I can't believe we are taking the Neil Craig approach (an even distribution of talent across the field) right now.
It's called the engine room for a reason.
2010: Who is to blame and how can it be turned around?
- Thread starter Dylan82
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I can't believe we are taking the Neil Craig approach (an even distribution of talent across the field) right now.
It's called the engine room for a reason.
- Banned
- #27
Dylan, I like your points number 6 & 7. I've been saying the same thing on BF.
A change in drafting philosophy is needed so that the team can have elite outside mids drafted with the earliest pick, instead of selecting the leftovers that we do in the 3rd round. Rosa, Houlihan and Dalziell just won't do.
This bullshit of only selecting inside types with early picks has left the team with outside runners who can't kick to save themselves.
The FP is such an important part of the game now that the game has quickened up considerably and that zones are common place. It's not enough to put a rookie listed quick but limited player in this position. We should be looking for an elite type and invest in one by using a necessary pick to get one. I'm not putting much hope in rookie listed players to be the saviours in our effort to kick a winning score and adequately fulfill the role of FP proficiently.
Going are the days of old of finding gems from rookie lists and from rookie drafts because recruiting is becoming more professional each year and less and less will escape through the cracks.
A change in drafting philosophy is needed so that the team can have elite outside mids drafted with the earliest pick, instead of selecting the leftovers that we do in the 3rd round. Rosa, Houlihan and Dalziell just won't do.
This bullshit of only selecting inside types with early picks has left the team with outside runners who can't kick to save themselves.
The FP is such an important part of the game now that the game has quickened up considerably and that zones are common place. It's not enough to put a rookie listed quick but limited player in this position. We should be looking for an elite type and invest in one by using a necessary pick to get one. I'm not putting much hope in rookie listed players to be the saviours in our effort to kick a winning score and adequately fulfill the role of FP proficiently.
Going are the days of old of finding gems from rookie lists and from rookie drafts because recruiting is becoming more professional each year and less and less will escape through the cracks.
Re reading the question:
Who is to blame.
The blame lies with Cuz and those party boys who destroyed the club culture. Thus requiring us to concentrate on of field issues for so long that we now have to rebuild after a window of opportunity has passed us buy.
Who is to blame.
The blame lies with Cuz and those party boys who destroyed the club culture. Thus requiring us to concentrate on of field issues for so long that we now have to rebuild after a window of opportunity has passed us buy.
- Banned
- #29
I agree in part with what you're saying, its obvious we have very few outside mids, and we should have addressed the issue with at least one of our earlier picks in recent drafts (ie. 07,08). But I don't think that having all these 'inside' types are a necessarily a bad thing. It's fair to say inside types are better at handballing than kicking and vice versa with outside types.
You either need to run and carry to break down opposition defences or kick over/through zones. With all these inside types it appears the gameplan is set about playing on at all costs and setting up play with strings of handpasses (much to the dismay of many "supporters"). Once we draft/develop a couple of quicker players, our side will look much better at applying this tactic. It only takes a couple of fast players to change a side that looks slow into a side that looks quick.
- Banned
- #30
It was short sighted, if it's the case, to draft for a particular game plan. What if plan A gets found out, the coaches, the team and the results are then up s**t creek without a floaty. Pardon the pun.
To diversify in type with quality when drafting to cover all bases would've been smarter. It's not too late to rectify the situation, but it must be given priority now. A needs based draft is a must in our situation.
If the Eagles had of invested in a quality outside mid or two, they wouldn't be suffering nearly as much at present because a couple of turnover merchants currently wouldn't be combining for 50 possessions with 25 of those inefficient disposals a game.
We needn't have had to miss out on the players we have now by choosing outside mids instead. We should've traded Kerr away when he held amazing value. The 2008 super draft was the time to trade, but our ever short sighted club is hesitant to trade such players for the future good.
If we as a club want sustained success and a greater chance at a flag in the coming years, the trading for picks and upgrades of some of our seniors has to happen.
Cox, Kerr, Glass, Embley, Priddis, Lynch and Hansen are to old to be around for a next flag tilt. I wouldn't hesitate to trade any of these players. Loyalty be damned. Football is a business and trading is part of that business. Yes, I'm pragmatic, but I'm into winning.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
pragmatic as it may be i think a lot of people under estimate the value of morale around a club - footballers are just like any workers and they all want some stability in their lives, and even if they could see the benefits of trading off certain players, it still leaves a lot of uncertainty.
say at the end of 2008 we trade off cox, then how does that leave a lot of guys thinking '**** that could be next'... it's hard to get a good measure on how much loyalty and morale can effect a club but i reckon it's far greater than most people want to recognise, and it can take a long time to regain either... even brisbane with all their new additions this year actually only traded lose three players - bradshaw, bradddddd and henderson.
not saying to rule it out completely, but it just can't be looked at "these guys have exceeded their shelf life for us, trade them", especially when it comes to your absolute top line players... it's very much proceed with caution there.
say at the end of 2008 we trade off cox, then how does that leave a lot of guys thinking '**** that could be next'... it's hard to get a good measure on how much loyalty and morale can effect a club but i reckon it's far greater than most people want to recognise, and it can take a long time to regain either... even brisbane with all their new additions this year actually only traded lose three players - bradshaw, bradddddd and henderson.
not saying to rule it out completely, but it just can't be looked at "these guys have exceeded their shelf life for us, trade them", especially when it comes to your absolute top line players... it's very much proceed with caution there.
- Banned
- #32
I didn't say a balance wasn't needed. That balance isn't disturbed by the trading of a couple of good players. The morale may be effected by the losing of games because of the loss of those 1 or 2 good players, but due to the cyclical nature of the AFL and the maturing of young players that low morale can turn around when winning becomes regular.
We can't appease the the insecurities of those individuals who have a "it could be me next" attitude and keep the big picture in mind. The club has to determine it's direction, not the players.
Your example of Cox being traded being the cause of such insecurity and demoralizing would mean that Cox has the club by the balls. He's in effect bigger than the club because he holds sway over such an important decision.
Cox must be viewed the same as any other player. He's just another player, no matter how good he is.
pantskyle
I'm nice now
- Oct 1, 2007
- 127,520
- 129,832
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Storm-Man Utd-Heart-Luton-Patriots
Started reading this thread 6 weeks ago and have now finished.
All this thread has proven is that WCE supporters are highly passionate and very intelligent about football.
Answer to all our problems.
Sack Woosha
Hire Big Footy West Coast Eagles members.
All this thread has proven is that WCE supporters are highly passionate and very intelligent about football.
Answer to all our problems.
Sack Woosha
Hire Big Footy West Coast Eagles members.
- Banned
- #35
I don't think it was planned that way to draft to a particular plan, as our club is always quoted as saying taking the best available player irrespective of position. So in effect it's meant we've taken a heap of inside mids.
Personally I think the players capable of playing the outside roles are on our list and haven't proven themselves yet (Smith, Stevenson). If our engine room is good enough I think we could carry Rosa (he isn't as bad as everyone makes out, and has improved a lot recently, would look good in a good side IMO). Our midfield just lacks players who will run, take the game on and break lines (other than Naitanui). Once Swift gets some games under his belt and we find an outside player who will do the same, our midfield issues we currently have will look obsolete.
We're not that far off. All it takes is a couple of quality players to make a big difference.
Snooperclyde
Club Legend
It didn't help them two weeks ago against Carlton.
Only just read the thread, the subject is timely and the OP was fantastic. Couple of points I would like to add.
1) WC are suffering badly from the loss of both Judd and Cousins in 2007 for 2 reasons.
-- From his inception as head coach, Worsfold has based his whole game plan around quality midfielders. Even after losing these 2 midfielders he has persisted with "the plan" despite all and sundry knowing he hasnt the cattle to make it work at present.
-- In October 2005 and 2006 WC would have entered draft week with an eye to the areas they considered needed assistance. Relatively low picks combined with their belief that Judd and Cousins would be running around in blue and gold beyond 2011, meant their focus wasnt on midfielders. They have tried to correct from 2007 onwards but in the majority of cases (Judd excepted), players need 3-4 years (60+ games) before they become AFL ready.
2) WC seem to have a deficiency in the age brackets of their squad. Good teams are built around quality in the 23-27 age bracket which is a major problem at WC. Their youngsters look good and their older players (Glass, Cox and in large patches Embley) are certainly OK, the problem is in between. Kerr, Butler and Waters have hardly played for 2 years, Selwood has been asked to do jobs he's not capable of doing, Jones and Nicoski have had long periods of being injured. Not playing for such long periods usually results in a player losing form and confidence, which is exactly what we have seen.
In support of WC, no team can lose their most important age bracket in such large numbers and not be affected as I'm sure Hawthorn since their GF win would agree.
3) I have for some time been critical of AFL drafting concerning mid age players. For some reason AFL clubs had decided that a 21 yr old was past his use by date and WC had whistled the same tune. It is my belief that all 1st and 2nd rnd picks are reserved for kids, but all selections on the 3rd round and beyond are used on mature age players. Not only can you see what you are getting with the mature age player, but the chance of selecting a kid in the 3rd round or lower who will actually make am impact on the AFL is almost non existant.
The selection of this mature age player has 2 benefits IMO.
-- It keeps the age brackets of the squad in proportion, making contract time and delisting time easier.
-- Young draftees struggle in their 1st couple of years with the impact of the game on their bodies - and these mature rookies are match hardened giving the youngsters rest.
4) The continuation of Sumich and the the selection of Metropolis as assistants is astonishing. Sumich was successful as midfield coach 2003-2007 simply because of the quality he had there - hell I could have done a similar job if I had Cox, Kerr, Judd, Cousins, Embley, Braun and Stenglein at my disposal. However 2008 showed how good his midfield coaching was and post 2009 he has moved to the fwd line - look how good that's performing. How Metro ever got a gig is beyond me - how he took over from Micale is as bewildering to me as the understanding quantam physics. This smacks of a boys club with Worsfold being the leader whose decisions shall never be questioned.
5) WC's trading at end of 2009 was strange. To trade an under contract and highly skilled yet highly erratic Staker for an out of contract running machine with questionable skills in Dalziell was questionable and to throw in pick 39 as well was downright laughable. WC have players who can run all day with poor kicking skills, lined up down the corridor and around the corner (Priddis, Rosa, Houlihan, Scott and Adam Selwood spring to mind) yet for some reason they believed they needed another.
Through my association with West Perth, I was aware that Nathan van Berlo had expressed an interest in coming back to WA, yet to the best of my knowledge WC had little contact with his managment, despite him being the EXACT type of footballer they need.
Before I get shot down in flames, I am aware they had no space on their list to use #39 at draft time but delisted Stenglein afterwards enabling them to take Neates in PSD. How could they not afford to pay out Stenglein in 2009's money ? Their squad is so deficient in talent surely they couldnt have been that close to TPP?
For several clubs #39 would have been close to their 2nd round pick and yet WC just gave it away for nothing, when it could have been used on a mature age player like a Stijk, a Hams or god forbid a Barlow.
1) WC are suffering badly from the loss of both Judd and Cousins in 2007 for 2 reasons.
-- From his inception as head coach, Worsfold has based his whole game plan around quality midfielders. Even after losing these 2 midfielders he has persisted with "the plan" despite all and sundry knowing he hasnt the cattle to make it work at present.
-- In October 2005 and 2006 WC would have entered draft week with an eye to the areas they considered needed assistance. Relatively low picks combined with their belief that Judd and Cousins would be running around in blue and gold beyond 2011, meant their focus wasnt on midfielders. They have tried to correct from 2007 onwards but in the majority of cases (Judd excepted), players need 3-4 years (60+ games) before they become AFL ready.
2) WC seem to have a deficiency in the age brackets of their squad. Good teams are built around quality in the 23-27 age bracket which is a major problem at WC. Their youngsters look good and their older players (Glass, Cox and in large patches Embley) are certainly OK, the problem is in between. Kerr, Butler and Waters have hardly played for 2 years, Selwood has been asked to do jobs he's not capable of doing, Jones and Nicoski have had long periods of being injured. Not playing for such long periods usually results in a player losing form and confidence, which is exactly what we have seen.
In support of WC, no team can lose their most important age bracket in such large numbers and not be affected as I'm sure Hawthorn since their GF win would agree.
3) I have for some time been critical of AFL drafting concerning mid age players. For some reason AFL clubs had decided that a 21 yr old was past his use by date and WC had whistled the same tune. It is my belief that all 1st and 2nd rnd picks are reserved for kids, but all selections on the 3rd round and beyond are used on mature age players. Not only can you see what you are getting with the mature age player, but the chance of selecting a kid in the 3rd round or lower who will actually make am impact on the AFL is almost non existant.
The selection of this mature age player has 2 benefits IMO.
-- It keeps the age brackets of the squad in proportion, making contract time and delisting time easier.
-- Young draftees struggle in their 1st couple of years with the impact of the game on their bodies - and these mature rookies are match hardened giving the youngsters rest.
4) The continuation of Sumich and the the selection of Metropolis as assistants is astonishing. Sumich was successful as midfield coach 2003-2007 simply because of the quality he had there - hell I could have done a similar job if I had Cox, Kerr, Judd, Cousins, Embley, Braun and Stenglein at my disposal. However 2008 showed how good his midfield coaching was and post 2009 he has moved to the fwd line - look how good that's performing. How Metro ever got a gig is beyond me - how he took over from Micale is as bewildering to me as the understanding quantam physics. This smacks of a boys club with Worsfold being the leader whose decisions shall never be questioned.
5) WC's trading at end of 2009 was strange. To trade an under contract and highly skilled yet highly erratic Staker for an out of contract running machine with questionable skills in Dalziell was questionable and to throw in pick 39 as well was downright laughable. WC have players who can run all day with poor kicking skills, lined up down the corridor and around the corner (Priddis, Rosa, Houlihan, Scott and Adam Selwood spring to mind) yet for some reason they believed they needed another.
Through my association with West Perth, I was aware that Nathan van Berlo had expressed an interest in coming back to WA, yet to the best of my knowledge WC had little contact with his managment, despite him being the EXACT type of footballer they need.
Before I get shot down in flames, I am aware they had no space on their list to use #39 at draft time but delisted Stenglein afterwards enabling them to take Neates in PSD. How could they not afford to pay out Stenglein in 2009's money ? Their squad is so deficient in talent surely they couldnt have been that close to TPP?
For several clubs #39 would have been close to their 2nd round pick and yet WC just gave it away for nothing, when it could have been used on a mature age player like a Stijk, a Hams or god forbid a Barlow.
Great OP but I still think Brown needs to be given longer in the forward line. Mckinley is not a genuine FF and Notte is still a long way off.
Mckenzie and Schofield also should play and can do just a good as Brown down back IMO. Not sure if we can have both of them plus Glass though for the whole season. We need someone to play on dangerous small forwards, maybe Scott Selwood.
Mckenzie and Schofield also should play and can do just a good as Brown down back IMO. Not sure if we can have both of them plus Glass though for the whole season. We need someone to play on dangerous small forwards, maybe Scott Selwood.
Feel sorry for Woosha as I reckon he has a very poor squad and not sure how you could fix it.
There are 15 players who would attract very little interest from other clubs as trade bait. Dalziel, Lynch, Nicoski, Priddis, Embley, McKenzie, Notte, Rosa, B Jones, Spangher, Mckinley, Hansen, A Selwood, Wilkes and from your rookie list Oakley Nichols.
All clubs have duds, as we do at Freo but I can not think of another team in the comb (maybe Richmond) who would have as many.
There are 15 players who would attract very little interest from other clubs as trade bait. Dalziel, Lynch, Nicoski, Priddis, Embley, McKenzie, Notte, Rosa, B Jones, Spangher, Mckinley, Hansen, A Selwood, Wilkes and from your rookie list Oakley Nichols.
All clubs have duds, as we do at Freo but I can not think of another team in the comb (maybe Richmond) who would have as many.
Superb post.....
I struggle to find anything wrong with what you have posted.
I struggle to find anything wrong with what you have posted.
Eastern Rangers
2015 Worsfold Medalist - Rowen Powell
You sold Peake to StKilda.
And some of those players have very good careers ahead of themselves. Take your rubbish elsewhere.
- Sep 28, 2009
- 23,171
- 32,549
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Reading FC
While not AA material, all highlighted are servicable players. I wouldnt call them all duds. A couple of those are developing. A few have served through a premiership and will probably look into retirement soon.
Schammer, Dodd, McPhee, Bradley, Ibbotson, Thornton, Headland, Crowley, Murphy etc is still a decent spud list.
You sold Peake to StKilda.
Take your rubbish elsewhere.
And your point being?
TurleyBurley
Team Captain
In a pronoun: Adelaide
Yep I forgot about them. Agree with you on that one.
My description of those Eagles players as duds is probably a bit harsh but the point I was trying to make is that I don't believe any other team would be interested in them in terms of a trade
TurleyBurley
Team Captain
I gotta say, I don't think we're up to much. But Adelaide and Richmond really are ratshit-awful. Inexcusably poor, both of them.
I feel sorry for Mark Harvey, he has a team that relies too heavily on its ageing stars and yet continues to recruits duds from Essendon perhaps thinking a flag is around the corner, or perhaps to support his old buddies. Either way he's an idiot.
WcWarrior
Debutant
I didn't realise that Ballantyne, Palmer, Barlow, Hill, Silvagni, Broughton, Suban etc used to play for Essendon.
At least we don't have an ageing list. Lynch, Priddis, Nicoski, Hansen and Embley really play with the hunger we need right now.
I keep expecting Karl Langdon to be named as an emergency.
If this was mid 2008 you may be correct with the first part of your statement but as per usual some of you live in the past.
Futhermore I thought this was a thread about what is wrong with the Eagles and not about what may have been wrong previously with the Dockers. Either way I wonder who here is the idiot
