List Mgmt. 2023 List Management thread

[Snuffaluphagus]

Mod notice after Mr Bob did a lot of annoying work in moving days of posts out of here. As we are heading into offseason, this thread is for 2023 list management only. Getting upset on previous trades can be taken to the vent thread. Lets keep this thread on track in the part of the year it's actually relevant

 

[MadMundy]

Full article behind the paywall;

https://archive.md/F3Dhn

We have the talent there, we need to better execute it though.

 

[Sully90]

Is Peter Bell John Cleese in this scenario?

 

[Joao]

Full article behind the paywall;

https://archive.md/F3Dhn

I didn't read it but I agree with the sentiment. I'd argue half of our fans can't see it at the moment.

 

[jimboslice]

I think we should be happy for Jesse
Perth wasn’t the place to be for him outside of footy. Things were spiraling for him.
I’m happy to see him thriving but will always wonder what if.

 

[Sully90]

I didn't read it but I agree with the sentiment. I'd argue half of our fans can't see it at the moment.

It was just 12 months ago that Carlton and GWS fans were looking at us with jealousy. I'm sure we will turn it around for next year.

 

[Taylor]

There isn't a lot of difference between North Melbourne's highs under Brad Scott and Carlton/GWS so far this year, same as Port. It's very hard to win a prelim final but if you don't get there you're quickly put in the also-ran basket and forgotten.

The coaching positions of Goodwin and Beveridge are the ones most interesting to me, consider if Sydney had beaten the Dogs in 2016 and then the Dogs won in 2021.

Beveridge would still be a flag coach, but his team has been a 5th to 12th team the entire time.

Goodwin without that flag is a coach who has been a 2nd to 5th side for a large part of it but never went all the way. Similar to Brisbane.

 

[FreoRicci]

Dusty would have been fine but De Goey would have been shipped for sure. I don't have a problem with that. If you think you can get more out of the whole list by having professional hard workers over super talented party boys, give it a go. I'd actually be staggered if it wasn't more successful in the long term if you can hold your nerve and stick with your principles.

Disagree.
Football is stale, boring hobby during the week for some. Too much time and money throughout pre season, and during the week in season
Have to temper expectations and have players that may push the envelope in some areas.

Talent often doesn’t come from hard work/behaviour. Can go back years of each team winning flags that have a talented but blemished past

 

[Taylor]

Talent often doesn’t come from hard work/behaviour.

I would argue the exact opposite, it's that the players who were undisciplined were so obscenely talented that they were retained until they were working hard enough to deploy it consistently enough to win.

You can see it at just Richmond: Dustin Martin > Sydney Stack > Daniel Connors

Their careers have correlated to their talents more than their application because their club stuck with them through the issues. The stories of guys who had some talent and sent it up their nose or against the wall are common, they are just forgotten in the noise of the whole system purring and churning guys out every year.

The exceptions don't prove the rule here.

 

[doppo]

There's an interesting quote from Walter Isaacson (perennial biographer of high achievers), something along the lines of "people with demons get sh*t done". There's definitely something to be said about that sort of personality if they are in the right environment being able that channel that energy to achieve things in a way that you just don't seem to get from people with a healthy, stable comfortable upbringing.

Freo have clearly been burnt picking talent over culture in the past and have opted for the no d*ckhead policy which has obviously paid off in many ways. But the risk is you deprive yourself of that edge of a player like Degoey etc.

 

[Ge3ks]

Alternatively, to take a talented dickhead and make him captain. Toby Greene

4

Toby Greene

Age

32

Ht

182cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

22.7

5star

K

12.5

5star

HB

10.2

5star

M

4.8

5star

T

3.0

5star

G

1.2

4star

D

17.5

4star

K

9.5

4star

HB

8.0

4star

M

4.8

4star

T

1.0

2star

G

2.3

5star

D

26.6

5star

K

12.4

5star

HB

14.2

5star

M

4.8

5star

T

3.6

5star

G

0.0

1star

has gone to another level.

 

[freo1]

We have the talent there, we need to better execute it though.

I want to jump on this ship and believe it - but gee whiz it's tough after so many years of mediocrity and failure. Rather than sticking my neck out to jump on this wagon, it's easier now to sit back in silence. Our level of success since inception is similar to Dave Warner's success in Test cricket over the last couple years. Pretty average with 1 successful blip in the middle.

 

[DockerDerek]

Does feel like Collingwood just fluked into landing with a contending list. They’ve made so so many mistakes over the last 10 years. I suppose their actual talent ID and development is top notch.

Three AAs from Father Sons makes a pretty big difference too.

Sickening how the Vic media regularly terms the FS rule “the greatest thing about footy”.

 

[refresh]

Three AAs from Father Sons makes a pretty big difference too.

Sickening how the Vic media regularly terms the FS rule “the greatest thing about footy”.

Why is father son seen as a Victorian advantage?

 

[Taylor]

Why is father son seen as a Victorian advantage?

Firstly, there was a period of time when footballers in WA were playing in the VFL and then their children were father son picks for the Victorian team, the likes of Jonothan Brown's father didn't play anywhere near as many games as he would have had to now to qualify his son for the same access - many players had their fathers as just administrators at the club, going on to then play enough games to qualify their grand sons.

Secondly, when a club hasn't been around long enough for the guys playing to have notched up the games and then started their family and then their sons reaching draft age they will have to go through potentially thirty to forty years of drought for access to those players on the cheap.

A lot of AFL selection is about exposure and opportunity, the guys at private schools (particularly in Victoria) are in front of the eyes - the guys in academies in NSW have that exposure, players with name recognition from their father have the exposure. Being noticed lets you have a foot in the door into better coaching, if your dad literally knows the path he can walk you down there too.

Just consider that there are two players at Subiaco colts that I know the name of, in the forward line. One is Collard, the other is Champion and it's because I noticed him because of that hair.

It will just take time for Fremantle to average out with the rest of the long standing clubs, almost all of our 100 game players have been within the last ten to fifteen years. Our prime period for father sons will be coming up still.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Why is father son seen as a Victorian advantage?

It isn't as relevant as it was when the age of the newer clubs meant it was very unlikely they could get potential F/S and the rules were stacked towards players who played for the Vic clubs

Now we are what? Two generations of potential kids in to our existence, it's less relevant. It's still luck whether ex players who have played more than the required games have boys and then in turn they need to be good enough

Edit: What Taylor said

 

[Sully90]

It isn't as relevant as it was when the age of the newer clubs meant it was very unlikely they could get potential F/S and the rules were stacked towards players who played for the Vic clubs

Now we are what? Two generations of potential kids in to our existence, it's less relevant. It's still luck whether ex players who have played more than the required games have boys and then in turn they need to be good enough

Edit: What Taylor said

Doest help that that first generation of our existence didn't produce many 100 game players compared to other clubs.

 

[Taylor]

Every time they change the rules on father son picks to make it "more fair" it becomes more of an advantage to the clubs that have already benefited from it.

Hypothetical, father son picks only cost teams a third round pick, no matter how highly rated. Over the course of five years we pick up a Mundy, a Pav, a Sandi, a McPharlin and a Bowers all for a pick starting with a 4 and all of them were worth a pick inside of 25.

Now, the AFL says "Freo has too much advantage from effectively getting an extra first or second round pick every draft, we need to make it fairer". Clubs then have to pay points for their father sons.

We don't have any coming through, but WC has a Cousins, a Kerr, a Worsfold, a Cox and a Kennedy. They had to pay the value of a first round pick for all of them.

Not only are we now +1 first/second round pick for each of our father sons, the opposition is -1 for each of their own.

We still have all of our players, we just pulled up the ladder after we climbed up it.

Just keep this in mind whenever you want to change the rules to make it "more fair". Without a means to claw back advantages already existing all it does it make existing advantages even bigger.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Doest help that that first generation of our existence didn't produce many 100 game players compared to other clubs.

That's the luck part of it. You could put some of that down to bad recruiting, bad player management, or the fact we stacked some of our early list with mature age players that looked unlikely to get to 100 games for us in order to be competitive from day 1. The 100 game threshold was there then though and had we had some of those guys get to 100 games and recruited their kids this conversation might not have been happening

 

[Taylor]

I don't think it's been a plan from the start, but the non Victorian, not WA/SA Clubs hiring coaches who then have their sons playing in that club's academy catchment zone has done quite a lot of distorting of the father son market too.

 

[Purple Suit]

Every time they change the rules on father son picks to make it "more fair" it becomes more of an advantage to the clubs that have already benefited from it.

Hypothetical, father son picks only cost teams a third round pick, no matter how highly rated. Over the course of five years we pick up a Mundy, a Pav, a Sandi, a McPharlin and a Bowers all for a pick starting with a 4 and all of them were worth a pick inside of 25.

Now, the AFL says "Freo has too much advantage from effectively getting an extra first or second round pick every draft, we need to make it fairer". Clubs then have to pay points for their father sons.

We don't have any coming through, but WC has a Cousins, a Kerr, a Worsfold, a Cox and a Kennedy. They had to pay the value of a first round pick for all of them.

Not only are we now +1 first/second round pick for each of our father sons, the opposition is -1 for each of their own.

We still have all of our players, we just pulled up the ladder after we climbed up it.

Just keep this in mind whenever you want to change the rules to make it "more fair". Without a means to claw back advantages already existing all it does it make existing advantages even bigger.

We've now had 49 players play over 100 games. Not 1 has produced an AFL quality player yet but there must be a few in juniors starting to come through regularly each year or two. It's now about winning the gen lotto and getting a jet.

I'd hate for them to adjust any rules now, just as Freo have a level playing field from this point onwards.

 

[s_wd6]

Doest help that that first generation of our existence didn't produce many 100 game players compared to other clubs.

We have two club captains with sons playing for other teams, because they joined our team later in their careers

 

[s_wd6]

We've now had 49 players play over 100 games. Not 1 has produced an AFL quality player yet but there must be a few in juniors starting to come through regularly each year or two. It's now about winning the gen lotto and getting a jet.

I'd hate for them to adjust any rules now, just as Freo have a level playing field from this point onwards.

We've now had 49 players play over 100 games. Not 1 has produced an AFL quality player yet but there must be a few in juniors starting to come through regularly each year or two. It's now about winning the gen lotto and getting a jet.

I'd hate for them to adjust any rules now, just as Freo have a level playing field from this point onwards.

How many have sons that are eligible (18 years +)?

 

[Taylor]

Here is a post from last year on that:

The academies are best for the clubs that don't have generations of players coming through for father sons.

Here is a previous post on the issue:

Alright, I'm going to post this here so the data is available without people taking a dump on the criteria to dismiss what the data clearly shows.

Criteria I've used is that the average age of men becoming a father is 27 - plus 18 years for their son to reach draft age is 45, so I've allowed the daddy window to start there and extend to the age of 70. During the course of collating this data I did notice a few very recent father sons who aren't captured here but it's very small and almost entirely Indigenous dads if you're interested in quirks of data like that.

Here is the data for all clubs:

Average excluding the two recent expansion clubs is 36 per team.

That's why Fremantle (-78%), Gold Coast (-100%) and GWS (-100%) should have priority access academies with their total at less than 25% of average.

Adelaide, Port and West Coast are in the next bracket up.

 

[Purple Suit]

How many have sons that are eligible (18 years +)?

No idea, of that list it has players without any kids like Tucker. There are also some with heaps, I think Roger Hayden has 4 boys for example.

It's hard to know though, just because your old man was good at Footy doesn't mean you will be. I also find it a bit creepy to track kids progression in juniors etc. Just need to see who are in the next gen academy a few years out as the Freo F/S will be in there if they are good and trying to make a career out of it.

Here is a post from last year on that:

I think that has passed though. From now on we're in the level playing field as if you look at the next 5-10 years we should have plenty become available theoretically, even if they aren't picked up.

 

[Taylor]

No idea, of that list it has players without any kids like Tucker. There are also some with heaps, I think Roger Hayden has 4 boys for example.

It's hard to know though, just because your old man was good at Footy doesn't mean you will be. I also find it a bit creepy to track kids progression in juniors etc. Just need to see who are in the next gen academy a few years out as the Freo F/S will be in there if they are good and trying to make a career out of it.


I think that has passed though. From now on we're in the level playing field as if you look at the next 5-10 years we should have plenty become available theoretically, even if they aren't picked up.

It was last year.

I'll post it again so it's clearer, this graph shows the number of players each team has who have played 100 games and have had enough time to start their family so that their sons are draft age. Some variance will be expected for early starters, but let's pretend that is fairly uniform across the league.

This is where we stand. This is our pool to get a player from.

This is the issue.