footy opinions:
stocker
Kemp
Philps
Dow
Sps
Obrien

Tucker and logue haven’t seen much of so I’m not going to commbut brayshaw and cerra have improved dramatically. Serong cox and ryan will be very very good players.

 

[FairKouta]

You've misinterpreted my post mate. I wasn't saying that they CAN'T change their culture and become a winning side over a long duration, I was saying that they WON'T if they keep the same people like Logiudice who don't acknowledge the flaws of the board, and keep shafting coaches.

I think you actually have a great young core, and Teague is going to be an amazing coach. I do however, also think that Logiudice is too arrogant and ingrained in his position, to ever acknowledge that a lot of the issues over the years have stemmed from the 'quick fix' mentality of trying to patch over much larger institutional issues. Think back to recruiting Judd, sacking Ratten, installing Malthouse, then Bolton, and now Teague. All of these things have been reactionary and some have been very damaging to culture - like hiring Malthouse and him bringing Dale Thomas along and letting Betts go because you offered him unders. Putting SOS as your list manager, and him picking a lot of duds and GWS recruits that he chose while there - when it was just revealed under Sheedy and Williams that he ignored drafting choices from others within the club (wouldn't surprise me if he did the same with picks like Stocker, O'Brien, SPS, Dow etc.)

I think you guys could really contend, if you put Cain Liddle in a much more influential role, and got rid of stakeholders and the 'old crew' in Logiudice and older board members. It's evident that decisions over the years have been more financially based, with short-term success and KPI's valued over cultural values.

Apologies if you thought it was a slight at Carlton as a whole, but they're my second club due to my partner's support for them, so I'm pretty heavily invested when it comes to discussing them, lol

Mlo was hired 6 years ago before the sacking of ratts and hiring of malthouse though. But it’s ok i get your point and i agree we have had horrible administration decisions but i mean sos was pushed out untouchables most would say can only mean there is now accountability

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I wouldn't disagree with most of this but would like to address a couple of things from the "I think you need to improve upon before your list will be good" part of it. Many of the guys you listed were poor this season but there has been a noticeable turnaround in form in the last 4-5 weeks.

Kelly I agree with. He's got the body to play AFL but he's too slow with his disposal and not accurate enough by foot. He slows us down and stifles our ball movement and is just generally incompatible with the type of footy we're trying to play.

Matt Crouch has really turned a corner recently. He's defensive pressure has gone up, he's more direct with the footy and he's managed to hit the scoreboard. He's much closer to his best footy atm. (His form earlier in the season was putrid though)

Hartigan. I can't believe I'm going to say this because I've always disliked Hartigan but he's been good this season. Will actually be a shame if/when he goes in FA. He'd be a bargain to any team if they can get him cheap.

Brown & Lynch are more examples of guys who started the season poorly but are playing good footy right now. I don't think Lynch has a lot of footy left in him tbh but who knows?

Fogarty I agree with. Crows need to get more out of him. I reckon he needs a role change. I'd slim him down and play him as a high half forward or in the guts. He has been playing further away from goal these last couple of games and his form looks better imo.

I agree with all of that. But my point is there is a cap on how good players like Hartigan, Brown and even Matt Crouch are ever going to be, and I don’t think that cap is ever going to rise above them being competitive AFL players in a competitive AFL team. These guys are not wipeouts but they are not possible future finals stars and given the prominence of their roles within the team, this is a clear sign of weakness in your list. I am not ultra bearish on your list but I would think you would have more chance of accelerating your journey towards real success by washing these guys through your system quickly rather than slowly. If you do that though I recognise it comes at the cost of being competitive short term so I wouldn’t do it. Recent premiers Tigers, Eagles, Bulldogs, Hawks, Swans, Cats, Pies, I can’t recall too many of their premiership players playing in totally uncompetitive teams bar maybe for a season or two at most for a small portion of their premiership teams, so you do want to stay at least competitive.

 

[HairyO]

I'm not sure Hawthorn "know where they are at" based on their recent drafting.

Will Day, Finn Maginness, Josh Morris ?

A brilliant young player, someone who was meant to go much earlier, and a late pick unknown.

I'd say we did pretty well in 2019. Will do even better in 2020 with Pick 3 and Pick 22 or 23.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Here is my point we started our current rebuild at the end of 2015 previous rebuilds and failures aren’t really relevant.

All of our draftees since then are under 23 not mid 20s so there is that. while the likes of dow Obrien haven’t shown great signs,
sps hasn’t really improved on last year The likes of fisher and cunningham Williamson and setterfield are on the improve how good they will be that time will tell.
The gaint players a majority were salary dumps to get players we targeted. Albiet pickett and keneddy seems to
Be a failed trade, however plowman pick 28 we gave up is best 22 and Marchbank is best 22 but injured.
If you have seen enough of And prepared to say these are busts then fine i note your point it’s big footy opinions:
stocker
Kemp
Philps
Dow
Sps
Obrien

Tucker and logue haven’t seen much of so I’m not going to commbut brayshaw and cerra have improved dramatically. Serong cox and ryan will be very very good players.

I find the most interesting thing about Silvagni’s time as List Manager at the Blues is the difference between the quality of their key position draft picks compared to their midfield draft picks.

Weitering, Charlie Curnow, McKay, and I think also de Koning look really good picks. That looks a really strong return, even from picks 1, 10, 12, 31.

Dow, O’Brien, SPS, Stocker(said to have been rated 6th in the draft by Silvagni) Fisher, Philps, Walsh and Setterfield traded in, doesn’t really equate to a decent group of midfielders at this point.


So picks 1, 3, 4(effectively traded for the picks used on Stocker, Philp, Kemp,) 5, 10, 20(about the value given up for Setterfield,) 27 used in attempts to fill the midfield has returned:

Walsh - looks like being an elite mid
Fisher - looks a decent winger so far, not showing any elite signs
Petrevski-Seton - looks no more than a decent footballer, they have removed him from the midfield
Dow - looks a fail at this stage unless he turns a big corner
O’Brien - doesn’t look capable of being any more than just an AFL player at this point.
Stocker - early signs not good, too early to write him off though
Philp - first year this year, too early to tell definitively but I thought he looked a bit disappointing
Kemp - drafted with an ACL injury. Looks a super player on his junior form but has to be seen as a risky prospect at this early stage.
Setterfield - just too slow for mine, both across the ground and reactions.

I would think from that array of 7 great picks spent on 9 mids, you expect to about 2 elite players and about 3 other really decent AFL level players for those picks.

At present they look to have one elite mid in Walsh, and maybe 2 solid to decent AFL players in SPS and Fisher. A lot will hinge on how Kemp goes, but even if he shoots the lights out it still brings the return from that array of picks spent on mids to a point somewhere below average expectations. Other players can improve yet but this all seems to point to Silvagni being much better at drafting key position players(he was one) than mids.

 

[Dr Awkward]

Does anyone else think the idea of a "rebuild" is kind of a myth, or at least that it doesn't work?

I take it that rebuild just means investing heavily in the draft. Most clubs are constantly doing this anyway.

St Kilda has been the big improver this year and they did the opposite of a rebuild. Carlton and Melb have rebuilt to nowhere. Richmond tried "rebuilds" under Terry Wallace and got nowhere.

 

[FairKouta]

I find the most interesting thing about Silvagni’s time as List Manager at the Blues is the difference between the quality of their key position draft picks compared to their midfield draft picks.

Weitering, Charlie Curnow, McKay, and I think also de Koning look really good picks. That looks a really strong return, even from picks 1, 10, 12, 31.

Dow, O’Brien, SPS, Stocker(said to have been rated 6th in the draft by Silvagni) Fisher, Philps, Walsh and Setterfield traded in, doesn’t really equate to a decent group of midfielders at this point.


So picks 1, 3, 4(effectively traded for the picks used on Stocker, Philp, Kemp,) 5, 10, 20(about the value given up for Setterfield,) 27 used in attempts to fill the midfield has returned:

Walsh - looks like being an elite mid
Fisher - looks a decent winger so far, not showing any elite signs
Petrevski-Seton - looks no more than a decent footballer, they have removed him from the midfield
Dow - looks a fail at this stage unless he turns a big corner
O’Brien - doesn’t look capable of being any more than just an AFL player at this point.
Stocker - early signs not good, too early to write him off though
Philp - first year this year, too early to tell definitively but I thought he looked a bit disappointing
Kemp - drafted with an ACL injury. Looks a super player on his junior form but has to be seen as a risky prospect at this early stage.
Setterfield - just too slow for mine, both across the ground and reactions.

I would think from that array of 7 great picks spent on 9 mids, you expect to about 2 elite players and about 3 other really decent AFL level players for those picks.

At present they look to have one elite mid in Walsh, and maybe 2 solid to decent AFL players in SPS and Fisher. A lot will hinge on how Kemp goes, but even if he shoots the lights out it still brings the return from that array of picks spent on mids to a point somewhere below average expectations. Other players can improve yet but this all seems to point to Silvagni being much better at drafting key position players(he was one) than mids.

I agree. The midfielders drafted have been underwhelming. Time to trade in some elite mids After we failed to get shiel and coniglio.

 

[Jeremias]

Not sure why Carlton or Melbourne don't have "a flag in them".

....you haven't come across good ol' Fadgey before, have you?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Does anyone else think the idea of a "rebuild" is kind of a myth, or at least that it doesn't work?

I take it that rebuild just means investing heavily in the draft. Most clubs are constantly doing this anyway.

St Kilda has been the big improver this year and they did the opposite of a rebuild. Carlton and Melb have rebuilt to nowhere. Richmond tried "rebuilds" under Terry Wallace and got nowhere.

Hmmm....wasn’t Terry Wallace Richmond coach when our “rebuild” netted Riewoldt, Edwards, Cotchin, Rance, and Martin, later to be cornerstones or very successful Richmond teams?

I think the media like these convenient tags and cliches like “rebuild” “knowing where you are at” etc where in reality what clubs are doing or should be trying to do is arrive at a point with their list where they have a critical mass of quality players and quality leaders in the peak football years age brackets, 23-29. There are ways of arriving there mainly through drafting or with a great focus on trading or to a lesser extent free agency(a free agent by definition only has a maximum of about another 3-4 seasons in this age group.)

At least the last 3 multiple premiership teams, Geelong, Hawthorn, Richmond, all brought through a quite big group of very highly rated players together that they had drafted. You could call these rebuilds of a kind. It looks very much to me like you cannot have a period of dominance or sustained success without doing this. Some clubs get into a bit of a mess and lose a lot of strong players in a short period, so they correctly reason their best way back is to start building from the ground up.

In the Saints case, I think they reasoned they had a surplus of good players in the 19-23 type age range but not enough in older age groups so they gave up a load of draft picks for some mature talent.

North Melbourne in the 1970’s scamming the 10 year player rule on their way to their first period of sustained success is the only team in my lifetime that has enjoyed success on the back of building a team on older talent. But in their case they were able to bring in a number of best and fairest level mature players at once from other clubs. Dempsey, Alves, Davis, Wade, Rantall, Croswell, Keenan, Nettlefold are some I can think of.

 

[Great8]

Yeah, we all know our list at Essendon is rubbish. Do we really need another thread about it

 

[Fadge]

....you haven't come across good ol' Fadgey before, have you?

I've been consistent in my assessment of Carlton since joining BigFooty in 2009.

Have I been wrong?