What do we really need from this season?

[WeeBlake]

I would like a really high pick this year, and would prefer max games into kids rather than wins. But if we assume Sloane and Tex and Lynch are worse next year and either gone or even worse in 2023, and that our development goes ok rather than really fast, then we might have some really low finishes in 2022 and 2023 too.

 

[Interloperer]

Next years draft should be the last act of any explicit "rebuilding" phase and anything less than a competitive team should be seen as inadequate. They should be recruiting for "better now" ahead of "better in two-three years" (Ideally they should take this police and also be aggressive with it in the upcoming trade window.)

It doesn't mean new players shouldn't enter the club and be developed. But beyond that point the club will face three problems:

1. Old players retiring
2. The first of the players to debut under Nicks (or very late Don Pyke) will have become high-tier AFL talent and it will be difficult (or expensive) to convince them not to move to a good team if Adelaide are still in a rebuilding phase.
3. Conversely, it will be obvious who are the charity cases from the same group of players, (or older recruits,) who would not get a spot in another team, but are still getting games because there is nobody better.

Even if you are absolutely nailing every single draft pick beyond that point, it's still going to be a net loss of talent beyond that point if Adelaide are not a competitive side.

 

[RePete]

Matt Crouch

5

Matt Crouch

Age

30

Ht

181cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

28.4

5star

K

12.0

4star

HB

16.4

5star

M

3.3

3star

T

3.9

5star

CL

4.8

5star

D

24.9

5star

K

9.7

4star

HB

15.1

5star

M

2.4

3star

T

2.4

3star

CL

4.4

5star

D

21.2

5star

K

10.4

4star

HB

10.8

5star

M

4.4

4star

T

3.4

5star

CL

2.0

4star

is an interesting one. When he comes back and plays, if he is light on his feet, winning clearances and making tackles - he might be worth keeping at the right price. If a Sloane, or even a Keays gets injured we have a very, very inexperienced and weak midfield - our young guys are far off controlling it themselves. If he players well, and wants a longer term deal - might be worth letting him explore free agency and leave on good terms. Wouldn't want to give more than 2, maybe 3 years. I would expect a player like him to attract offers that would get us Tier 3 compo. Assuming we finish say 13th, that might be a pick 23-ish (about what we paid for him originally!). We need as many of these top-30 picks as possible as we are still light-on for talent after our top 25 or so players.

 

[Sanders]

Cute you're doing your best to stir me for the past few years.
I wasn't trying to define the cognitive dissonance, but merely to summarise the dilemma:

So you were trying to summarise your thinking by incorrectly using words you didn’t understand?

makes sense

 

[Sanders]

*If* we do the business against the Kangaroos and find ourselves sitting 3-1, it will be difficult for us to ignore the possibility of finishing in 8th spot.

Make the 8 and anything can happen is our mantra.

Will we forget that we're rebuilding if we sneak a couple more wins?

What will be telling is when an injury crops up, who comes in?

Also currently we have Talia and M Crouch out of the team. When they return who goes out?

Those questions have different answers if we're rebuilding or if we're gunning for 8th spot.

Our club's over-arching goals will drive the decisions.

interesting thing about recent interview with Nigel Smart, was his belief we weren’t the best team in 1997 or 1998 and that anything did happen

from within the inner sanctum that’s the belief, make the 8 and anything can happen

what’s perverse is that he is probably wrong, we had the best % in both years. The metric now most believe is the best indicator of the best teams. I.e. we probably WERE THE BEST TEAM in both years

so if a crucial, key part of the team is wrong about that, what hope the modern club?

it’s a myth, believed from top to bottom of the club, that we weren’t the best team in our premierships years

we were. So it’s not a case of lightning striking twice, the next time it strikes will be the first

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

It depends on the year, but you can have as many as 6 to 9 wins in the year and still get a top 5 pick.

With GWS and Gold Coast out of their expansion period I'd say we could probably get a top 5 pick this year despite ending with 8 wins or so

Particularly as apart from the Roos, there doesn't appear any really terrible teams...
So you would think at least 17 sides will win more than 5 games... & could be quite even between the rest of the lower teams.

 

[UcantCme]

I would like a really high pick this year, and would prefer max games into kids rather than wins. But if we assume Sloane and Tex and Lynch are worse next year and either gone or even worse in 2023, and that our development goes ok rather than really fast, then we might have some really low finishes in 2022 and 2023 too.

You can't just rely in bringing in high draft picks to have a successful rebuild, young players need to experience wins as well, it helps with their own belief and the team belief as well.

I think we have almost got the balance right with the team and if we can get some games into Pedlar, RT, Worrell and Fog then we have found that right balance

Having 2 seasons with 3-4 wins woukd be disaster and we woukd risk being the next Carltin

On SM-G973F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[marvin]

interesting thing about recent interview with Nigel Smart, was his belief we weren’t the best team in 1997 or 1998 and that anything did happen

from within the inner sanctum that’s the belief, make the 8 and anything can happen

what’s perverse is that he is probably wrong, we had the best % in both years. The metric now most believe is the best indicator of the best teams. I.e. we probably WERE THE BEST TEAM in both years

so if a crucial, key part of the team is wrong about that, what hope the modern club?

it’s a myth, believed from top to bottom of the club, that we weren’t the best team in our premierships years

we were. So it’s not a case of lightning striking twice, the next time it strikes will be the first

Spot on.

Not only did we have the best percentage, we had the best defence in the league both years. And we knocked off the team with the best attack in consecutive GFs. That’s not coincidence.

 

[Sanders]

Spot on.

Not only did we have the best percentage, we had the best defence in the league both years. And we knocked off the team with the best attack in consecutive GFs. That’s not coincidence.

imagine the weight the club must be carrying if it genuinely believes we fluked back to back

doesn’t happen
Can’t happen
Didn’t happen

 

[Southerntakeover]

interesting thing about recent interview with Nigel Smart, was his belief we weren’t the best team in 1997 or 1998 and that anything did happen

from within the inner sanctum that’s the belief, make the 8 and anything can happen

what’s perverse is that he is probably wrong, we had the best % in both years. The metric now most believe is the best indicator of the best teams. I.e. we probably WERE THE BEST TEAM in both years

so if a crucial, key part of the team is wrong about that, what hope the modern club?

it’s a myth, believed from top to bottom of the club, that we weren’t the best team in our premierships years

we were. So it’s not a case of lightning striking twice, the next time it strikes will be the first

It's even wilder in 1997 when you consider that we finished fourth and beat the First, Second, Third and Fifth teams in the finals, first and third on the road. Like, who on earth possibly has a better claim? One of the most clearly beyond doubt premierships of all time.

 

[Sanders]

It's even wilder in 1997 when you consider that we finished fourth and beat the First, Second, Third and Fifth teams in the finals, first and third on the road. Like, who on earth possibly has a better claim? One of the most clearly beyond doubt premierships of all time.

best %, and beat all comers - and we’ve become so psychologically damaged, gaslit from the broader community into believing we didn’t deserve it

it’s like this club has been married to a wife beater.

 

[Southerntakeover]

After losing the Brownlow Medal leader three quarters of the way through the season, and the Coleman medallist in the prelim.

1997 Crows are one of the most meritorious premiers of all time. Absolutely.

Keep those two fit and we shit it in.

 

[Golumless]

It's even wilder in 1997 when you consider that we finished fourth and beat the First, Second, Third and Fifth teams in the finals, first and third on the road. Like, who on earth possibly has a better claim? One of the most clearly beyond doubt premierships of all time.

It's a very similar story in 1998 too.

Best defence in the league, 5th best attack in the league (Only other side to top 6 in both stats were the dogs, who had a better offense and worse defence). Best percentage, and we ended up taking out third (Sydney), second (Dogs) and first (North), on the road, from fifth.

The only other team in 1998 you could genuinely claim were the best side in the league were the dogs, and we belted them by 15 goals in the preliminary. North and Sydney were good sides, but their defence was shocking (4th and 5th worst respectively), and if there is one lesson to take from football history, unless you are defensively stout, you need every possible star to align to win a premiership. You have a lot more room for things to go wrong if you have an elite defence.

 

[Southerntakeover]

It's a very similar story in 1998.

Best defence in the league, 5th best attack in the league (Only other side to top 6 in both stats were the dogs, who had a better offense and worse defence). Best percentage, and we ended up taking out Third (Sydney), Second (Dogs) and First (North).

The only other team in 1998 you could genuinely claim were the best side in the league were the dogs, and we belted them by 15 goals in the preliminary. North were a good side, but their defence was shocking (like, bottom 4 bad), and if there is one lesson to take from football history, defensively poor teams do not win premierships unless every star aligns.

Like, I can understand people feeling some way about 98, because we got flogged vs the Dees- but no one seems to discount other premiers that have lost finals in recent times- Hawthorn amongst them.

 

[Golumless]

Like, I can understand people feeling some way about 98, because we got flogged vs the Dees- but no one seems to discount other premiers that have lost finals in recent times- Hawthorn amongst them.

The only reason I could with 1998 is we finished 5th, but it's clear as day we were the best team in the league and just did what we had to do until we made finals.

Of course, one loss (even a flogging) in a finals series means sweet **** all if you have the double chance.

 

[WeeBlake]

interesting thing about recent interview with Nigel Smart, was his belief we weren’t the best team in 1997 or 1998 and that anything did happen

from within the inner sanctum that’s the belief, make the 8 and anything can happen

what’s perverse is that he is probably wrong, we had the best % in both years. The metric now most believe is the best indicator of the best teams. I.e. we probably WERE THE BEST TEAM in both years

so if a crucial, key part of the team is wrong about that, what hope the modern club?

it’s a myth, believed from top to bottom of the club, that we weren’t the best team in our premierships years

we were. So it’s not a case of lightning striking twice, the next time it strikes will be the first

Anything did happen in 2016

 

[WeeBlake]

But it’s stupid to think it will happen anything other than very rarely, and stupid to make it your whole strategy.

 

[Sanders]

Of course, one loss (even a flogging) in a finals series means sweet fu** all if you have the double chance.

That’s why there is the double chance.

 

[Sanders]

Anything did happen in 2016

did it?

not for us, and not necessarily for a team that believed it would

 

[Southerntakeover]

That’s why there is the double chance.

It wasn't a guaranteed second chance was it? Wasnt it lowest two losers eliminated?

 

[John Who]

So you were trying to summarise your thinking by incorrectly using words you didn’t understand?

makes sense

I like how you conveniently left out in the previous post, the part where I explained in more detail of the cognitive dissonance.
Looks like I shouldn’t have given you a chance. You’re back on my ignore list, sorry (but not sorry).

 

[Sanders]

I like how you conveniently left out in the previous post, the part where I explained in more detail of the cognitive dissonance.
Looks like I shouldn’t have given you a chance. You’re back on my ignore list, sorry (but not sorry).

John, you’re using $5 words to look clever, but you don’t know what they mean. That’s not debatable

there is no discussion to be had.

 

[PCORF]

Will probably finish around 11-16th. 6-10 wins.

 

[kulak]

The 97-98 teams were highly skilful with run from all over the ground. Every defender was capable of launching an attack.

Both Saints and North entered the GF on 10 game win streaks didn’t they? So the results felt like upsets. But we were the team that was built like a premier - better % over the year, and more run and skill for the September deck.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Cute you're doing your best to stir me for the past few years.

It’s obviously not working...