List Mgmt. 2026 List Management

[JustOneTime]

Austin is accountable for list management overall so gets the accolades or lemons. I'm not liking that his better picks in Jagga and Dean cost us typically 4 players for 2. So the names look good, and on the surface in retrospect he looks good, but people quickly forget the cost. AFL sides need cover/redundancy/evenness and he bets in a different direction. Don't love it myself.

If his selected/price paid dont end up champions we ended up 2 players short. Personally don't like it like last year when Jagga went down for an entire season. We could have had two strong role players giving redundancy. Don't like the price we paid for a second/third tall at 3. I do like him but we paid FULL price plus a cherry.

A prem list is someone who can cherry pick out a champion x2 between picks 8-15. Austin / Agresta couldnt or wouldnt and went super conservative safe with Jagga. Safe but they miss out on backing themselves in and the cream opportunity.

Why should we go for evenness because we've just seen with Walsh a huge long contract and at high price on hype only as he has struggled with injuries AND, he cant kick. We're left stuck having to do the deal in the face of a sinking ship.

 

[dangertroy]

Austin is accountable for list management overall so gets the accolades or lemons. I'm not liking that his better picks in Jagga and Dean cost us typically 4 players for 2. So the names look good, and on the surface in retrospect he looks good, but people quickly forget the cost. AFL sides need cover/redundancy/evenness and he bets in a different direction. Don't love it myself.

If his selected/price paid dont end up champions we ended up 2 players short. Personally don't like it like last year when Jagga went down for an entire season. We could have had two strong role players giving redundancy. Don't like the price we paid for a second/third tall at 3. I do like him but we paid FULL price plus a cherry.

A prem list is someone who can cherry pick out a champion x2 between picks 8-15. Austin / Agresta couldnt or wouldnt and went super conservative safe with Jagga. Safe but they miss out on backing themselves in and the cream opportunity.

Why should we go for evenness because we've just seen with Walsh a huge long contract and at high price on hype only as he has struggled with injuries AND, he cant kick. We're left stuck having to do the deal in the face of a sinking ship.

I understand the argument. Too many eggs in one basket. 2 good players rather than 1 - lowers the risk. Walsh still has deficiencies. etc. Trading up is a risky strategy, but so was cutting really hard and trying to rebuild slowly through the draft.

Jagga was, and will always be a risk. Dean also feels like a risk, because we could have passed and taken two other first round picks. And we will always be able to judge them as compared to whoever the best two players picked after 10 turn out to be. I get why that feels bad. But we ultimately don't know who the two players could have been that we took instead, and we can't just cherry pick the two we could have taken. Because we've seen this play out before.

Walsh wasn't our only first round pick in 2018. In an effort to spread the risk, we turned our future first into 3 players over two years. Instead of Stocker, Kemp and Philp, we could have taken Lachie Ash. Or Rowbottom/McInerney and Kozzie/Day/Flanders/SDK/Georgiades... So spreading the risk isn't a sure fire solution. Might double (or triple) your chances of getting a solid player, but it also doubles your chances of picking a dud.

Dean in some ways probably feels riskier that Jagga. It will probably always feel like he cost us TDK, JSOS and Charlie. But we went into that draft knowing that he was available to us. It enabled us to do the Jagga trade the year before. He came on much better than we hoped for in his draft year, and a club was willing to bid earlier than most expected for him, so we ended up paying what feels like overs. It could have been two other players in the Stocker/Kemp/Philp range, in what we're told was a weak draft. But he's a father son, and one who fills a need. And I only needed to see him fist a ball away from a mark once to feel like it's the right call.

 

[josephone]

Austin is accountable for list management overall so gets the accolades or lemons. I'm not liking that his better picks in Jagga and Dean cost us typically 4 players for 2. So the names look good, and on the surface in retrospect he looks good, but people quickly forget the cost. AFL sides need cover/redundancy/evenness and he bets in a different direction. Don't love it myself.

If his selected/price paid dont end up champions we ended up 2 players short. Personally don't like it like last year when Jagga went down for an entire season. We could have had two strong role players giving redundancy. Don't like the price we paid for a second/third tall at 3. I do like him but we paid FULL price plus a cherry.

It's all easy in retrospect, but I contest the idea that two picks in the teens are better than one pick in the top 3.

Historically these are hit-and-miss players. For every Murphy Reid there's many more Brodie Kemps. And you can't win a flag with a list full of Kemps.

Ultimately we knew 2024 was a hot draft, we traded up and got a bloke who we can build the club around. 2025 was a different circumstance (not in our control as much) but again we've got a bloke who instantly looks good.

You only need to look at Essendon to see that building a team around mid-range picks is a very dangerous strategy.

 

[Espio]

These after the fact "we could have had" are ludicrous. Of course if we got to do a redraft 3 or 4 years later we would be the best side in the league. But that is not the way it works. Every club has tremendous failures in their drafting, even those clubs with strong systems and leadership. For every Dusty Martin there is plenty of Richard Tamblings.

I haven't looked at the percentages, but my guess would be if you could choose 1 player at 3, or 2 players in the teens, the odds favour the lower pick.

 

[josephone]

I haven't looked at the percentages, but my guess would be if you could choose 1 player at 3, or 2 players in the teens, the odds favour the lower pick.

In a general sense that's probably right. But I think there are years where the top is stacked, and one pick in the top 5 would be more valuable. Other years when it's more even and you'd want more later picks.

I think 2024 was one of those 'stacked top' years. Lalor, FOS and Jagga all look like stars, but there's a clear drop from there (barring Levi Ashcroft)

 

[Crippa#9]

In a general sense that's probably right. But I think there are years where the top is stacked, and one pick in the top 5 would be more valuable. Other years when it's more even and you'd want more later picks.

I think 2024 was one of those 'stacked top' years. Lalor, FOS and Jagga all look like stars, but there's a clear drop from there (barring Levi Ashcroft)

Na there was plenty of guns after Jagga..

Harvey Langford, Murphy Reid, Taj Hotton, Joe Berry, Kako, Lombard, Tauru etc

We'll be talking about the 2024 Draft for a long time.

 

[CoachB]

Can't just go forward. You also need to be able to get the ball into the middle with lateral kicks. That's really important. Too easy and predictable to defend against if all we do is go forwards.

I think the big part of what is missing in our game is our short kicking.

I like our method to go fast and direct. But not all the time.

Some of the good sides are using lateral kicks to get the ball into the centre square but relatively safely.

We just need to work on it.

Also when we switch, two things, we don't move the ball fast enough (kicking skills + telegraphing where the ball is going) to get free on the outside. And when we do get free on the outside, we don't have the acceleration to break the line.

 

[Espio]

In a general sense that's probably right. But I think there are years where the top is stacked, and one pick in the top 5 would be more valuable. Other years when it's more even and you'd want more later picks.

I think 2024 was one of those 'stacked top' years. Lalor, FOS and Jagga all look like stars, but there's a clear drop from there (barring Levi Ashcroft)

Lower as in lower number, preferring pick 3.

 

[Faz 2000]

Nailing the top picks (say, top 10) is essential for building a list. We've been adequate on that for a while.

Where we have been starved for a long time is picking stars with picks in the teens, 20s, 30s, 40s. The percentage hit rate is much lower, but the leg-up a list gets from finding gold in that range is massive.

I don't think we have pulled a good AFL player after pick 15 since TDK ~10 years ago (acknowledging some youngsters on the list may yet pan out).

I just picked two teams at random over that same span and cast an eye over what they've found after pick 15 over a similar span:

Hawks:
Weddle (pick 18)
Connor MacDonald
Jai Newcombe (Mid-season draft -> club captain)
Worpel
Moore
Morrison (~120 games)

Freo:
Murphy Reid (pick 17)
Treacy (Rookie draft!)
Schultz
Meek
Darcy
Ryan
Cox

This is a fast and loose comparison, but it is a the key reason we're 6 good players behind these clubs. More so than the top picks, anyway.

 

[gbatman]

Also when we switch, two things, we don't move the ball fast enough (kicking skills + telegraphing where the ball is going) to get free on the outside. And when we do get free on the outside, we don't have the acceleration to break the line.

Well we don't always have to move it fast and that's my point. Fast aggressive ball movement is something we are good at but it's not sustainable for four quarters. I don't think that needs a great deal of improvement. We could improve forward structure and the quality of our inside 50 entries a little but the part of our game is ok.

We need to be better with our slower game where we maintain possession and finish up with the ball in the middle of the ground before entering forward 50.

The problem with our slow game compared to the better sides is that our slow game is just circa 2022 football. We go wide, we kick long, we bomb it to the obvious spots inside 50 which is not what the better sides are doing.

The better sides are avoiding the obvious spots when they are forced to kick long. For example no more top of the square, unless it's open. The are going to the left or right of there, more to the pockets to avoid the tra setup by the opposition. Our game plan involves kicking to the opposition's best intercept defenders where they have setup the trap.

Getting the ball into the middle of the ground, giving yourself access to both forward pockets is crucial here, not bombing in from near the boundary line. In this situation where you are caught wide, you are better off going back and across and attempting to get a better look at your F50. This also allows your side to stand in their position for a moment and rest. So crucial to modern footy.

Tactically and coaching, we are, again caught behind the better sides of the competition.

Positioning wise in the forward 50 teams are going with two groups of marking targets. Teams aren't leading out of the square so much, they are providing targets either side. I noticed the Bulldogs doing this really well. It completely stuffs up the oppositions structures and gives the forwards some space to work in. We aren't doing this. We aren't using O'Keeffe and McKay correctly.

While more leg speed is a need. It's more a need for our ability to defend. To chase and apply pressure around the ball.

More short kicking, we keep ignoring open short options for longer options that are contested or high risk. There is a lot of short kicking by the better sides which allow for overlap and clean fast ball movement. We aren't structuring well enough for it and aren't using it enough.

If we can improve our slower game, our short kicking game and eliminate a lot of dumb football where we keep going inside 50 from out wide and start to structure or forward line correctly and start to use tempo footy to rest our legs more then we will be a pretty good side.

The problem is, we again appear to be a side which has focused on one aspect of it's game plan. It's fast and direct when we are winning the contests and clueless when the contest evens up and we run out of legs to play that super high tempo footy. It's exactly what Docherty was talking about.

 

[Espio]

Nailing the top picks (say, top 10) is essential for building a list. We've been adequate on that for a while.

Where we have been starved for a long time is picking stars with picks in the teens, 20s, 30s, 40s. The percentage hit rate is much lower, but the leg-up a list gets from finding gold in that range is massive.

I don't think we have pulled a good AFL player after pick 15 since TDK ~10 years ago (acknowledging some youngsters on the list may yet pan out).

I just picked two teams at random over that same span and cast an eye over what they've found after pick 15 over a similar span:

Hawks:
Weddle (pick 18)
Connor MacDonald
Jai Newcombe (Mid-season draft -> club captain)
Worpel
Moore
Morrison (~120 games)

Freo:
Murphy Reid (pick 17)
Treacy (Rookie draft!)
Schultz
Meek
Darcy
Ryan
Cox

This is a fast and loose comparison, but it is a the key reason we're 6 good players behind these clubs. More so than the top picks, anyway.

We have absolutely underperformed in that space. It's vital to note that sides who do succeed more often with lower picks are often those with great development and in game systems.

I'm firmly of the belief that we have seen players come and go who may have had the talent to make it in a different system.

This is where whatever Wright does over the next few years is so vital to Carlton's future.

(Very impressed by Freo here btw)

 

[blues4flag]

Nailing the top picks (say, top 10) is essential for building a list. We've been adequate on that for a while.

Where we have been starved for a long time is picking stars with picks in the teens, 20s, 30s, 40s. The percentage hit rate is much lower, but the leg-up a list gets from finding gold in that range is massive.

I don't think we have pulled a good AFL player after pick 15 since TDK ~10 years ago (acknowledging some youngsters on the list may yet pan out).

I just picked two teams at random over that same span and cast an eye over what they've found after pick 15 over a similar span:

Hawks:
Weddle (pick 18)
Connor MacDonald
Jai Newcombe (Mid-season draft -> club captain)
Worpel
Moore
Morrison (~120 games)

Freo:
Murphy Reid (pick 17)
Treacy (Rookie draft!)
Schultz
Meek
Darcy
Ryan
Cox

This is a fast and loose comparison, but it is a the key reason we're 6 good players behind these clubs. More so than the top picks, anyway.

We've gotten far better at this. There were years where our picks after 30 would barely play a game before being delisted. DVR anyone?

We've got a number of promising kids coming through that were taken later. Carroll, Cowan, Cottrell, Lord, HOF, HOK, Kemp, Motlop, Moir, Young all show promise on exposed form at AFL level. Not all of them will make it, but I can't remember the last time we've had 9-10 players drafted outside the top 20 who are in contention for best 22-25.

To put it in context, none of our current hundred gamers were drafted at Carlton outside the top 13. We had two that recently left (TDK, Silvagni). I'm hopeful that at least 4 or 5 of the above will make it to 100. Cottrell would already be there if not for a wretched run with injuries.

 

[ajs071]

We need another tallish forward. Joel Amartey out of contract and free agent. Do we chase him? Might get a decent payday if his form keeps up. Could Swans afford him?

 

[Garters]

Spot on but I will say (like a broken record) kicking combined with speed is king. All the Sid elites you mention are quick and drill the footy to either a player or to the players advantage to run onto.

As for Jagga, what stands out above his evasiveness and and ability to pivot is his lighting fast and correct decision making. This gets him out of trouble and most importantly, sets us up to run and attack. I dont want to pump him up too much but the last player I saw with the skill was Diesel. Like the great man, Jagga sees things everyone else doesnt. He looks like a Meer cat, head always bolt upright eyes quickly scanning for the target. At times I could swear he isn't even looking at the ball when he gathers it, he prioritises the scanning of the intended target.

Great summary of Jagga. Unique kid.

 

[Garters]

Holmes and B Smith at Geelong have speed but they are not elite kicks by any stretch of the imagination

But they make up for it in sheer workrate and smarts, esp Holmes. Shows how far off a lot of our guys are. Every player gets a pass on an element of their game owing to elite other components. Our distributors and wings are below average to middle AND are poor kicks. Very hard to cover / build a competitive game plan around

 

[Michael Jezz]

Quite a few cooks imo

EDIT: I should say that the list is not that bad actually

Evidence, Performance, ladder position does not support the assetion the list is healthy or "not that bad".

 

[Opium]

Nailing the top picks (say, top 10) is essential for building a list. We've been adequate on that for a while.

Where we have been starved for a long time is picking stars with picks in the teens, 20s, 30s, 40s. The percentage hit rate is much lower, but the leg-up a list gets from finding gold in that range is massive.

I don't think we have pulled a good AFL player after pick 15 since TDK ~10 years ago (acknowledging some youngsters on the list may yet pan out).

I just picked two teams at random over that same span and cast an eye over what they've found after pick 15 over a similar span:

Hawks:
Weddle (pick 18)
Connor MacDonald
Jai Newcombe (Mid-season draft -> club captain)
Worpel
Moore
Morrison (~120 games)

Freo:
Murphy Reid (pick 17)
Treacy (Rookie draft!)
Schultz
Meek
Darcy
Ryan
Cox

This is a fast and loose comparison, but it is a the key reason we're 6 good players behind these clubs. More so than the top picks, anyway.

To me it feels like Austin doesn't have the knowledge to find these players. Hence trading multiple first rounders to move up the draft order

 

[Bamboo Harvester]

To me it feels like Austin doesn't have the knowledge to find these players. Hence trading multiple first rounders to move up the draft order

Which may be the reason we moved Agresta on.

 

[Garters]

the real culprit here is Stephen Silvagni.

The 2017 Draft was an unmitigated disaster but I think what SOS did in 2019 was unforgivable.

Traded down from pick 11 to pick 17 and watched the likes of Will Day, Kozzy Pickett, Mitch Georgiades, Cody Weightman, Sam Flanders & Miles Bergman get picked before selecting Brodie Kemp. Sam Philp at the end of the first round was just nail in the coffin.

This unfortunately, no two ways around it. Torched way too much capital that would be in max output mode.

 

[Garters]

Our list was good enough.
Development, coaching and the culture of the club are the main reasons we didn't have success stemming from the rebuild.

Culmination of both, torched too much capital and the list we did have was not developed and brought up in a culture that was ever going to get it done. All v disappointing TBH. Still a long way back, although draft hand and high picks we have heading in the right direction if they all come on and the culture reset holds. Would add Voss not the one to take is through this rebuild on the fly. Although think this will be dealt with this season.
Hmm apart from draft selection, development, culture and coaching we have done ok

 

[Bluebag13]

A few names that I would love for us to be linked to this year or next:
Joseph Fonti
Lachie Ash
Nathan Wardius
Miles Bergman
Max Gruzewski
Phoenix Gothard
Kai Lohmann
Keidean Coleman
Cooper Simpson
Max Hall

All these guys are out of contract this year or next.

 

[Psychochook]

It would be good to see more universally adaptable players drafted over the unique 'X' factor types.

Even Jagga, superstar that he may eventually be, is unique.
The class in our midfield is a hodge-podge of unique types.

If Voss is creating a game plan with the attributes these unique types offer as a building block, we are vulnerable.

None of them can do what another does.

So if the opposition coach sees these attributes as the differential between them losing and winning, they shut that player out of the game.

In the past, Cripps had the sheer size amd power to overcome most shutdown attempts. Not now.

IfJagga's skill is chopping a team up, their coach will shut him down.
Because we don't have any player similar.

This, in my opinion, is why we have poor second halves.

Our 'mechanisms' are not universal.

Our style relies on the unique.

The opposition coach hones in on the unique links shuts them down and our chain breaks every time.

Last season was simple, no Charlie, no goals. Harry was out, our small fwds were too defensive and out of position and our mids couldn't hit a bull in the bum with a handfull of wheat. Shut down Charlie.

If you look at us now, we are already too reliant on Jagga's skill. He doesn't have enough strength or power(yet - or will he ever?!!) to win hard contested ball or beat a hard tag.

Cripps and Walsh aren't damaging or creative enough by foot to play a possession game. Their unique weapons are respectively extraction and endurance.

We are desperate for that well rounded similarity of player running through the middle. Which we just don't have.

Until then, blind freddy can pinpoint how to stop us and, during the halftime break, make the changes and instruct his team how to execute.

Our personnel have no way to overcome these changes because of the unique nature of our 'weapons' the opposing coach negates.

For me, this is the exact reason why we will need not just Cody but another player somewhat similar to go anywhere near competing in 2027.

Austin's task is to find them.


What do you all think?

 

[Faz 2000]

What do you all think?

I think you're right. And I think it has been a theme for a long time, Carlton selecting "best of breed" types and only ever seeing them as that one thing. We haven't valued, or developed, true versatility and in-game flexibility.

Even our "stars" are each only one thing:

• Cripps is an inside midfielder - could never move to HBF or wing. Has shown glimpses up forward (where I would like to see him play more and more, to be honest).
• Walsh is a hard-running link up midfielder - would seem to lack footskills to play behind ball, marking/nous to play forward.
• Weitering is a tall lockdown defender - never really gets freed up to play a more creative, attacking role. Doesn't provide run. Doesn't swing forward.
• Etc

That's not to say those guys aren't good and valuable at their thing - and not everyone needs to be a Swiss Army knife. But I'd argue we don't have a single player who is effective in more than one position, really.

Why hasn't Saad been tried on the wing? Or Walsh at HBF to provide overlap run? Why are none of our midfielders capable of playing forward and being a threat? Williams and McGovern being unreliable both ahead and behind the ball does not equal flexibility.

As a team, as a club, as a list, as a coaching group... we have Plan A, which looks fine on paper, but doesn't survive first contact with the enemy.

 

[JustOneTime]

It's all easy in retrospect, but I contest the idea that two picks in the teens are better than one pick in the top 3.

Historically these are hit-and-miss players. For every Murphy Reid there's many more Brodie Kemps. And you can't win a flag with a list full of Kemps.

Ultimately we knew 2024 was a hot draft, we traded up and got a bloke who we can build the club around. 2025 was a different circumstance (not in our control as much) but again we've got a bloke who instantly looks good.

You only need to look at Essendon to see that building a team around mid-range picks is a very dangerous strategy.

It isnt about retrospect. It isnt about the failure of split picks like Kemp.

It is about pure gameboard strategy of 2 picks for one player deals. It just doesnt come off that great to me.

We need a side to have 25-30 good players to give coverage. That is going to be nigh impossible if we keep losing 2 players (8-16) for one deals (2-5). We will do it again for walker after Jagga after Dean.

Secondly, these type of deals lead to huge risky contracts where the clubs money is only on a couple of players. It leads to list contract trouble. Carlton have already gone down this path of Weitering, Cripps, Walsh, Curnow. They would even have paid a monster deal to TDK because of the Curnow/Walsh type deals but just got saved by a crazee St Kilda deal. TDK is a desirable player but cost is an important thing in a salary cap.

It's lazy player mgmt to give too much to a few. It blocks an even list. We have already been guilty a few times over doing this (Murphy, Judd, Kruse, Gibbs then nothing).

If you are sitting down and setting up a list mgmt strategy you are looking for 25 strong role players who know their role going forward. Use your picks in the draft to increase your squad quality baseline. Don't use it in fear like Austin and herd to safety.

If you do split picks like SoS agreed to with Kemp/Philp and get it wrong then sack an Agresta/SoS because they are shit. But dont give up on a good strategy play. Moreover just use your pick and back yourself in.

As for needing a pick in your side 1-3 to just lead a group of more even players...that comes naturally; don't orchestrate it. We already had Walsh. You will get a pick naturally with one poor season. Don't overpay on the risk that your number 1 pick you eventually find out cant kick when kicking is instrumental.

The cost of 2 picks for one deals?
We never have a good small forward and we never have a good second key back. We never get to solving that because we never have any draft capital left over to fill these important secondary roles. Leaves us with Young and Derk...Austin simply wants you to see the shine on Jagga. It literally is why we have Fogarty on our list playing as a smal lforward right now....no resources left.

 

[The Return of the Paf]

Austin is accountable for list management overall so gets the accolades or lemons. I'm not liking that his better picks in Jagga and Dean cost us typically 4 players for 2. So the names look good, and on the surface in retrospect he looks good, but people quickly forget the cost. AFL sides need cover/redundancy/evenness and he bets in a different direction. Don't love it myself.

If his selected/price paid dont end up champions we ended up 2 players short. Personally don't like it like last year when Jagga went down for an entire season. We could have had two strong role players giving redundancy. Don't like the price we paid for a second/third tall at 3. I do like him but we paid FULL price plus a cherry.

A prem list is someone who can cherry pick out a champion x2 between picks 8-15. Austin / Agresta couldnt or wouldnt and went super conservative safe with Jagga. Safe but they miss out on backing themselves in and the cream opportunity.

Why should we go for evenness because we've just seen with Walsh a huge long contract and at high price on hype only as he has struggled with injuries AND, he cant kick. We're left stuck having to do the deal in the face of a sinking ship.

Exactly, this is the kind of thing I was getting at. Talent identification is less than 30% of the story, IMO, but although I'm ultra critical, I don't tend to focus it directly on who the list manager is in any given season. It seems to be something in the Carlton culture which means we are always 'in the moment' and our list management seems to reflect that, too. We don't read the draft very well each year, nor the future trajectory of our list or the competition as a whole.

Whenever we trade up the order draft it's two high picks for one rather than a subtle push to get ahead of a club for a player who we think will be a bargain selection. We are just not that subtle. It's just mostly us waiting on our turn each year, drafting who we consider to be the best available midfielder (who must also be a 'nice' guy) and then picking up two or three glorified foot soldiers each with what's left, partly because they are all we can afford, and partly because we are scared of having players in the twos who arguably won't get a game for a few years. Yes, Austin's last few years have been a little different but there is something in the details that makes me think that's largely fate rather than the penny dropping.