List Mgmt. 2023 List Management and Trading

[AFC979810]

Exactly. So young players - like Berry early in the year - can get a number of weeks as the number 1 player in their best position - learn how to do it at that level and then step up to the big stuff

Rather than play forward pocket, or be sub and get a quarter, or play at a standard their body isn’t ready for and so they break down.

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Except Berry didn't do that his first season. Berry has played 35 of a possible 44 games including the first 5 games of his rookie season.

To suggest that Berry was put into the SANFL for development and to learn to be the #1 player at his best position complete bullshit - He was dropped for Matt Crouch.

EDIT - What makes it even worse is that the SANFL didn't even play the first two weeks of the season. So our development plan must have been to have Berry play 17 games in his first year at AFL level. Have a great preseason, but give him the first two rounds off. Let him learn how to play at his best position in the SANFL for 2 weeks and then finally bring him back to the AFL in round 5 because he was ready (Not because Schoenberg was playing terrible).

 

[AFC979810]

Regarding our offseason and the whole turner thing, I think it points towards our offseason this year being far more uncertain than people think.

Lots take it as a given Rankine was always coming. I take it as 50/50 as best. Imagine he didnt come.
Imagine McAsey is still here.
Imagine Seed is good and back playing.
Imagine Sholl went.
Imagine Crouch went.
Imagine Himmelberg went.
Imagine Billy stayed.
If someone bid on Michalanney at say pick 12, would we have matched, probably not, then he wouldn't be on our list.

There is 256 different list combinations just based on these go vs stay possibilities.
I feel for Turner and Rowey, and there was a lot of combos where they stay on, but as it fell, they landed in the reality where they were delisted.

Rowe went from a best 22 player for the Crows in 2021/2022 to not best 36 (or whatever our final list size was).

We preferred pick 50 to Rowe. That says a hell of a lot. If we thought he had any aptitude we would have kept him (very cheaply).

Fact remains our list managers didn't rate Rowe as an AFL player and Nicks did (or else why did he play him all 2nd half of the season).

 

[George CantStandYa]

Exactly. So young players - like Berry early in the year - can get a number of weeks as the number 1 player in their best position - learn how to do it at that level and then step up to the big stuff

Rather than play forward pocket, or be sub and get a quarter, or play at a standard their body isn’t ready for and so they break down.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

And that’s what we should be doing with Jones

 

[AFC979810]

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.

Then why did they select a soon to be delisted Rowe during the second half of the season rather than players they knew would be on the list?

 

[AFC979810]

His selection in the MSD is baffling. His non-selection in our AFL team, once he had been drafted, was not.

On SM-X205 using BigFooty.com mobile app

And what about injured Doedee, Keays and a soon to be delisted Rowe? Still maintain there wasn't any room to give the kids more games?

 

[AFC979810]

Everything points to our recruiting staff/scouts not having a lot of input and our SANFL coaching staff having a lot of input.

Still find the Tyler Brown deal surprising too.

This doesn't set off any alarm bells?

Why are the SANFL coaching staff having a lot of input on who we are selecting in a national competition? Surely they wouldn't spend any time watching the VFL - whereas the recruiters should be doing this.

 

[Vader]

Then why did they select a soon to be delisted Rowe during the second half of the season rather than players they knew would be on the list?

As people have pointed out, lots of permutations which followed - if Rankine didn't come, Rowe didn't go, and that's just one example.

 

[Vader]

And what about injured Doedee, Keays and a soon to be delisted Rowe? Still maintain there wasn't any room to give the kids more games?

You're still harping on about playing injured player, which EVERY SINGLE CLUB IN THE COMPETITION does, every single week?

 

[Carmo]

Rowe went from a best 22 player for the Crows in 2021/2022 to not best 36 (or whatever our final list size was).

We preferred pick 50 to Rowe. That says a hell of a lot. If we thought he had any aptitude we would have kept him (very cheaply).

Fact remains our list managers didn't rate Rowe as an AFL player and Nicks did (or else why did he play him all 2nd half of the season).

I would put it more like Rowe was ranked pretty similar to a couple of others down the bottom of our list of 5-7 small forward players.
He was uncontracted (vs say Murphy), somewhat mature (vs say Pedlar) and when we got Rankine in, we had filled our list of small forwards and so he was out.
I definitely don't think he was less valued than pick 50 in the draft, especially since we didn't pick up small forwards with any of our picks.

I already answered why we played him. If Rankine didn't come, he's still on the list and the experience is invaluable.

 

[George CantStandYa]

Everything points to our recruiting staff/scouts not having a lot of input and our SANFL coaching staff having a lot of input.

Still find the Tyler Brown deal surprising too.

Oh come on, you couldn’t possibly believe that. No way are our sanfl coaching staff influencing who we draft and if they are, Hamish should get sacked. If our recruiting staff aren’t across sanfl players to make their own assessments then that’s deplorable.

 

[AFC979810]

You're still harping on about playing injured player, which EVERY SINGLE CLUB IN THE COMPETITION does, every single week?

Absolutely. But EVERY SINGLE CLUB isn't doing a full rebuild for the first time in 30 years and has the youngest list in the competition that means there should be no expectations on winning.

Its amateur hour for a team that has no chance of finals to move a midfielder to the forward pocket because his shoulder is too banged up to play midfield.

But I am glad we played Doedee the last 3 weeks after refreshing him in round 20 on a bum shoulder that required surgery. It saved us all the headache of having him signed up to an extension and being fit and firing for a big 2023 rather than trying to give himself the best chance to play round 1.

“With the injuries that I’ve had and the surgeries I’ve had I knew I wouldn’t be able to commit to negotiating the contract stuff without being fully involved…

“I want to put that back, I want focus on my rehab, make sure my shoulder’s right, give myself the best chance to play round one and then figure it out from there. I’m on path in that regard… and the contract stuff will follow.”

As people have pointed out, lots of permutations which followed - if Rankine didn't come, Rowe didn't go, and that's just one example.

Its a bullshit answer. If Rankine didn't come we still wouldn't have re-signed Rowe. We valued pick 50 over Rowe for goodness sake. We could have put him on the rookie list if we wanted him. Picked him when we lost McAsey and Seedsman.

 

[AFC979810]

I already answered why we played him. If Rankine didn't come, he's still on the list and the experience is invaluable.

Makes sense. Play a player you are actively trying to replace in 2023 over players who are contracted and will 100% be on your list just in case the deal falls through and we have to keep him and then his experience becomes invaluable!

Looks like we are out here playing Chess, whilst the rest of the league plays checkers.

 

[George CantStandYa]

You're still harping on about playing injured player, which EVERY SINGLE CLUB IN THE COMPETITION does, every single week?

It goes to the competency of our coaching staff.

As 9798 mentioned, we are doing a rebuild. Worrell was clearly ready and they preferred an injured Doedee who wasn’t playing great football anyway. Not only did it delay Doedee’s preseason it’s robbed Worrell of games.

I know the coaches didn’t think Doedee and Worrell could play in the same team, it was one or the other. Except when they did play Worrell they couldn’t drop him and they played together. So what was the intention with giving Worrell a game? That he’d fail and we would drop him for Doedee?

 

[Mostyn]

You massively over rate SANFL game time. Its a sub standard league and the gap between it and the AFL is massive.

Sorry, but actual game time in the reserves is FAR more valuable for the development of a young player than sitting twiddling their thumbs as a sub.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

Then why did they select a soon to be delisted Rowe during the second half of the season rather than players they knew would be on the list?

Because Rowe would likely still be on the list if we took our 1st round pick to the draft rather than trade it for Rankine

edit- * literally had this confirmed

 

[Mostyn]

And what about injured Doedee, Keays and a soon to be delisted Rowe? Still maintain there wasn't any room to give the kids more games?

Every single club is playing multiple players who are managing niggly injuries.

Worrall should have played earlier for Doedee, absolutely. But they obviously looked at his injury and felt comfortable that it wasn't at the level where he needed to miss games, and that our defense needed some more mature heads.

 

[Mostyn]

This doesn't set off any alarm bells?

Why are the SANFL coaching staff having a lot of input on who we are selecting in a national competition? Surely they wouldn't spend any time watching the VFL - whereas the recruiters should be doing this.

There's zero evidence that our SANFL coaches have any input in our recruitment. That's just an invention of this board.

It was a recruiting mistake, made by our recruiters. They thought Turner was the best player available, but he didn't succeed as a selection.

 

[Mostyn]

.

Dude. It feels like you're getting a bit worked up.

 

[Mostyn]

It goes to the competency of our coaching staff.

As 9798 mentioned, we are doing a rebuild. Worrell was clearly ready and they preferred an injured Doedee who wasn’t playing great football anyway. Not only did it delay Doedee’s preseason it’s robbed Worrell of games.

I know the coaches didn’t think Doedee and Worrell could play in the same team, it was one or the other. Except when they did play Worrell they couldn’t drop him and they played together. So what was the intention with giving Worrell a game? That he’d fail and we would drop him for Doedee?

Worrell should have played earlier, but it seems like they were concerned with running with a really inexperienced defense?

In any event - Worrell was impressive when he played. He got enough AFL time to feel like he belongs.

 

[AFC979810]

Every single club is playing multiple players who are managing niggly injuries.

No doubt. I am aware of that.

My contention is that we were stupid to keep playing Doedee. It served no benefit and pushed back his recovery.

Worrall should have played earlier for Doedee, absolutely. But they obviously looked at his injury and felt comfortable that it wasn't at the level where he needed to miss games, and that our defense needed some more mature heads.

So what are you arguing here? Was the club right or wrong in playing Doedee the last 3 rounds?

 

[AFC979810]

Sorry, but actual game time in the reserves is FAR more valuable for the development of a young player than sitting twiddling their thumbs as a sub.

Meh - Give me the 60 minutes of AFL football Ben Davis had as sub over 5 SANFL games. Half the SANFL players are part time athletes.

 

[AFC979810]

There's zero evidence that our SANFL coaches have any input in our recruitment. That's just an invention of this board.

I would hope so. My post was a direct response to old bicks who made the claim.

It was a recruiting mistake, made by our recruiters. They thought Turner was the best player available, but he didn't succeed as a selection.

Sure was.

 

[George CantStandYa]

There's zero evidence that our SANFL coaches have any input in our recruitment. That's just an invention of this board.

It was a recruiting mistake, made by our recruiters. They thought Turner was the best player available, but he didn't succeed as a selection.

To be fair to the board, it’s only one person saying this was the case

 

[Mostyn]

No doubt. I am aware of that.

My contention is that we were stupid to keep playing Doedee. It served no benefit and pushed back his recovery.



So what are you arguing here? Was the club right or wrong in playing Doedee the last 3 rounds?

I'm actually arguing that you're being completely over the top. The club gave fewer games to Worrell than you would have liked, but he still got enough games to know he belonged at the higher level.

The club prioritised some mature heads in defense and you wouldn't have. They kept playing a player with a niggle.

Ultimately, I just think you're carrying on over something that isn't that big a deal. And I say that mostly agreeing with you.

 

[Mostyn]

Meh - Give me the 60 minutes of AFL football Ben Davis had as sub over 5 SANFL games. Half the SANFL players are part time athletes.

Yep, absolutely completely disagree, so not much point debating.