Preview Round 1 2022 - Adelaide vs Fremantle, March 20, 2022

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I think the issue is that all sides have role players. Premiership teams are littered with average players.

There is a lot wrong with what Carlton have done over the past 20 years. Using pick 46 to bring in Liam Jones is 100% not one of them.

Playing him every game for years and years and even sending Weitering forward for an entire wasted season to accommodate Jones is absolutely fundamentally the type of decision unsuccessful clubs make

Poor clubs find a role for poor players more often than good clubs do

Levi Casboult the key forward
Ed Curnow the midfielder
Kade Simpson the rebounding defender

All "good role players" and handbrakes on the team

 

[AFC979810]

Playing him every game for years and years and even sending Weitering forward for an entire wasted season to accommodate Jones is absolutely fundamentally the type of decision unsuccessful clubs make

Biggest swing and miss you have taken mate.

When did Weitering waste an entire season forward to accomodate Jones?

Weitering has kicked a career total of 10 goals. 7 of these goals came between Rds 1 -8 of 2017 when he played up forward and Liam Jones was out injured...

Poor clubs find a role for poor players more often than good clubs do

Levi Casboult the key forward
Ed Curnow the midfielder
Kade Simpson the rebounding defender

All "good role players" and handbrakes on the team

To the bolded bit - of course they do. Its no surprise bad teams have more bad players and therefore in order to field a side - have to play them.

Not sure how you can be upset with a player like Kade Simpson. Guy was a great player. Look at a player like Ben Stratton for the Hawks. Classic role player. 202 games, zero Brownlow votes. If he played for Carlton - you would be calling him a handbrake.

Same goes for Sydney premiership midfielder Craig Bird. Average role playing midfielder in a very good side. He plays for Carlton and he is a handbrake.

The AFL is littered with examples like this. It is a league where top end talent rules supreme. Role players don't matter. Good teams have em and bad teams have em. They key is having the most superstars - that's where the games are won and lost.

What was the biggest difference between our Prelim final and Grand Final. (Spoiler alert it wasn't David Mackay going from 18 touches in the PF to 15 in the Grand Final).

 

[Scorpus]

Biggest swing and miss you have taken mate.

When did Weitering waste an entire season forward to accomodate Jones?

Weitering has kicked a career total of 10 goals. 7 of these goals came between Rds 1 -8 of 2017 when he played up forward and Liam Jones was out injured...


To the bolded bit - of course they do. Its no surprise bad teams have more bad players and therefore in order to field a side - have to play them.

Not sure how you can be upset with a player like Kade Simpson. Guy was a great player. Look at a player like Ben Stratton for the Hawks. Classic role player. 202 games, zero Brownlow votes. If he played for Carlton - you would be calling him a handbrake.

Same goes for Sydney premiership midfielder Craig Bird. Average role playing midfielder in a very good side. He plays for Carlton and he is a handbrake.

The AFL is littered with examples like this. It is a league where top end talent rules supreme. Role players don't matter. Good teams have em and bad teams have em. They key is having the most superstars - that's where the games are won and lost.

What was the biggest difference between our Prelim final and Grand Final. (Spoiler alert it wasn't David Mackay going from 18 touches in the PF to 15 in the Grand Final).

Having role players isn't the issue. The issue is overrating the value or contribution of low quality role players and not looking to upgrade them into better players, thus anchoring the side at a lower quality.

For example Carlton never looked to upgrade a guy like Ed Curnow, preferring him over developing players like (top draft pick) Paddy Dow (among others) in his role. They chose the safe, lower level over the higher ceiling. Instead they'd rotate through peripheral role players thinking swapping Cam O'Shea for Nic Newman would make any difference while ignoring the bog average players in key roles they think are better than they are. Even worse, they'd waste resources on those merry go rounds, giving up good picks for bunches of crap from GWS

That's what Hawthorn didn't do. They didn't rotate through a selection of garbage fringe players hoping the next one would be the difference, while ignoring the mediocre 100 game serviceable players. They aggressively ditched mediocre players for high draft picks and backed them in, then targeted any areas of weakness for upgrades through trades. It's precisely why guys like Schoenmakers, Langford and Spangher were only used sparingly while they'd probably be 200 gamers at Carlton.

That's what developing sides have to be careful with. They're going to start out with lots of crap players and role players. The way to be successful is carefully choosing who to play and who to spend resources on so you don't end up with too many role players and don't end up with low ceiling duds in key roles.

 

[dylan123]

Just a silly suggestion for teams at at the top to have role players which is fine but not for those at the bottom. David Hale

David Hale

Age

39

Ht

201cm

Wt

102kg

Pos.

F/R

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.6

3star

K

5.7

2star

HB

4.9

4star

M

4.2

4star

T

2.0

4star

G

0.9

4star

No current season stats available

D

6.6

2star

K

4.6

2star

HB

2.0

2star

M

3.6

4star

T

0.8

3star

G

0.4

3star

playing 100 odd games for Hawthorn worked great but the same wouldn't be said if he stayed at North. They're not good enough to hold back future superstars from getting a game, they're just holding back others of similar/less talent.

Carlton's problem of late is overpaying on bringing talent in who under-deliver, working guys like Cripps into the ground to where he hasn't played close to his best football for a couple of seasons and striking out in the draft.

 

[Mutineer]

Having role players isn't the issue. The issue is overrating the value or contribution of low quality role players and not looking to upgrade them into better players, thus anchoring the side at a lower quality.

For example Carlton never looked to upgrade a guy like Ed Curnow, preferring him over developing players like (top draft pick) Paddy Dow (among others) in his role. They chose the safe, lower level over the higher ceiling. Instead they'd rotate through peripheral role players thinking swapping Cam O'Shea for Nic Newman would make any difference while ignoring the bog average players in key roles they think are better than they are. Even worse, they'd waste resources on those merry go rounds, giving up good picks for bunches of crap from GWS

That's what Hawthorn didn't do. They didn't rotate through a selection of garbage fringe players hoping the next one would be the difference, while ignoring the mediocre 100 game serviceable players. They aggressively ditched mediocre players for high draft picks and backed them in, then targeted any areas of weakness for upgrades through trades. It's precisely why guys like Schoenmakers, Langford and Spangher were only used sparingly while they'd probably be 200 gamers at Carlton.

That's what developing sides have to be careful with. They're going to start out with lots of crap players and role players. The way to be successful is carefully choosing who to play and who to spend resources on so you don't end up with too many role players and don't end up with low ceiling duds in key roles.

That's a very unfair view of what Ed Curnow has actually achieved over his career, he's way better than your giving him credit for.

 

[Scorpus]

Carlton's problem of late is overpaying on bringing talent in who under-deliver

I disagree. Carlton think they are bringing in talent but actually they are overpaying and overrating role players.

Adam Saad is a role player, they paid him like a star. McGovern was a fourth tall role player in our side and we ranked him as such in our B&F. Carlton paid him like a star. Jack Martin might have been a top draft pick years ago but he was basically again just a role player at Gold Coast in his last few seasons there.

They think they've built an awesome squad but they haven't. Their talent ID is off and calibrated to their own low standards, not the AFL average

 

[Danger in Texas]

Yes they overpaid for guys like Saad and Williams, but calling them ‘role players’ seems a little harsh. They’re quite good, just not the ‘star’-level talent they really should be aiming for

Hopefully we’ve avoided such a case with Dawson (I’m confident he’ll be really, really good)

 

[1970crow]

Just a silly suggestion for teams at at the top to have role players which is fine but not for those at the bottom. David Hale playing 100 odd games for Hawthorn worked great but the same wouldn't be said if he stayed at North. They're not good enough to hold back future superstars from getting a game, they're just holding back others of similar/less talent.

Carlton's problem of late is overpaying on bringing talent in who under-deliver, working guys like Cripps into the ground to where he hasn't played close to his best football for a couple of seasons and striking out in the draft.

The point, I think, is settling for role players. Clubs should always be looking to improve and you do that by upgrading wherever you can. A contending team will end up with a handful of role players, but they won't have been locked in as a role player years before.

 

[NTRabbit]

Push down, not up

 

[Sanders]

There’s nothing wrong with Liam Jones

19

Liam Jones

Age

33

Ht

199cm

Wt

98kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.4

2star

K

6.5

3star

HB

2.9

3star

M

4.3

4star

T

2.0

4star

MG

134.5

2star

D

7.6

2star

K

6.1

3star

HB

1.4

1star

M

4.1

4star

T

1.4

2star

MG

116.3

2star

D

9.4

3star

K

7.4

3star

HB

2.0

2star

M

4.0

4star

T

2.2

4star

. A weird target for me.

he’s a rare win for their recruiting

 

[Mutineer]

There’s nothing wrong with Liam Jones. A weird target for me.

he’s a rare win for their recruiting

Yep I'm convinced some watch football with Liam Jones blinkers on, he's been a very decent footballer since switching into defence.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I disagree. Carlton think they are bringing in talent but actually they are overpaying and overrating role players.

Adam Saad is a role player, they paid him like a star. McGovern was a fourth tall role player in our side and we ranked him as such in our B&F. Carlton paid him like a star. Jack Martin might have been a top draft pick years ago but he was basically again just a role player at Gold Coast in his last few seasons there.

They think they've built an awesome squad but they haven't. Their talent ID is off and calibrated to their own low standards, not the AFL average

Zac Williams deserves a mention too. "Here's this guy who plays well off HB, let's pay him big money to play as a mid".

 

[AFC979810]

Having role players isn't the issue. The issue is overrating the value or contribution of low quality role players and not looking to upgrade them into better players, thus anchoring the side at a lower quality.

Where are they getting these upgrades from. The talent is extremely limited with 18 teams and a very limited talent pool.

For example Carlton never looked to upgrade a guy like Ed Curnow, preferring him over developing players like (top draft pick) Paddy Dow (among others) in his role. They chose the safe, lower level over the higher ceiling. Instead they'd rotate through peripheral role players thinking swapping Cam O'Shea for Nic Newman would make any difference while ignoring the bog average players in key roles they think are better than they are. Even worse, they'd waste resources on those merry go rounds, giving up good picks for bunches of crap from GWS

That's what Hawthorn didn't do. They didn't rotate through a selection of garbage fringe players hoping the next one would be the difference, while ignoring the mediocre 100 game serviceable players. They aggressively ditched mediocre players for high draft picks and backed them in, then targeted any areas of weakness for upgrades through trades. It's precisely why guys like Schoenmakers, Langford and Spangher were only used sparingly while they'd probably be 200 gamers at Carlton.

Firstly to the bolded part - that's a horrible swing and miss.

Schoenmakers was a first rounder who played 125 games for the club.

2015 - Despite groin issues played 16 games including all finals and a won a flag in 2016
2016 - Groin injury limited him to 6 games
2017 - Started round 1 after a limited preseason. Played the last 10 after finding form.
2018 - Played first two weeks then hurt his Achilles. Game back round 18 and played the rest of the season including finals.
2019 - Achillies injury limited him to 6 VFL Games.

Did you see Spangher play? He wasn't getting games even at Carlton.

Injuries were the reason Schoenmakers didn't play 200 games. Not some crazy list management policy of weeding out role players.

I would suggest that Langford hurts your above argument, doesn't help it. He is another example of a good side keeping and using a very average footballer over a long period of time. Guy played 75 games over 6years at the club including 65 games and all finals between 2013-2017.

Now whats the difference between them and Carlton do you think? Look at the 2008 premiership team - filled with average role players. Brent Renouf, Robert Campbell, Stephen Gilham, Rick Ladson, Chance Bateman, Michael Osborne. They also had players like Thomas Murphy and Simon Taylor playing a bunch of games that year.

For me it has nothing to do with the back end of the list. Its all about the ability to get the most of out of your top end draft picks. Here are the first round picks between the two clubs from 1999-2013.

Luke Livingston, Trent Sporn, Simon Wiggins, Andrew Walker, Jordan Russell, Marc Murphy, Josh Kennedy (Traded for Judd), Bryce Gibbs, Shaun Hampson, Kruezer, Christopher Yarran, Kane Lucas, Mathew Watson, Troy Menzel, Cripps.

Luke McPharlin, Luke Hodge, Rick Ladson, Luke Brennan, Roughead, Franklin, Jordan Lewis, Xavier Ellis, Beau Dowler, Birchall, Max Bailey, Mitch Thorp, Cyril Rioli, Schoenmakers.

Carltons Best - Walker, Kruezer, Murphy, Cripps

Hawthorns Best - Hodge, Rioli, Roughead, Franklin, Lewis.

Thats the difference.

That's what developing sides have to be careful with. They're going to start out with lots of crap players and role players. The way to be successful is carefully choosing who to play and who to spend resources on so you don't end up with too many role players and don't end up with low ceiling duds in key roles.

Developing sides need to hit on superstar players with high end draft picks. Role players don't matter and never will.

 

[Scorpus]

Where are they getting these upgrades from. The talent is extremely limited with 18 teams and a very limited talent pool.



Firstly to the bolded part - that's a horrible swing and miss.

Schoenmakers was a first rounder who played 125 games for the club.

2015 - Despite groin issues played 16 games including all finals and a won a flag in 2016
2016 - Groin injury limited him to 6 games
2017 - Started round 1 after a limited preseason. Played the last 10 after finding form.
2018 - Played first two weeks then hurt his Achilles. Game back round 18 and played the rest of the season including finals.
2019 - Achillies injury limited him to 6 VFL Games.

Did you see Spangher play? He wasn't getting games even at Carlton.

Injuries were the reason Schoenmakers didn't play 200 games. Not some crazy list management policy of weeding out role players.

I would suggest that Langford hurts your above argument, doesn't help it. He is another example of a good side keeping and using a very average footballer over a long period of time. Guy played 75 games over 6years at the club including 65 games and all finals between 2013-2017.

Now whats the difference between them and Carlton do you think? Look at the 2008 premiership team - filled with average role players. Brent Renouf, Robert Campbell, Stephen Gilham, Rick Ladson, Chance Bateman, Michael Osborne. They also had players like Thomas Murphy and Simon Taylor playing a bunch of games that year.

For me it has nothing to do with the back end of the list. Its all about the ability to get the most of out of your top end draft picks. Here are the first round picks between the two clubs from 1999-2013.

Luke Livingston, Trent Sporn, Simon Wiggins, Andrew Walker, Jordan Russell, Marc Murphy, Josh Kennedy (Traded for Judd), Bryce Gibbs, Shaun Hampson, Kruezer, Christopher Yarran, Kane Lucas, Mathew Watson, Troy Menzel, Cripps.

Luke McPharlin, Luke Hodge, Rick Ladson, Luke Brennan, Roughead, Franklin, Jordan Lewis, Xavier Ellis, Beau Dowler, Birchall, Max Bailey, Mitch Thorp, Cyril Rioli, Schoenmakers.

Carltons Best - Walker, Kruezer, Murphy, Cripps

Hawthorns Best - Hodge, Rioli, Roughead, Franklin, Lewis.

Thats the difference.



Developing sides need to hit on superstar players with high end draft picks. Role players don't matter and never will.

The point is not that the best teams don't have role players, it's that the best teams have better players in every position including having better role players.

When Hawthorn gutted their list to bring in and back players like Franklin, Roughead, Hodge, they were able to push out the bottom group of guys and ensure the Gilhams and Ladsons on the list were their bottom 6 role players.

And they didn't worry about causing that disruption. Go look at the guys playing for Hawthorn in 2003 to 2005 and how many of them were given the chop during that period.

Hawthorn did that again between 2008 and their three-peat dynasty as well. Their stars lived on, but they replaced the rest with more high quality players, players like Rioli, Gunston, McEvoy and so on. This cemented their dominance during that era. Their whole list improved but it wasn't their best 5 players getting better - because they were already stars of the competition. It was the mid band of role players being replaced with higher quality.

You say how did they get these upgrades? I mean Hawthorn have shown it is possible through talent ID and trades. Their three-peat era was filled with targeted trades looking to plug holes and upgrade the fringe. Grabbing guys like Josh Gibson and Brian Lake took them to the next level.

Contrast that with Carlton. Before 2005-2006, just before getting multiple pick 1s, their emerging core players were pretty average. Guys like Heath Scotland, Ryan Houlihan, Bret Thornton, Andrew Carrazzo, Jarrad Waite - bog average players.

Even as Carlton brought in bulk high end picks, these guys were still playing core roles, despite not being rated by the wider competition. Carlton finally ditched Houlihan in 2011, Scotland in 2014, Carrazzo in 2015, Waite in 2014, and Thornton in 2012 - some of them retired in their 30s. When they were bringing in Gibbs, Murphy, Kreuzer and Judd as top picks, stars of the competition, they should have been aggressively shedding these players when it was clear they weren't good enough (and it was obvious well before the early to mid 2010s).

Again, go back to Hawthorn now. How many average players from pre-2005 were playing in their 2012 and onward grand final teams? The Scotlands, the Carrazzos, the Waites of the side? I can make a case for one player fitting that category, Brad Sewell. Every other player was upgraded

Carlton highly valued the non-star players they had and padded the middle of their list with them. They brought in high draft picks, kept these average players in the team, and rotated through the bottom 6 thinking that group of players would work. It didn't work, and it wasn't good enough.

Hawthorn also brought in star players, but they quickly made them the center of the team, moved on and upgraded the middle of their list, and pushed their best role players into the bottom of the 22. They struck gold in 2008 half way through this approach and by the time 2013 rolled around they had assembled one of the best teams of the modern era.

Yes Hawthorn also had better elite players. But the players in the 5-15 bracket were substantially better than what Carlton had. Carlton had role players there. Carlton wanted role players there. Hawthorn had very good or even star players there and didn't stop until they had them.

 

[Pugsley]

Yep I'm convinced some watch football with Liam Jones blinkers on, he's been a very decent footballer since switching into defence.

He isn't anymore so discussing him is pointless.

 

[Jcpdragonx]

Zac Williams deserves a mention too. "Here's this guy who plays well off HB, let's pay him big money to play as a mid".

Durability seems to be down the pecking order for recruiters when it comes to valuing them. As SoS said on trade radio, recruiters tend to value players at their peak performance, with the exception of guys like De Goey. Williams has multiple soft tissue injuries most years, the chances he turns up and runs 13kms a game in the midfield were slim to nil. Hannebery, McGovern are other examples.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Durability seems to be down the pecking order for recruiters when it comes to valuing them. As SoS said on trade radio, recruiters tend to value players at their peak performance, with the exception of guys like De Goey. Williams has multiple soft tissue injuries most years, the chances he turns up and runs 13kms a game in the midfield were slim to nil. Hannebery, McGovern are other examples.

I still don't know how Hannebery got through the medical. I heard his body was wrecked when he got there.

 

[hey shorty]

I still don't know how Hannebery got through the medical. I heard his body was wrecked when he got there.

He couldn't have, or they didn't even do one

The saints were so desperate to land a "name" they offered him whatever he wanted.

They've never been an overly well run club.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

They've never been an overly well run club.

What does that say about us given they bent us over with the Crouch trade?

 

[hey shorty]

What does that say about us given they bent us over with the Crouch trade?

Did they though ?? He's not worth much more than what they paid.

Bit like Dawson, we held the whip hand this time and got what we wanted, so did the Saints.

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

What does that say about us given they bent us over with the Crouch trade?

they didn’t though.

 

[AFC979810]

Hawthorn did that again between 2008 and their three-peat dynasty as well. Their stars lived on, but they replaced the rest with more high quality players, players like Rioli, Gunston, McEvoy and so on. This cemented their dominance during that era. Their whole list improved but it wasn't their best 5 players getting better - because they were already stars of the competition. It was the mid band of role players being replaced with higher quality.

The Hawks won because their stars carried them to flags. It was Hodge, Mitchell, Franklin, Roughy, Lewis, Cyril that carried that team.

They didn't win because they upgraded Mark Williams to Gunston or Simon Taylor to Ben McEvoy. Their stars were brilliant.

You say how did they get these upgrades? I mean Hawthorn have shown it is possible through talent ID and trades. Their three-peat era was filled with targeted trades looking to plug holes and upgrade the fringe. Grabbing guys like Josh Gibson and Brian Lake took them to the next level.

Contrast that with Carlton. Before 2005-2006, just before getting multiple pick 1s, their emerging core players were pretty average. Guys like Heath Scotland, Ryan Houlihan, Bret Thornton, Andrew Carrazzo, Jarrad Waite - bog average players.

Firstly. Heath Scotland and Jarrad Waite were damn good footballers.

Secondly. You also need to factor in the Des Headland effect mate.

Once again that's the whole point. When you have a core of stars - Hodge, Mitchell, Franklin, Roughy, Lewis, Cyril - you can carry average role players and it doesn't matter who they are. s**t you can bring in a fat stewie dew.

When you have a core of Judd, Murphy, Gibbs, Walker, Kruezer - you cannot.

Also - it is pretty rough pointing to one of the greatest dynasties of all time and saying - "see they did it - why can't everyone".

Even as Carlton brought in bulk high end picks, these guys were still playing core roles, despite not being rated by the wider competition. Carlton finally ditched Houlihan in 2011, Scotland in 2014, Carrazzo in 2015, Waite in 2014, and Thornton in 2012 - some of them retired in their 30s. When they were bringing in Gibbs, Murphy, Kreuzer and Judd as top picks, stars of the competition, they should have been aggressively shedding these players when it was clear they weren't good enough (and it was obvious well before the early to mid 2010s).

Again, go back to Hawthorn now. How many average players from pre-2005 were playing in their 2012 and onward grand final teams? The Scotlands, the Carrazzos, the Waites of the side? I can make a case for one player fitting that category, Brad Sewell. Every other player was upgraded.

Jeez mate. 8 seasons is a fair bit of time. Pre 2005 Hawks players playing in 2012 flag. Mitchell and Hodge.

Pre 2005 Carlton Players playing in 2012. Waite, Scotland, Carazzo, Walker.

Hardly tells us anything.

 

[Scorpus]

The Hawks won because their stars carried them to flags. It was Hodge, Mitchell, Franklin, Roughy, Lewis, Cyril that carried that team.

They didn't win because they upgraded Mark Williams to Gunston or Simon Taylor to Ben McEvoy. Their stars were brilliant.



Firstly. Heath Scotland and Jarrad Waite were damn good footballers.

Secondly. You also need to factor in the Des Headland effect mate.

Once again that's the whole point. When you have a core of stars - Hodge, Mitchell, Franklin, Roughy, Lewis, Cyril - you can carry average role players and it doesn't matter who they are. sh*t you can bring in a fat stewie dew.

When you have a core of Judd, Murphy, Gibbs, Walker, Kruezer - you cannot.

Also - it is pretty rough pointing to one of the greatest dynasties of all time and saying - "see they did it - why can't everyone".



Jeez mate. 8 seasons is a fair bit of time. Pre 2005 Hawks players playing in 2012 flag. Mitchell and Hodge.

Pre 2005 Carlton Players playing in 2012. Waite, Scotland, Carazzo, Walker.

Hardly tells us anything.

You are being generous to Carlton's next group and underrating Hawthorn's.

Hawthorn weren't "carrying" the next tier with their star power. The next tier below the guys you listed were Gunston, Gibson, Burgoyne, Lake, Breust... we're talking All Australian quality players in the 5-15 bracket.

Carlton's next group below what you listed were Simpson, Betts, Scotland, Carrazzo, Waite, Jamieson, Thornton, Robinson

There was a difference with their stars; Judd was a superstar but they didn't have a Lance Franklin. But it's undeniable the second tier of players at Carlton were a league below Hawthorn. You shouldn't be "carrying" the 8th best player in your side. Hawthorn weren't. Carlton were.

Sure, whoever is in the bottom 6 players isn't going to be the difference. But if your role players begin at the 7th or 8th best in your side, you're in big strife.

----

Bringing this all back to where it started, it was about the selection of Billy Frampton. It doesn't matter too much if Billy is the 22nd player picked if you have a good crop of players down to about player 15 or 16 and you're winning a lot and there is no other obvious upgrade.

The risk in cementing a player like that in the side during a rebuild is that you're trying to establish that core of players. You need the elite top 5 or so, and then a really solid group of great players in the next 10. The rebuild is the time to find all of those players.

Carlton's failing was that yes, their stars weren't amazing. But they also cemented the next 10 group of players way too early, overrated their contribution and refused to move them on. This anchored the team as not good enough.

My opinion in a rebuild is that you need to pick an entire 22 of players you think will be in the top 16 players in the side. Some will make it, some will be huge busts, and some will settle at a role player bottom 6 in the 22 level.

There is no point selecting someone we already know has a ceiling as a bottom 6 role player. We're not at the stage where we need that. We need to find our stars and find our core and we'll only be limiting ourselves if we are already locking away spots on role players.

 

[1970crow]

The point is not that the best teams don't have role players, it's that the best teams have better players in every position including having better role players.

When Hawthorn gutted their list to bring in and back players like Franklin, Roughead, Hodge, they were able to push out the bottom group of guys and ensure the Gilhams and Ladsons on the list were their bottom 6 role players.

And they didn't worry about causing that disruption. Go look at the guys playing for Hawthorn in 2003 to 2005 and how many of them were given the chop during that period.

Hawthorn did that again between 2008 and their three-peat dynasty as well. Their stars lived on, but they replaced the rest with more high quality players, players like Rioli, Gunston, McEvoy and so on. This cemented their dominance during that era. Their whole list improved but it wasn't their best 5 players getting better - because they were already stars of the competition. It was the mid band of role players being replaced with higher quality.

You say how did they get these upgrades? I mean Hawthorn have shown it is possible through talent ID and trades. Their three-peat era was filled with targeted trades looking to plug holes and upgrade the fringe. Grabbing guys like Josh Gibson and Brian Lake took them to the next level.

Contrast that with Carlton. Before 2005-2006, just before getting multiple pick 1s, their emerging core players were pretty average. Guys like Heath Scotland, Ryan Houlihan, Bret Thornton, Andrew Carrazzo, Jarrad Waite - bog average players.

Even as Carlton brought in bulk high end picks, these guys were still playing core roles, despite not being rated by the wider competition. Carlton finally ditched Houlihan in 2011, Scotland in 2014, Carrazzo in 2015, Waite in 2014, and Thornton in 2012 - some of them retired in their 30s. When they were bringing in Gibbs, Murphy, Kreuzer and Judd as top picks, stars of the competition, they should have been aggressively shedding these players when it was clear they weren't good enough (and it was obvious well before the early to mid 2010s).

Again, go back to Hawthorn now. How many average players from pre-2005 were playing in their 2012 and onward grand final teams? The Scotlands, the Carrazzos, the Waites of the side? I can make a case for one player fitting that category, Brad Sewell. Every other player was upgraded

Carlton highly valued the non-star players they had and padded the middle of their list with them. They brought in high draft picks, kept these average players in the team, and rotated through the bottom 6 thinking that group of players would work. It didn't work, and it wasn't good enough.

Hawthorn also brought in star players, but they quickly made them the center of the team, moved on and upgraded the middle of their list, and pushed their best role players into the bottom of the 22. They struck gold in 2008 half way through this approach and by the time 2013 rolled around they had assembled one of the best teams of the modern era.

Yes Hawthorn also had better elite players. But the players in the 5-15 bracket were substantially better than what Carlton had. Carlton had role players there. Carlton wanted role players there. Hawthorn had very good or even star players there and didn't stop until they had them.

we’ve been exactly the same as Carlton. Settled on role players and tried to build around them as if individually they’re indispensable.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

I know some on here always put down Liam Jones but his rankings put lie to that.

AFL Stats - AFL.com.au

Share

www.afl.com.au

Obviously nobody bothered to watch him play against the crows the last few years

remember him close to BOG twice ( one in 2021 and the other in our GF year at the G in 2017 )