Analysis Port Undertaking a rebuild ... Or a Renovate?

[Andre]

Grand Designs or Changing Rooms?

Grand Designs (UK). How is this even a question?

 

[Rising Power]

Grand Designs (UK). How is this even a question?

But Suzie Wilks, come on man...

 

[Andre]

But Suzie Wilks, come on man...

If that's the criteria then Property Ladder (UK) wins.

 

[Macca19]

Now compare this to Port...

Port, over the last three years has moved on 24 players, either retired or delisted (not including special category in Dan Flynn and Johann Wagner) ...
Kane Cornes, Tom Logan, Mitch Harvey, Andrew Moore, Jarrad Redden, Jay Schulz, Mason Shaw, Sam Russell, John Butcher, Sam Colquhoun, Kane Mitchell, Alipate Carlile, Paul Stewart, Cam O Shea, Jack Hombsch, Jasper Pittard, Dom Barry, Emmanuel Irra, Jake Neade, Jimmy Toumpas, Will Snelling, Lindsay Thomas.

Look at the names! This was a clean out of the fringe & depth ... failed depth in fact! Hence the need to replace them, very similar to what Richmond did. This is NOT a rebuild!

"What about Polec & Wingard?" I hear some goose say. Well, unless you still have your head buried in your kiddies sandpit, we all know that they were required players that the club was willing to keep. Both tried to test the club with threats of looking elsewhere, and Port didnt blink! This is NOT a rebuild!

Your list of names is a bit over the place there. 4 of those names were delisted 4 years ago, not 3. You've missed guys like Krakouer and Matty White. Also, you've added Hombsch, who was actually traded, but haven't mentioned other trades like Impey, Young, AhChee etc. You have to add them all, you can't pick and choose to suit the argument.

Overall there are 25 players who were on our 2016 playing list who are not at the club anymore. Another two who were drafted after that who aren't at the club anymore. 27 players in 2 seasons is a significant turn around for a list that was meant to be pushing for premierships.

Now whether you call it a rebuild or a refresh, who really cares. At the end of the day they are both variations of the same thing. We have turned over the squad because it wasn't good enough, to give ourselves the best chance to bring in fresh talent to push for a flag again. Rebuild has negative connotations surrounding it and pictures of tanking and gutting lists, but in the end we've done the same thing (without the tanking). Rebuilding doesn't have to be negative.

Climb aboard and enjoy the ride.

 

[VineValerian]

So it's a rejuvenation/regeneration/refresh/redevelopment/reconstitution/revival/revitalisation/reinvigoration/reconstruction/recreation/re-establishment.

Just not a rebuild.

 

[Kiss from a Rozee]

No no and just no. The clubs that have deliberately tanked over the years to get multiple low picks during the priority picks era (as opposed to more strategic shorter term drop like Collingwood, Hawthorn and West Coast) were Carlton, St. Kilda and Melbourne. It’s no coincidence none of these have achieved any success. You cannot tell players (and coaches and fans by exetension), that it’s ok to not try and then turn around and say ‘Now try! And don’t give in when it gets tough!’.

Ports fight back across the backend of the 2000 season setup our 2004 flag. We may have been s**t since then, but we never tanked and we never should. It takes over a decade to recover from that attitude. You need to have cleaned out all the players and coaches who have been tainted by the belief ‘it’s good to fail’.

I am sure if we’d gone done that route of failure we’d still be waiting for our first flag. No Port fan should ever regret not tanking or want us to. Of course regret not getting a priority pick when we were non-tanking s**t, because ‘The Vics have used it, what you thought it was for you to Port? LOL!’.

It worked out okay for Hawthorn, West Coast and Collingwood, and to some extent St Kilda.

 

[Andre]

It worked out okay for Hawthorn, West Coast and Collingwood, and to some extent St Kilda.

The first three knowingly abused the system, with the intent of benefiting. We were s**t when we lost and it would have been a tank. And where are the Saints Flags out of that era? Back to s**t again with more than one coach who wanted to make the playing group take the game seriously railroaded out by players from that era.

 

[TeeKray]

No no and just no. The clubs that have deliberately tanked over the years to get multiple low picks during the priority picks era (as opposed to more strategic shorter term drop like Collingwood, Hawthorn and West Coast) were Carlton, St. Kilda and Melbourne. It’s no coincidence none of these have achieved any success. You cannot tell players (and coaches and fans by exetension), that it’s ok to not try and then turn around and say ‘Now try! And don’t give in when it gets tough!’.

Ports fight back across the backend of the 2000 season setup our 2004 flag. We may have been s**t since then, but we never tanked and we never should. It takes over a decade to recover from that attitude. You need to have cleaned out all the players and coaches who have been tainted by the belief ‘it’s good to fail’.

I am sure if we’d gone done that route of failure we’d still be waiting for our first flag. No Port fan should ever regret not tanking or want us to. Of course regret not getting a priority pick when we were non-tanking s**t, because ‘The Vics have used it, what you thought it was for you to Port? LOL!’.

Hawthorn and Richmond absolutely tanked to the bottom of the ladder for the long term and gained draft picks that helped them win flags. Of course, Hawthorn benefited enormously from the priority pick rule that no longer exists. St Kilda too benefited and had a sustained period of success without saluting. Carlton and Melbourne messing it up (well, Melbourne on their first attempt, not now) doesn't invalidate it as a strategy.

 

[TeeKray]

Climb aboard and enjoy the ride.

 

[Harlott]

From the 22 in our prelim appearance less than five years ago we have 8 survivors on our list. Hawthorn, who in that 5 years has conducted a rebuild and haven’t hid that fact, have 9 survivors on their list. It absolutely has been a rebuild.

Have they?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Pre Rd 1 Priority Pick 1997-2009 as abolished once GC and GWS entered and any PP's have been at end of 1st rd.

1997 Melbourne - Johnstone (pick 2 lets them trade for Jeff White from Freo)
1998 none

1999 Collingwood - Fraser (pick 3 trade for Steve Mckee and pick 7 with Richmond) , Freo - Hasleby (pick 4 get Pavlich)
2000 St Kilda - Riewoldt (pick 2 Koschitzke)

2001 Fremantle (trade pick 1 to Hawks - pick 4 Polak), St Kilda - Ball (pick 5 Xavier Clarke), WCE - Judd (pick 6 Sampi) *** Freo trade 1+20+36 for Trent Croad and Luke McPharlin and Hawks get Hodge+Elstone (never played a game)+Sam Mitchell

2002 none Carlton lost pick 1 and 2 and others due to salary cap cheating
2003 Western Bulldogs - Coney (pick 4 Farren Ray) Carlton - Walker (pick 5 lost because of salary cap cheating), Melbourne - Slyvia (pick 5 McLean)

2004 Richmond - Deledio (pick 4 Tambling), Hawthorn - Roughead (pick 5 Franklin) Bulldogs - Griffen (pick 6 T.Williams)

2005 Carlton - Murphy (pick 4 Josh Kennedy), Collingwood - Thomas ( pick 5 Pendlebury) Hawthorn - Ellis (pick 6 Dowler)

2006 none
2007 Carlton - Kruezer (pick 3 traded away as part of Judd deal WCE select Masten)
2008 none
2009 Melbourne - Scully ( pick 2 Trengove)

The rules changed after 2005 and you had to have 2 consecutive bad years to get a pre Rd 1 priority.

The Kruezer cup tanking game between Melbourne and Carlton was indeed critical for them to get the PP in 2007. 2006 Carlton win 3.5 games but Melbourne play finals.

2007 Carlton win 4 games so get PP and Melbourne win 5. Richmond won the spoon with 3.5 wins. If Carlton won the game it would have been pick 1 Richmond, pick 2 Melbourne if they lost the game by 40 pts or so and pick 3 Carlton. [Rules changed at end of 2005 that if only have 20 premeiership points get a PP, to 2 consecutive years of less than 20 premiership points]

If Melbourne's percentage was more than Carlton's it didn't really matter that they had pick 3 instead of 2 in 2007. They are massively effected in 2008 by carlton tanking in 2007. In 2008 they only win 3 games and would have got a pre priority pick and had pick 1+2 in 2008 super draft. So Watts and Naitanui, or Watts and Stephen Hill, or Watts and Hartlett etc.

That's why they tanked in 2009. They were screwed by Carlton in 2007 and missed out in 2008 PP, so they made sure history didnt repeat and they stayed with only 4 wins in 2009 so the could get Scully and Trengove.

The above results show that these PP had benefits for at least 10 years and in most cases 15 years to wash thru the system.

Of course we missed out on getting picks 2+4 in 2011 because GWS entered, got pick 6, and if the old pre 2006 rules were still in play and we didn't draw that last game against Richmond in 2012 and only had 5 wins we would have got picks 1+6 before compo free agency picks. We got pick 5 which became pick 7 after compo picks.

 

[Tibbs]

Your list of names is a bit over the place there. 4 of those names were delisted 4 years ago, not 3. You've missed guys like Krakouer and Matty White. Also, you've added Hombsch, who was actually traded, but haven't mentioned other trades like Impey, Young, AhChee etc. You have to add them all, you can't pick and choose to suit the argument.

Overall there are 25 players who were on our 2016 playing list who are not at the club anymore. Another two who were drafted after that who aren't at the club anymore. 27 players in 2 seasons is a significant turn around for a list that was meant to be pushing for premierships.

Now whether you call it a rebuild or a refresh, who really cares. At the end of the day they are both variations of the same thing. We have turned over the squad because it wasn't good enough, to give ourselves the best chance to bring in fresh talent to push for a flag again. Rebuild has negative connotations surrounding it and pictures of tanking and gutting lists, but in the end we've done the same thing (without the tanking). Rebuilding doesn't have to be negative.

Climb aboard and enjoy the ride.

I didnt pick & choose ... its just mayhem trying to get all the names out there ... I know I missed some of Richmond's names too

 

[Tibbs]

I think my issue with the term “rebuild” is that in the AFL it’s almost synonymous with completely giving up on contesting finals, let alone a premiership in favour of tanking for high draft picks (encouraged in the past by priority picks).
....

Spot on ... That is the point.

Some might call it symantics, but it is a recognized footy term ... IMO we should use it correctly, as we do others! If the term changes because of the evolving game, then so be it. But the article quoted at the outset clearly identifies it as still being used in this traditional way.

OK - I have had my whinge! ..... LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

 

[Powerstufff]

Possibly a revocation.

 

[Doctor Feel]

That tweet is ageless.