List Mgmt. 2023 List Management and Trading

[Jeffcrowe]

Doubt very much he'll ever be a midfielder of note.
Half back/wing is his spot.

Sure, of course you'd have a look depending on the collateral needed and it seems if Rachele was gone he might have been Hamish's target at some point.

Not sure contested footy is his forte either on what I've seen.

His very experienced new coach has him training as a half back incidentally.

Would love him on wing for us

North Melbournes pick and some change - I would do it

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

Himmelberg is the man to chase .....Cox is another dour backman, we already have Murray / Butts

Himmelberg is an attacking beast, with an accurate 60mtr kick on him

not really

Brennan Cox and Jordon Butts AFL Stats Comparison

Brennan Cox and Jordon Butts AFL Stats Comparison.

www.footywire.com

 

[Mutineer]

not really

Brennan Cox and Jordon Butts AFL Stats Comparison

Brennan Cox and Jordon Butts AFL Stats Comparison.

www.footywire.com

Better comparison...

And at that stage Cox had twice the AFL experience...

Brennan Cox and Jordon Butts AFL Stats Comparison

Brennan Cox and Jordon Butts AFL Stats Comparison.

www.footywire.com

 

[Mostyn]

Wasn't worth giving those games to a player who was going to be on the list for 2023?

What about Jimmy Rowe? An Injured Dawson? An injured Keays?

Davis was an absolute perfect player to be the sub.

Other than that, he played two games. Who cares?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Davis was an absolute perfect player to be the sub.

Other than that, he played two games. Who cares?

Of all things to be critical of our selections last year, this wouldn't even make the top 50.

 

[AFC979810]

Reaching, much?

I don't think its a reach at all. When you are suggesting there "literally" isn't any room in the team (below) and we selected a soon to be delisted player for 10 games in the second half of the year, a delisted player in Davis as sub for 5 games, A player so injured that according to the club he couldn't play in his preferred position (Keays in midfield) for the last 4 games.

Not to mention Doedee who was injured in Rd 9. He then publicly admitted he was injured and needed one week off in round 20 so that he could and I direct quote "Get my body right for a big run home". That big run home was for a team sitting at 6wins 13 losses with games against the hapless Kangaroos and Eagles followed by Port. Even if you only lament the fact Doedee played the last 3 games - we cumulatively wasted a total of 22 games on Rowe, Davis, Doedee and Keays.

Wouldn't we have been much better off giving those games to Hately, Sholl, Gollant, Cook, Newchurch, Nankervis all who are on our list for 2023- shit even use Turner as the sub to evaluate him a bit better rather than 6 year Davis who was going to be cut anyway. Even having a youngster as the sub instead of Davis - those 60+ minutes at AFL level is easily more important for development than another 5 SANFL games.

It's not as if it's been underperforming senior players who have been selected ahead of them. Right now we have a list that is absolutely full of young kids, and only 22 positions available in the AFL team each week. There literally isn't enough room in the team, to select every kid who is in need of more game time.

 

[AFC979810]

Davis was an absolute perfect player to be the sub.

Other than that, he played two games. Who cares?

Turner would have been better. Any other player on the list would have been better - especially since the season was gone. AFL exposure is 10 times more important than continuity at SANFL level.

 

[AFC979810]

Of all things to be critical of our selections last year, this wouldn't even make the top 50.

Its cumulative though. If it was just that one decision it wouldn't be that big of a deal.

But really poor selections of Crouch (2nd and 3rd times he was brought in), Davis, Rowe, Injured Keays, Injured Doedee adds up. Its especially bad when you factor in that the season was gone.

I would fully understand playing Keays and Doedee if finals were on the line, but they werent.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

Its cumulative though. If it was just that one decision it wouldn't be that big of a deal.

But really poor selections of Crouch (2nd and 3rd times he was brought in), Davis, Rowe, Injured Keays, Injured Doedee adds up. Its especially bad when you factor in that the season was gone.

I would fully understand playing Keays and Doedee if finals were on the line, but they werent.

Rowe would be on the list still if he played better in those games or if Rankine didn’t come
That part is not black and white

I mostly agree with the rest of what you’re saying

 

[Vader]

Turner would have been better. Any other player on the list would have been better - especially since the season was gone. AFL exposure is 10 times more important than continuity at SANFL level.

Absolutely not. If we were talking about a position in the starting 22, then I would agree with you, but not the sub.

More often than not, the sub isn't required, and spends the whole game sitting on the bench. This happened to Davis in 3 of his 5 games this year. Scheduling between AFL and SANFL mean that unused subs often don't get any game time at all, for the week when they are sub.

Ideally, we want our developing kids to have as much game time as possible, ideally in the AFL, but failing that in the SANFL. What we don't want is for them to go weeks without any game time at all, as they spend their time picking pine splinters out of their backsides, watching whole games from the bench.

Selecting a player with no future was perfect for the sub. Not only did it maximise the game time for those who need it most, but the absence of the older player from the SANFL team gave the kids more opportunity to take responsibility in key roles at that level.

The rules have changed for 2023, and the sub will now be used as a tactical substitution. That changes the equation significantly. However, Davis was an ideal sub for the rules as they were in 2022.

On SM-X205 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[martyparty]

Absolutely not. If we were talking about a position in the starting 22, then I would agree with you, but not the sub.

More often than not, the sub isn't required, and spends the whole game sitting on the bench. This happened to Davis in 3 of his 5 games this year. Scheduling between AFL and SANFL mean that unused subs often don't get any game time at all, for the week when they are sub.

Ideally, we want our developing kids to have as much game time as possible, ideally in the AFL, but failing that in the SANFL. What we don't want is for them to go weeks without any game time at all, as they spend their time picking pine splinters out of their backsides, watching whole games from the bench.

Selecting a player with no future was perfect for the sub. Not only did it maximise the game time for those who need it most, but the absence of the older player from the SANFL team gave the kids more opportunity to take responsibility in key roles at that level.

The rules have changed for 2023, and the sub will now be used as a tactical substitution. That changes the equation significantly. However, Davis was an ideal sub for the rules as they were in 2022.

On SM-X205 using BigFooty.com mobile app

The fact is the Crows were selecting players in the main side that subsequently, after being delisted, no other AFL team valued, not even for free.

 

[AFC979810]

Absolutely not. If we were talking about a position in the starting 22, then I would agree with you, but not the sub.

More often than not, the sub isn't required, and spends the whole game sitting on the bench. This happened to Davis in 3 of his 5 games this year. Scheduling between AFL and SANFL mean that unused subs often don't get any game time at all, for the week when they are sub.

Ideally, we want our developing kids to have as much game time as possible, ideally in the AFL, but failing that in the SANFL. What we don't want is for them to go weeks without any game time at all, as they spend their time picking pine splinters out of their backsides, watching whole games from the bench.

Selecting a player with no future was perfect for the sub. Not only did it maximise the game time for those who need it most, but the absence of the older player from the SANFL team gave the kids more opportunity to take responsibility in key roles at that level.

The rules have changed for 2023, and the sub will now be used as a tactical substitution. That changes the equation significantly. However, Davis was an ideal sub for the rules as they were in 2022.

On SM-X205 using BigFooty.com mobile app

And why not Turner as Sub? We thought we could learn more by playing him in the SANFL where he had already played 89 league games?

And those 60+ minutes of AFL is still a hell of a lot more important for a youngster than another 5 SANFL games IMO.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

The fact is the Crows were selecting players in the main side that subsequently, after being delisted, no other AFL team valued, not even for free.

People are still not getting this .....we were a bottom 4 side ! ......we weren't a finals side that remains largely unchanged week by week

We were rotating players thru the side, giving them opportunities to impress ...or a last chance B4 potential delisting ....or opportunities in different roles ala Frampton

As a list manager, you'd want to be sure you weren't delisting a player that goes onto hurt you at another club

I have no problems with these decisions, the last 2 years .....however, we're out of the list development phase now ..time to settle the side down, time to get serious in 2023

 

[martyparty]

People are still not getting this .....we were a bottom 4 side ! ......we weren't a finals side that remains largely unchanged week by week

We were rotating players thru the side, giving them opportunities to impress ...or a last chance B4 potential delisting ....or opportunities in different roles ala Frampton

As a list manager, you'd want to be sure you weren't delisting a player that goes onto hurt you at another club

I have no problems with these decisions, the last 2 years .....however, we're out of the list development phase now ..time to settle the side down, time to get serious in 2023

They certainly didn’t impress anyone else in the AFL..

 

[WaynesWorld19]

They certainly didn’t impress anyone else in the AFL..

Very few of Crows delistee's go on to hurt us at other Clubs

 

[martyparty]

Very few of Crows delistee's go on to hurt us at other Clubs

Exactly, so should have been delisted from the Reserves.

 

[Vader]

And why not Turner as Sub? We thought we could learn more by playing him in the SANFL where he had already played 89 league games?

And those 60+ minutes of AFL is still a hell of a lot more important for a youngster than another 5 SANFL games IMO.

Does it matter whether it's Turner or Davis? Exactly the same argument applies either way. At least Davis had demonstrated an ability to perform at a minimal level at AFL, so picking him as the AFL sub was preferable on that basis.

 

[GreyCrow]

People are still not getting this .....we were a bottom 4 side ! ......we weren't a finals side that remains largely unchanged week by week

We were rotating players thru the side, giving them opportunities to impress ...or a last chance B4 potential delisting ....or opportunities in different roles ala Frampton

As a list manager, you'd want to be sure you weren't delisting a player that goes onto hurt you at another club

I have no problems with these decisions, the last 2 years .....however, we're out of the list development phase now ..time to settle the side down, time to get serious in 2023

If a list manager hasnt worked out if a player is good or not 6 weeks before the end of the season then they shouldnt be in the role

 

[rabidcrow]

That should have been the plan when we bottomed out to give the kids more game time. Kids like Worrel, Pedler and more time for Strachan.

You’ve also got to be fit and available in the case of Pedlar (and Worrell I while back if I recall)


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[WaynesWorld19]

If a list manager hasnt worked out if a player is good or not 6 weeks before the end of the season then they shouldnt be in the role

I agree in general terms .....however take Davis

Davis was an "almost" player ....at anytime you could not be blamed for thinking he could breakout & secure a best 22 spot at any moment

Likewise, some ....lets look at the bulk criticism of Elliot Himmelberg ...plenty wanted him jettisoned, and yet there was always latent talent bubbling just under the surface ....predicated on a very good footy IQ

So the question with some is ...how long do you wait, b4 giving up

The playstation traders would turnover players after 2 years

 

[WaynesWorld19]

You’ve also got to be fit and available in the case of Pedlar (and Worrell I while back if I recall)


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

People were giving up on Pedlar & calling out another failed pick by the Club .....judging on 12 months, or even 2 years, sometimes will bite you

Just watch some humble pie eating this year with Himmelberg & Pedlar .....luckily I've never availed myself

 

[martyparty]

Does it matter whether it's Turner or Davis? Exactly the same argument applies either way. At least Davis had demonstrated an ability to perform at a minimal level at AFL, so picking him as the AFL sub was preferable on that basis.

Davis can’t even be a sub for North Melbourne! They have consigned him to the twos only.

 

[rabidcrow]

How did Ben Davis get selected?

Perfect sub Ben Davis. Versatile , didn’t matter if he didn’t get a game. Provided more opportunity for game time for our younger players in the Sanfl.

That’s how


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Apsaalooke]

Does it matter whether it's Turner or Davis? Exactly the same argument applies either way. At least Davis had demonstrated an ability to perform at a minimal level at AFL, so picking him as the AFL sub was preferable on that basis.

Come on. Davis was a known quantity, a not too bad player who everyone, including him, knew was overdue for delisting.

Turner was an unknown quantity at AFL level who was delisted on no evidence at all, and in a rebuilding phase where wins don’t matter. Would he have made it? No one knows.
No wonder he was pissed.

 

[Vader]

Come on. Davis was a known quantity, a not too bad player who everyone, including him, knew was overdue for delisting.

Turner was an unknown quantity at AFL level who was delisted on no evidence at all, and in a rebuilding phase where wins don’t matter. Would he have made it? No one knows.
No wonder he was pissed.

You don't think the coaches knew what he was/wasn't capable of, having seen him competing against his peers at training?

I really don't understand this fallacy. Just because a player isn't picked at AFL level, supporters think "we'll never know if he could have made it". This is, and always has been, utter garbage. Coaches see the players, at close quarters - and they see them competing against their peers, both at training and in SANFL games. They have an excellent idea of what they are & are not capable of. Nobody should ever conflate supporter ignorance with coaching/selection ignorance, and yet it happens all the time.