37 players gone since Dimma's arrival?

[santa claws]

Interestingly I count 22 players gone from Collingwood's list in the same time - and that's without any delistings (Brown's retirement aside) yet this year.

So really they have turned over pretty much the same number over the same period while being very successful.

Turnover of players doesn't really mean much more than an active football management group. I think Wallace was quite a bit more active in his first three seasons and that didn't finish too well.

thats an interesting stat. sheesh collingwood this yr will probably turn over at least 5 maybe 6 just from the list proper alone.
i think they have already committed to 6 players thru trades and promoted scholarship players and have 2 or 3 nd picks to come.

dunno what to make of it to be honest except to say it shows you do have to be active and not hang onto underperforming players for too long. well i suppose thats one thing you can make of it.
i think it also shows how you do need to have a decent succession plan in place for each stage of development ie 18 - 22. 23 - 28. 29 upwards.senior players go but mid tier players step in and fill the void. ie 9 or 10 of those players who are gone would be 29 plus yr olds but they still have plenty of experience and games played personell coming thru.

just imagine if newman retired this yr and miller goes it would leave just 3 100 plus gamers where as collingwood dont have this problem.

 

[santa claws]

At the end of 2012, you would expect:
- tuck to retire
- mcguane, white, moore, Connors will need to play at least 15 games to survive
- gourdis and post need at least ten games to be safe, being younger
- brown survives as he has the I'm a giant card and will take a few more years to develop
That's 7 under the pump right there, without looking at the rest of the list. I would expect 4 or 5 gone from this group of 7.

agree. would add the above is one reason why expectations should be low again this yr.
too few 100 gamers and too few in the 50 - 100 game bracket. add in the fact most of the more mature players we have are in the main mostly ordinary players theres not enough quality spread thru the side and there is a huge reliance still on developing players to carry the load.

 

[santa claws]

This is the only concern to me as you can easily add Gourdis and Webberly to this list , and IMO if they've been found within 2 seasons of not being up to scratch , for whatever reason we most likely shouldn't have had them on the list , some may quote it as list clogging ?
It will be interesting to see how things pan out , I have may doubts over how successful our strike rate will be from the 2009 and 2010 off season , trading , ND , pre season draft and rookie draft !
It won't surprise me at all if we only end up with 5 max, from those two years who play 75 games with the club ? Given the amount of high end picks and delisting I personally don't think that's enough ?

dont quote me on this but 4 or 5 yrs ago a good success rate for all clubs ran at around 60%.

i also think you will find late picks psd and rookie picks have a high fail rate within the first 2 or 3 seasons.

again a read somewhere that its only one or two rookies out of every 6 that make it.

if we were cutting a big number of early to mid range picks after just 2 seasons id be real concerned.

just one more thing i have said something similar to this a few times now. if the average number of players on your list is 45, and if the average length of time a succesful playerspends on yr list is 10 yrs then you need to find 4.5 good to very good players every yr to maintain your list that is assuming all 45 are at least afl standard to start with. this alone shows just how hard it is to maintain a list yet alone build one from scratch.

 

[captain blood 17]

It happens when a coach isnt under pressure to get "locked and loaded".

At last we are seeing the nessecary turnaround of the list, without the need to retain plodders for the sake of that good ol chestnut that was ****ing dragging us deeper into the mire , "but there aint anyone better to take his spot".

Kept screaming it from the rooftops back when the likes of Petrified, Hyde and the other usual suspects were walk up starts. How do you know there isnt anyone better when you dont want to ****ing find out...FFS.

Exactly right Coggabrah, this is why we must have patience with Dimma and why i love him at Tigerland. There is a plan and culture in place, you don't fit the mould, then see you later. It's been 3 decades since we've seen this type of ruthlessness.

 

[captain blood 17]

agree. would add the above is one reason why expectations should be low again this yr.
too few 100 gamers and too few in the 50 - 100 game bracket. add in the fact most of the more mature players we have are in the main mostly ordinary players theres not enough quality spread thru the side and there is a huge reliance still on developing players to carry the load.

And this is why people talking finals next season will be off the mark, due to turnover and player experience, it would be amazing if it happens in the next two seasons. (but then free agency could play a major hand in our fortunes as well).

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

dont quote me on this but 4 or 5 yrs ago a good success rate for all clubs ran at around 60%.

i also think you will find late picks psd and rookie picks have a high fail rate within the first 2 or 3 seasons.

again a read somewhere that its only one or two rookies out of every 6 that make it.

if we were cutting a big number of early to mid range picks after just 2 seasons id be real concerned.

just one more thing i have said something similar to this a few times now. if the average number of players on your list is 45, and if the average length of time a succesful playerspends on yr list is 10 yrs then you need to find 4.5 good to very good players every yr to maintain your list that is assuming all 45 are at least afl standard to start with. this alone shows just how hard it is to maintain a list yet alone build one from scratch.

Good post Santa !

A couple things I'd like to add is that I believe the average time spent on a list by players is somewhere near 4 years ??
I'd also agree that to maintain a list you need to find 4-5 good 75 + game players a year , which is something Geelong has continued to be able to do with low draft picks !
I guess I'm a little scepticle about whether we have found that amount anywhere near that , in fact I'd suggest we may have found 4-5 over the two year bracket , not 4-5 each of the years , and think it may be a direct consequence of picking up highly speculative , risky picks . Whether they be risky due to injury , such as Griffith, or character , such as Taylor and Roberts , or plain old trying to pluck one from no-where or by rating heaps higher than others , such as Nason, Webberly , Derickx or to a lesser extent Conca ( who I still think could make it , albeit maybe no as convinces as others who where taken around pick 6 , last year ?
The interesting thing will be to see how North go in 3-4 years, as they appear
to continue to pick , via the ND , the best player available pretty much irrespective of their type , and apparently will look to top up with players to suit need when they get closer to challenging ? No doub in my mind they have taken the safety option to build whereas Richmond appear to have taken a lot more of a highly risky type of re-build ?

 

[Bobsleder]

Good post Santa !

A couple things I'd like to add is that I believe the average time spent on a list by players is somewhere near 4 years ??
I'd also agree that to maintain a list you need to find 4-5 good 75 + game players a year , which is something Geelong has continued to be able to do with low draft picks !
I guess I'm a little scepticle about whether we have found that amount anywhere near that , in fact I'd suggest we may have found 4-5 over the two year bracket , not 4-5 each of the years , and think it may be a direct consequence of picking up highly speculative , risky picks . Whether they be risky due to injury , such as Griffith, or character , such as Taylor and Roberts , or plain old trying to pluck one from no-where or by rating heaps higher than others , such as Nason, Webberly , Derickx or to a lesser extent Conca ( who I still think could make it , albeit maybe no as convinces as others who where taken around pick 6 , last year ?
The interesting thing will be to see how North go in 3-4 years, as they appear
to continue to pick , via the ND , the best player available pretty much irrespective of their type , and apparently will look to top up with players to suit need when they get closer to challenging ? No doub in my mind they have taken the safety option to build whereas Richmond appear to have taken a lot more of a highly risky type of re-build ?

Agree we have taken a risky approach with some of our selections.
2009. To date:
- all ticks for 3 Martin, 35 Astbury, Rookie promotion Nahas, Preseason Grimes.
- questions marks on 19 Griffiths, 44 Dea, 67 Webberly, Rookie promotion Browne,
- Gone are 51 Taylor, 71 Nason, all the rookies

2010
- ticks for 6 Conca, 30 Butchelor, Preseason Houli, Rookie Miller, Trade Grigg
- time will tell on 47 Helbig, 51 MacDonald, 63 Derickx, Rookie promotion Gourids,
- gone rookies

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Agree we have taken a risky approach with some of our selections.
2009. To date:
- all ticks for 3 Martin, 35 Astbury, Rookie promotion Nahas, Preseason Grimes.
- questions marks on 19 Griffiths, 44 Dea, 67 Webberly, Rookie promotion Browne,
- Gone are 51 Taylor, 71 Nason, all the rookies

2010
- ticks for 6 Conca, 30 Butchelor, Preseason Houli, Rookie Miller, Trade Grigg
- time will tell on 47 Helbig, 51 MacDonald, 63 Derickx, Rookie promotion Gourids,
- gone rookies

Roberts was elevated to the list proper in preference to Goo IIRC and flew then coup, whilst you could also add Farmer and Hislop re-occupied a spot on the list proper !

 

[Madison]

Conca ( who I still think could make it , albeit maybe no as convinces as others who where taken around pick 6 , last year ?

Really? You still hold out hope for him. Surely he has had long enough to show that he will be no good. The guy can't even string one pre-season together without being injured.

And as for a seemingly low strike rate (no more than two years in), could it have something to do with picks that were significantly worse off than any other team in our position has had to ever deal with?

I think picking Conca, Batch and Helbig with picks that were on par with a finals teams picks, was a pretty good effort.

And Griffiths, Dea and Astbury have all missed large chunks of footy with injury. But when they have been on the park I think they have all shown enough that we can be confident they have enough talent to be players should they stay injury free (which isn't the fault of the recruiters).

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Really? You still hold out hope for him. Surely he has had long enough to show that he will be no good. The guy can't even string one pre-season together without being injured.
Did you not read where I stated about players that where taken around the same position within the draft ?

And as for a seemingly low strike rate (no more than two years in), could it have something to do with picks that were significantly worse off than any other team in our position has had to ever deal with?

So you believe that its common for clubs to have unloaded such a high number of players, who have joined their club within the past two years ?

I think picking Conca, Batch and Helbig with picks that were on par with a finals teams picks, was a pretty good effort.

Could you clarify a little more I am not aware of the finals sides which had picks on par with us over the past 2 years ?

And Griffiths, Dea and Astbury have all missed large chunks of footy with injury. But when they have been on the park I think they have all shown enough that we can be confident they have enough talent to be players should they stay injury free (which isn't the fault of the recruiters).

You are aware Griffiths had shoulder injury, pre the ND where he was selected , and that I have already conceeded that I believe we may have picked up 4-5 player in the past 2 years ?

 

[santa claws]

Really? You still hold out hope for him. Surely he has had long enough to show that he will be no good. The guy can't even string one pre-season together without being injured.

And as for a seemingly low strike rate (no more than two years in), could it have something to do with picks that were significantly worse off than any other team in our position has had to ever deal with?

I think picking Conca, Batch and Helbig with picks that were on par with a finals teams picks, was a pretty good effort.

And Griffiths, Dea and Astbury have all missed large chunks of footy with injury. But when they have been on the park I think they have all shown enough that we can be confident they have enough talent to be players should they stay injury free (which isn't the fault of the recruiters).

i think the angle is conca and batchelor were considered lower picks by most.
not having a go at them but it is a reasonable criticism imo.

as it was i advocated we use the tambling pick. and i also advocated we take heppell at 6, i thought he would go top 3.
i also thought atley and caddy far better prospects than conca along with a few others like tape.
ive since bitterly complained about us not activating the compo pick with it i have often said we would now have scott lycett who will be a really good ruckman imo.like jack darling he was a slider.

with pick 31 i wanted us to target a mid or key defender. pat mccarthy ended up my choice i thought him easily the best key defender in that draft. most were gobsmacked including the experts that we took batchelor there. the consensus was he would last well into the third round if not later.
there was every chance we could have taken him at 47 and still got helbig at 51.
so yes there was a perception in some quarters that we did take a risk with some of our picks.

 

[The Goon]

Agree we have taken a risky approach with some of our selections.
2009. To date:
- all ticks for 3 Martin, 35 Astbury, Rookie promotion Nahas, Preseason Grimes.
- questions marks on 19 Griffiths, 44 Dea, 67 Webberly, Rookie promotion Browne,
- Gone are 51 Taylor, 71 Nason, all the rookies

2010
- ticks for 6 Conca, 30 Butchelor, Preseason Houli, Rookie Miller, Trade Grigg
- time will tell on 47 Helbig, 51 MacDonald, 63 Derickx, Rookie promotion Gourids,
- gone rookies

By your assessment:

Ticks = 9
Jury out = 8 (but you'd have to expect some of them to come good)

That's a pretty reasonable strike rate I'd have thought for the last two years, one of which was heavily compromised.

 

[tigers_of_old_08]

i think the angle is conca and batchelor were considered lower picks by most.
not having a go at them but it is a reasonable criticism imo.

as it was i advocated we use the tambling pick. and i also advocated we take heppell at 6, i thought he would go top 3.
i also thought atley and caddy far better prospects than conca along with a few others like tape.
ive since bitterly complained about us not activating the compo pick with it i have often said we would now have scott lycett who will be a really good ruckman imo.like jack darling he was a slider.

with pick 31 i wanted us to target a mid or key defender. pat mccarthy ended up my choice i thought him easily the best key defender in that draft. most were gobsmacked including the experts that we took batchelor there. the consensus was he would last well into the third round if not later.
there was every chance we could have taken him at 47 and still got helbig at 51.
so yes there was a perception in some quarters that we did take a risk with some of our picks.

Tend to agree with practically your entire post, santa. Is it at the same time a damning assessment of Jackson's ability as a recruiter?

 

[Bobsleder]

By your assessment:

Ticks = 9
Jury out = 8 (but you'd have to expect some of them to come good)

That's a pretty reasonable strike rate I'd have thought for the last two years, one of which was heavily compromised.

There is hope there! I really hope the Big Derickx and Griffiths get up and going.

Note, if you focus on the kids and take out the mature age trades, picks and upgrades (Houli, Grigg, Miller, Nahas) it brings back a cog or two.

"Some" risky selections in ND re Griffiths (inj), Taylor (troubled youth), Nason (speculative late pick as you do with 71, but plucked at the reserve level at Centrals was a big ask - wasn't he?).

I don't have a crystal ball, nor do the recruiters. But they obviously have to weigh up (injuries, behaviors etc) when selecting player x over player a, b & c and it's fair to say that for a few of the risky selections the reward hasn't been there. Hopefully that all changes soon.