List Mgmt. 2020 List Management

[FlowersByIrene]

Talk seems to have dried up on list cuts for next year.
Is that off of the radar now, or on the back burner?

Cannot see us going into 2021 with 46 again either way however.

Why would there be list cuts. Surely that's the last thing on the menu of cutting.

Cut half the ****ing AFL commissioins Salary first, all they do is **** up the game anyway.

But i've heard the financials are actually doing better than expected. Fans back at the footy in WA and SA should help that as well soon.

 

[Baggers]

No to Gibbs. I really don't see him being a best 22 player anymore. 32yo before next season starts and his form has declined at the Crows, to an alarming extent.
Whatever the reason for his departure (wife's request, personal issues, moved on by Blues, etc), what would have changed so drastically in 2 years that it suits all parties for him to return?

 

[chunkylover53]

With Gibbs, it really depends where his head's at. See, when he left he was at his peak as a player in terms of performance and fitness. I've always said that he could go into his mid thirties, on the basis that he is durable and that he requires no super athletic traits to play at AFL level. So, with that being the case - if indeed it is the case - why wouldn't you make the deal for him on the cheap?

Because it would be precisely the same decision he made to go over to Adelaide. It would not be good for him to immediately go back on such a decision any more than it would be good for us to get him in only to delist him a year or two later because his standards have dropped and he doesn't want it like he used to. He chose to leave; it wasn't an Eddie Betts situation, in which a hostile head coach pushed him out. He got lured away with the promises of success and money and family, and when things weren't right he knew he'd made a blue. It's on him to live with it.

I defended him until the day he walked out that door. I'll defend him as a Carlton player until I'm blue in the face. But there are limits to conscionable behaviour. We don't need him down back; we might need him in the midfield, and his kicking would be handy up forward; his value could be in playing in the twos until he's 40.

I'd be interested in him if he's content just to be a part of the club again, but he shouldn't be in the conversation to play ones anymore; not because he's too old, but because he lost that right the moment he elected to leave.

Nailed it.

Low-wage, leadership/development/cultural role for the 2's and that's it. Sure if he is absolutely banging the door down and we are light in the midfield then he can get the odd game (if he chooses to stay fit, which I'm guessing Russell will be able to manage). But no way we should be giving him games over someone with a decade-long career ahead of them.

It's still a more attractive offer than what the Crows are dishing up for him.

The romance behind it is tempting, but probably irresponsible.

 

[blue healer]

Silly? I've never felt so affronted in my life!



I spend so much time being serious on here, ensuring that my arguments are logical rather than emotive, and you pick out the one time I choose to be otherwise. I think that while you're certainly correct in a logical manner, my argument here is not logical, nor is it required to be.

Yeah, guess I'm used to your normal standard. Whilst I reckon I've never said anything silly I'm not confident a post search wouldn't come up with ONE.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Charlie Cameron would be a good get, but reckon he is just holding out for more money, plus it was Tom Browne reporting he was in dispute with the Lions.

 

[Accidental genius]

No to Gibbs. I really don't see him being a best 22 player anymore. 32yo before next season starts and his form has declined at the Crows, to an alarming extent.
Whatever the reason for his departure (wife's request, personal issues, moved on by Blues, etc), what would have changed so drastically in 2 years that it suits all parties for him to return?

Pretty ****ed situation at crowland. If we get him cheap and he wants to return we should try and make it happen. He is a very good midfielder. Provides experience for 1-2 years.

 

[Baggers]

Officially, Carlton will indicate they haven’t talked about Cameron.

Haha. In other words, we haven't spoken to him. What a strange line to put in his article.
Would be a great get, but it's not happening. As mentioned by others, this is either/both 1: Attempt by his manager to drive his price up, 2: Tom Browne is bored and wants to try his hand at creative writing.
Also, he would cost the earth in a trade. Same with Papley, I don't see it happening now. Think Sydney will cool their jets big time on Joe (poor bloke just cannot get on the park) & Papley will be a very much required player.

 

[therubbernub]

Are you playing Levi, Harry, Charle, Gov in the one side?

I don’t think it’s t works and even before we talk about TDK.

It doesn’t have to be Levi who misses but one should.

As a quick exercise, if Harry and Charlie were both fit and available next week, who are you dropping for them?

Levi cant be dropped - even if Charlie and Harry were available. His value is obvious. Given that Levi is the best physical shape of his career, I can see him playing on for another 2-3 years, so the selection problem wont go away for a few years.

If all 4 were available, I would be tempted to play Charlie on the Wing- he can still drift forward and kick goals, but he could use his mobility and marking power to be the marking release player out of defence. Add that to his pace and endurance which would be a huge asset.
Finally, Charlie knows how to kick long and flat into the F50 - something that is really important to enable our forward to break the defensive zones.

 

[DangerousD]

Levi cant be dropped - even if Charlie and Harry were available. His value is obvious. Given that Levi is the best physical shape of his career, I can see him playing on for another 2-3 years, so the selection problem wont go away for a few years.

If all 4 were available, I would be tempted to play Charlie on the Wing- he can still drift forward and kick goals, but he could use his mobility and marking power to be the marking release player out of defence. Add that to his pace and endurance which would be a huge asset.
Finally, Charlie knows how to kick long and flat into the F50 - something that is really important to enable our forward to break the defensive zones.

It will be interesting to see what we go with once they are all good to go, as well as Marchbank, Levi can play down back if there’s an injury in game or ruck, so deserves his spot. If one is always on the bench, inclusive of big Pitt, then it can work. I only have concerns of our pace and tackling ability, if we take in such a tall team.

 

[therubbernub]

Personally I think Charlie is at his best closer to goal and Harry is at his best up the ground.

Levi has been fantastic and deserves his spot, I just don’t think the 4 can co exist, which means we have a surplus of forwards.

Not in the forward line together -no. Its why having one on the wing makes sense. The most mobile is charlie

 

[Stamos]

Levi cant be dropped - even if Charlie and Harry were available. His value is obvious. Given that Levi is the best physical shape of his career, I can see him playing on for another 2-3 years, so the selection problem wont go away for a few years.

If all 4 were available, I would be tempted to play Charlie on the Wing- he can still drift forward and kick goals, but he could use his mobility and marking power to be the marking release player out of defence. Add that to his pace and endurance which would be a huge asset.
Finally, Charlie knows how to kick long and flat into the F50 - something that is really important to enable our forward to break the defensive zones.

Charlie Full Forward.
The others leading up the ground.

 

[Stamos]

It will be interesting to see what we go with once they are all good to go, as well as Marchbank, Levi can play down back if there’s an injury in game or ruck, so deserves his spot. If one is always on the bench, inclusive of big Pitt, then it can work. I only have concerns of our pace and tackling ability, if we take in such a tall team.

Charlie, Harry, Gov, all quick. All can apply pressure.

 

[therubbernub]

It will be interesting to see what we go with once they are all good to go, as well as Marchbank, Levi can play down back if there’s an injury in game or ruck, so deserves his spot. If one is always on the bench, inclusive of big Pitt, then it can work. I only have concerns of our pace and tackling ability, if we take in such a tall team.

I think charlie is plenty quick and can lay a tackle. But he would be more an offensive weapon than a defensive one

 

[Juddernaut08]

Teague got the 4-man fwdline working with

McGovern
Walker
Jenkins
Lynch

 

[HARKER]

At the beginning of the year we would had just about all these players (if not all) in our starting 22.
Kreuzer was there.....as was Dow....and Newman.....Marchbank would have been in.....CCurnow a definite.....a fit Kemp may have also been there, maybe?
It's not that we don't miss them, but we're currently not missing them as much as we may have thought we would.

Credit to Russell to get a lumbering ruckman in Pittonet, to someone who moves around the ground well.
Credit also for getting players coming back into the team, being ready to play.

Our fitness doesn't seem to be an issue.
Our mindset in the most, doesn't seem to be an issue either.
Continuity is key. The quicker we learn to play as a unit from the start of the end game, the better the results will be.

What's that got to do with List Management? I don't think we really know what we have yet.

 

[Stamos]

What's that got to do with List Management? I don't think we really know what we have yet.

We're stacked with talent, albeit young. We're also pretty balanced.

I think the main area we will need to address is a replacement for Betts.

 

[HARKER]

We're stacked with talent, albeit young. We're also pretty balanced.

I think the main area we will need to address is a replacement for Betts.

I agree right now........but reserve the right to amend that opinion.

That Swans guy that shall not be named, seems perfect and likely will maintain to be so for us, but I'm not 100% any more, that he be the only answer.

The name Gaff excites me given his contract clause.
Replace Newnes with Gaff and play that out in your mind. Huge difference.

At this stage of the year it's easy for us to say 'why not get both' but being pragmatic, it rarely (if ever) works out that way.
I do though know (?) that a 50/50 slate at the end of the year will leave us in a position of being an attractive destination. We have to keep winning.

 

[TheKITC]

There is no way the 4 of Casboult, McKay, Curnow and McGovern can all play together in the one forward line, no matter how agile anyone thinks any of them are. Options if they are all in form and we want them all in the same team are as follows:

- KPD for either Casboult or McGovern. If Levi continues his current form, would be bloody hard to make a case to move him back. Those boys are looking pretty set back there too, so would be hard to disrupt them.
- Midfield for Curnow. He was touted as a bit of a 'tweener' in his draft years, we know he has the tank and could be a great link player as well as another big body for us in there. Would want to tidy up his hands a bit, but I'd love to see it.
- We go in with no ruckman and play Casboult and McKay alternating that role, basically 50-50.

 

[HARKER]

There is no way the 4 of Casboult, McKay, Curnow and McGovern can all play together in the one forward line, no matter how agile anyone thinks any of them are. Options if they are all in form and we want them all in the same team are as follows:

- KPD for either Casboult or McGovern. If Levi continues his current form, would be bloody hard to make a case to move him back. Those boys are looking pretty set back there too, so would be hard to disrupt them.
- Midfield for Curnow. He was touted as a bit of a 'tweener' in his draft years, we know he has the tank and could be a great link player as well as another big body for us in there. Would want to tidy up his hands a bit, but I'd love to see it.
- We go in with no ruckman and play Casboult and McKay alternating that role, basically 50-50.

Harry, McGovern, Charlie starting forward; Casboult starting on the bench.

Harry, McGovern, and Charlie all play 80% TOG, with Casboult covering the collective 60% time they’re off. Casboult then plays 20% time in the ruck for Pittonet.

McGovern 80% forward

McKay 80% forward

Charlie 80% forward

Casboult 60% forward, 20% ruck

Pittonet 80% ruck

Did you see this above post from yesterday?

It's great to see opinions expressed in such a considered manner. Credit to this poster

 

[Stamos]

There is no way the 4 of Casboult, McKay, Curnow and McGovern can all play together in the one forward line, no matter how agile anyone thinks any of them are.

Of course we can

 

[TheKITC]

Did you see this above post from yesterday?

It's great to see opinions expressed in such a considered manner. Credit to this poster

I did, I think it was a very well thought out post indeed from a certain stand point...

I just think that is absolutely crippling us from a rotation perspective. I don't have the definitive stats on it, but your KP players need to spend more time on the ground than the midfield, rotation players. This would hinder us from this perspective IMO as we need to keep the players who are expected to cover more ground, fresher. This would have our big boys spending too much time off the ground and hinder us rotating the smaller ones more often.

It also makes us an extremely top heavy team and think teams would be quicker than us and potentially sweep the ball out of our defense too easy once it hit the deck. Don't see it being a winning balance in the long run, albeit we could probably trouble a few teams in the air.

Of course we can

Thanks for the insight...

 

[Stamos]

I did, I think it was a very well thought out post indeed from a certain stand point...

I just think that is absolutely crippling us from a rotation perspective. I don't have the definitive stats on it, but your KP players need to spend more time on the ground than the midfield, rotation players. This would hinder us from this perspective IMO as we need to keep the players who are expected to cover more ground, fresher.

It also makes us an extremely top heavy team and think teams would be quicker than us and potentially sweep the ball out of our defense too easy once it hit the deck. Don't see it being a winning balance in the long run, albeit we could probably trouble a few teams in the air.



Thanks for the insight...

Gov isn't a KPP.
You'd have an extremely quick FF (Charlie) and CHF (Harry), with a mobile key forward/backup ruck in Levi.

Don't worry about how the opposition are going to move the ball out of their defence. Let them worry about how they're going to get anywhere near the ball against what will be the best marking forwardline in the League.

 

[HBF]

Agree re crouch boys, if their part of the worst midfield and one is getting dropped why do we want them?

May as well persist with Setterfield.

Wines I’d love, but will be tough to get out of Port.

Papley should be our #1 target, and then Wines.

 

[HBF]

Adam Saad OOC with The Dopers this year and apparently him and EFC are a fair way off in negotiations.

Should we try again for him? Certainly would give us a welcome boost of speed, and reckon we could have the luxury of having a Newman or SPS play further up the ground (on the wing etc)

Would certainly give us and Teague a bit more flexibility, esp with rotations etc

Absolutely we should.
Our list management team should not leave any stone unturned in making our list better.

 

[HARKER]

I did, I think it was a very well thought out post indeed from a certain stand point...

I just think that is absolutely crippling us from a rotation perspective. I don't have the definitive stats on it, but your KP players need to spend more time on the ground than the midfield, rotation players. This would hinder us from this perspective IMO as we need to keep the players who are expected to cover more ground, fresher. This would have our big boys spending too much time off the ground and hinder us rotating the smaller ones more often.

It also makes us an extremely top heavy team and think teams would be quicker than us and potentially sweep the ball out of our defense too easy once it hit the deck. Don't see it being a winning balance in the long run, albeit we could probably trouble a few teams in the air.



Thanks for the insight...

I think what we do is to confine CCurnow and McGovern as solely KPP's
They can play key positions, but not limited in doing so. They're a lot more flexible than that.

What that post did demonstrate is that only three of those talls require to be on the ground at any one time.
There may be a little overlap here or there, but it doesn't have to be so much and even if there was.....so what?
I don't see the harm and particularly so, should one of our KPD's go down. Casboult could also relieve Jones if we need.

We used to put too many talls on the park, but right now I only see the ruckman, Casboult, Jones and Weitering in being genuine talls.