Sloane is a dullard, shouldn't be anywhere near an AFC coaching box. If he has a future in that game, let market forces dictate, ie Thommo.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
List Mgmt. 2024 List Mismanagement and Trading
- Thread starter 1990crow
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Status
Sloane is a dullard, shouldn't be anywhere near an AFC coaching box. If he has a future in that game, let market forces dictate, ie Thommo.
- Mar 3, 2022
- 7,301
- 10,436
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Id rather him be there than on the field
dogs105
Sweet Kennels Proprietor
Tough on Bond
Need to be ruthless heading into contention if can’t get on park again then it’s sorry but you’re delisted
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
He's a liability regardless, but you're right, at least in the box we're getting games into a potentially valuable player.
TubbsFarquhar
TheBrownDog
Unless Ned can find his way back into our 22, then I see no point re-signing him. Even if he does ok coming on as a sub in the last quarter again, then I'd much prefer to offer him as trade bait rather than wasting a list spot.
I'd go:
Re-Sign:
Hinge
Pedlar
Giving these two a new deal needs to be our biggest list priority.
Keays - there's still a spot for him on our list as a gut-running forward, but he should be nowhere near the middle
Cook - Hopefully we're looking at him as McAdam's replacement in the forward line and he makes it his own
Walker - We won't get in his way if he wants to retire though
Smith - As above
Re-Sign or Trade:
Gollant - Clearly very talented and can dominate the SANFL, but he may want more opportunities and request a trade.
Berry - If he can re-capture some of his 2022 form, then he will be worth keeping on, especially as depth.
Delist/Trade/FA:
Himmelberg - FA to GWS
Parnell - Too small and his main weapon (disposal) seems to have gone down the toilet. There's plenty of options ahead of him now
Sholl - Won't make it, too soft
McHenry - Already mentioned
Sloane - Hopefully he retires himself, otherwise, make the hard call FFS
Bond - I won't write him off after an injury-affected first year but, needless to say, he needs to start showing something otherwise there's no point keeping him on.
Borlase
Hamill? - I'd love for him to make it, but the reality is that he's one concussion away from retiring.
Unknown
Burgess - Let's see what he can offer for us
Last edited:
- Jul 8, 2016
- 4,459
- 5,770
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Rookie contract maybe that's all. Admittedly I'm not his greatest fan . I guess I'm just sick of seeing him running around pointing and shouting, usually doing nothing useful whilst also giving away too many free kicks. That's just my 2c worth.
- Oct 2, 2022
- 8,547
- 11,716
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I'd like us to start being like Collingwood - make an early call on some draftees, if it's pretty clear.
- Oct 2, 2022
- 8,547
- 11,716
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Ah, I think he's okay around the edge of the team. You need someone who can step in when there's injuries - you can't have only the first 22 and draftees.
Can we employ Belinda instead as onfield announcer before games ?
i'm sure she's cashing in somehow, they're the epitome of the 'I' couple.
it's not the early draftees that limits our ceiling. It's continually reverting to mid aged plodders ahead of testing tye talent underneath. Locked into our best 22 in 2024 is Sloane and Murphy, and that's why we're culturally incapable of genuinely competing over multiple years.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #88
It'll be interesting to see what they do over the next couple of trade/draft periods
My impression was some the of kids they let go early weren't going to suit McRae's game style
Our draft strategy will largely relate to where see our flag window.
Current player quality looked like this in 2023:
*The above rankings are based on stats insider ratings, which is a combination of stats, coaches votes etc. Not perfect, but Pedlar looks to be the only rating that looks out of whack, and I think that is impacted by his poor earlier games. I have added my expectation of improving (+) or falling away (-).
Players take up to 6 years to build to their peak quality (24yo), largely hold that form for 5-6 years (29yo), then tail off (sometimes pretty quickly). Talls can take a few years longer to build, but also hold their form longer.
Excluding talls, a player who will ultimately be elite will likely be average for their first couple of years, then above average to elite over the next 3-4 years. Rachele and Michalanney fit this profile and, given how Curtin plays, he could also follow this trajectory.
A player who will ultimately be above average will likely be below average for their first couple of years, then average for the next couple, before then finding their level. Soligo and potentially Jones (given his recent development) fit this profile.
It’s still a bit early to call on Thilthorpe, Worrell and Murray, but I’m hopeful that there are three ultimately above average players there given recent development, with perhaps Thilthorpe maybe going to elite. Ben and Max King are rated similarly to TT, with 2 years head start, and I still think that both will be elite.
If most of Rachele, Michalanney, Soligo and Murray can improve one grading and Tex largely hold his form, we could have a cheeky shot at a flag in ‘24/’25. It would give us the following profile, as compared to Collingwood and Brisbane this year:
Just need some of the untested (Dowling, Taylor, Edwards) or below average (Keane, Nankervis, Borlase) to get to average quality.
Otherwise, we will be largely relying on our 27 players between 18 and 23 hitting peak form at the same time, supported by Dawson, Laird, Crouch, Fog, Hinge and ROB (who should hold most of their current form). This will be ’26/’27 to ’29.
Current player quality looked like this in 2023:
*The above rankings are based on stats insider ratings, which is a combination of stats, coaches votes etc. Not perfect, but Pedlar looks to be the only rating that looks out of whack, and I think that is impacted by his poor earlier games. I have added my expectation of improving (+) or falling away (-).
Players take up to 6 years to build to their peak quality (24yo), largely hold that form for 5-6 years (29yo), then tail off (sometimes pretty quickly). Talls can take a few years longer to build, but also hold their form longer.
Excluding talls, a player who will ultimately be elite will likely be average for their first couple of years, then above average to elite over the next 3-4 years. Rachele and Michalanney fit this profile and, given how Curtin plays, he could also follow this trajectory.
A player who will ultimately be above average will likely be below average for their first couple of years, then average for the next couple, before then finding their level. Soligo and potentially Jones (given his recent development) fit this profile.
It’s still a bit early to call on Thilthorpe, Worrell and Murray, but I’m hopeful that there are three ultimately above average players there given recent development, with perhaps Thilthorpe maybe going to elite. Ben and Max King are rated similarly to TT, with 2 years head start, and I still think that both will be elite.
If most of Rachele, Michalanney, Soligo and Murray can improve one grading and Tex largely hold his form, we could have a cheeky shot at a flag in ‘24/’25. It would give us the following profile, as compared to Collingwood and Brisbane this year:
Just need some of the untested (Dowling, Taylor, Edwards) or below average (Keane, Nankervis, Borlase) to get to average quality.
Otherwise, we will be largely relying on our 27 players between 18 and 23 hitting peak form at the same time, supported by Dawson, Laird, Crouch, Fog, Hinge and ROB (who should hold most of their current form). This will be ’26/’27 to ’29.
Attachments
Building a list of only average or better players is pretty much impossible. Collingwood and Brisbane had 6 and 5 below average players in their top 30 players in 2023. They also had poor rated players play games in 2023. That’s not to say you should hold all of your poor and below average players, just that there are a number of issues with delisting them all and rolling the dice on draftees.
The first issue of delisting below average players is that drafting is risky. Even great draft picks can produce poor or below average players, so there is no guarantee that the below average player that you delist will be replaced by a better player.
Another key risk is timing. We need players who will contribute during our flag window, not after it. A player who will ultimately be average, could be poor or below average for almost all of our window if drafted next year. An ultimately above average player could be below average for 2 or more years and then only average for a few more.
Our existing younger players will also improve during our window, and delisting them could rob us of contributors to our flag.
We also need coverage for all positions in case of injury. It’s why we kept Himmelberg and drafted in Burgess.
Finally, draft capital from here is probably better spent on trading players in, who will not have the draft risk and will be ready to go. What draft picks we do have will likely be rubbish, which make it hard to find players that will be good for the right now.
This year, we (hopefully) draft in a gun mid and spend second and third round points on Welsh. Which means that we will need to open up at least 4 main list spots, with only 4th to 6th round (or rookie) picks available. If we took a pick in the 60's and a rookie pick to the draft, history suggests we end up with a player who never plays a game and another who might be average in a few year's time. But we have to do it, so no real issues. Voluntarily taking another rookie pick on the 12% chance he's above average or better in 3 year's time makes no sense at all. It reduces the chance of winning a flag.
So, for me:
Exit if we trade/ free agency in 1 player
The first issue of delisting below average players is that drafting is risky. Even great draft picks can produce poor or below average players, so there is no guarantee that the below average player that you delist will be replaced by a better player.
Another key risk is timing. We need players who will contribute during our flag window, not after it. A player who will ultimately be average, could be poor or below average for almost all of our window if drafted next year. An ultimately above average player could be below average for 2 or more years and then only average for a few more.
Our existing younger players will also improve during our window, and delisting them could rob us of contributors to our flag.
We also need coverage for all positions in case of injury. It’s why we kept Himmelberg and drafted in Burgess.
Finally, draft capital from here is probably better spent on trading players in, who will not have the draft risk and will be ready to go. What draft picks we do have will likely be rubbish, which make it hard to find players that will be good for the right now.
This year, we (hopefully) draft in a gun mid and spend second and third round points on Welsh. Which means that we will need to open up at least 4 main list spots, with only 4th to 6th round (or rookie) picks available. If we took a pick in the 60's and a rookie pick to the draft, history suggests we end up with a player who never plays a game and another who might be average in a few year's time. But we have to do it, so no real issues. Voluntarily taking another rookie pick on the 12% chance he's above average or better in 3 year's time makes no sense at all. It reduces the chance of winning a flag.
So, for me:
Exit if we trade/ free agency in 1 player
- Himmelberg – gone anyway
- Hamill – broken
- Strachan – old and bad, but need to replace with a ruck
- Sholl – below average, no upside and we have coverage for the position
- Ned – below average, no upside and we have coverage for the position
- Sloane – 1 year extension if can hold current form only, otherwise keep Ned
- Bond – may improve, better prospect than 2024 rookie
- Cook – may improve, better prospect than 2024 3rd round pick
- Gollant – may improve, better prospect than 2024 3rd round pick
- Berry – may improve, better prospect than 2024 2rd round pick
- Borlase – may improve, defensive depth, better prospect than 2024 3rd round pick
- Parnell – upgrade to main list, may improve, better prospect than 2024 2rd round pick
- Smith – above average and maybe years to go, better prospect than 2024 pick 11-20
- Pedlar – significant upside, better prospect than 2024 pick 11-20
- Keays – above average, better prospect than 2024 pick 11-20
- Hinge – above average and years to go, defensive depth, better prospect than 2024 pick 11-20
- Walker – elite and maybe years to go, better prospect than 2024 pick 5-10
- Jun 21, 2014
- 11,245
- 12,734
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
By definition!
And yet, plenty still confused as to why our club would end up with below average players on its list.By definition!
Scorpus
Moderator
- Apr 16, 2014
- 67,865
- 183,890
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Moderator
- #93
Some very generous rankings here and also some underrating.
ROB and Crouch above average but Pedlar and Murray below average?
Surely with four elite players and our starting midfield either being elite or above average we should have gone deep into finals
- Thread starter
- #94
Yeah some odd rankings in there.
A projected league wide, projected rating in 2024 and 2025 would be useful.
Eg Rachele was average this year. You'd expect him to be above average in coming years and hopefully elite, probably more likely in 2026.
Expecting Tex and Laird to hold their form is fanciful.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 85,680
- 178,955
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #95
Bearded Clam was goal umpiring
- Thread starter
- #96
He's not a very good "poster"
I've used stats insiders' player rankings, which I find to be generally pretty good, and then applied the AFL ratings approach to these:
Elite: top 55 (10% assuming c.550 players used per year)
Above average: up to 185 (23%)
Average: up to 365 (66%)
Below Average: up to 550 (100%)
Poor: outside the top 550
If you spot check player ratings to the AFL websites showing the AFL ratings, they line up pretty closely, even ROB and Crouch.
Stats Insider has more players ranked than play that year (hence the poor category, which AFL doesn't have). It also might explain why Pedlar is lower than both of us expected, as prior year games have an impact.
4 elite, 7 above average and 8 average players isn't as deep as the contending teams, as can be seen by the Collingwood and Brisbane examples given. You don't get to a flag by having just the most elite and above average players, or just having the best midfield.
Rankings explained in an eariler post. Rachele the 174th ranked player, which fits in the above average rating. He's also above average for disposals, marks and tackles and average for goals, which feels like an end of the above average range.
Tex "largely" holding his form and Laird holding his form (both for '24 and/ or '25 only) was was a scenario, not an expectation. In my opinion, not a fanciful scenario.
If not, we are on to scenario 2, where Tex is out of the picture and Laird is in support.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
