At the selection table - Getting on the front foot

[drakeyv2]

except that after 110 odd games, we have all seen enough of Fraser to know that he is not the player imagined before he came into the league. I don't think there is even a Collingwood supporter who still holds that hope.
not too much crystal balling needed.

I hope you can spot the difference.

Neither is Brad Ottens. Both were gonna be superstars. It doesn't mean 1) their lack of progress is due to being played early, 2) that they arn't valuable players or 3) they wont develope into better players than they are now.

 

[drakeyv2]

I agree this is a time to press home an advantage. A winning environment is the right climate to bring on young players. A losing rabble, is not going to help anyone's development.

So What you are saying is that Clarke is the difference between us being a winning environment & a losing rabble. Where the hell is this winning environment?

 

[Wood_Duck]

Neither is Brad Ottens. Both were gonna be superstars. It doesn't mean 1) their lack of progress is due to being played early, 2) that they arn't valuable players or 3) they wont develope into better players than they are now.

Agree. How anyone can say that certain players have not reached their potential because they were played too early is beyond me. What an absolute load of twaddle. How the hell can you possibly make that call.

 

[drakeyv2]

Agree. How anyone can anyone say that certain players have not reached their potential because they were played too early is beyond me. What an absolute load of twaddle. How the hell can you possibly make that call.

Yes - Stiffys logic is Fraser was played early & has not lived up to his perceived potential, therefore he has not lived up to potential because he was played early, therefore all players who are played early will fail to reach potential.

Using the same logic I could argue Riewoldt was played early & has lived up to potential, therefore he has lived up to potential because he was played early, therefore all players who are played early will live up to potential.

Excuse me while I now do the rolly eye symbol.

This like saying that if all fish live under water & all mackrel are fish then if I buy kippers it will not rain or that trout live in trees.

The facts are that Craig supposedly wants to play Biglands in the pocket & change 2 ruckmen off the bench. He could have done this by promoting Meesen who would have been required for 5-10 minutes a quarter against an upgraded rookie in his 2nd game.

I think this is another short sighted selection by the club.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Yes - Stiffys logic is Fraser was played early & has not lived up to his perceived potential, therefore he has not lived up to potential because he was played early, therefore all players who are played early will fail to reach potential.

Using the same logic I could argue Riewoldt was played early & has lived up to potential, therefore he has lived up to potential because he was played early, therefore all players who are played early will live up to potential.

Excuse me while I now do the rolly eye symbol.

This like saying that if all fish live under water & all mackrel are fish then if I buy kippers it will not rain or that trout live in trees.

The facts are that Craig supposedly wants to play Biglands in the pocket & change 2 ruckmen off the bench. He could have done this by promoting Meesen who would have been required for 5-10 minutes a quarter against an upgraded rookie in his 2nd game.

I think this is another short sighted selection by the club.

Now that I've stopped laughing, I agree with the point about Meeson playing 10 mins per quater. I'm sure that 10 mins up against a bloke that has played less football than him (i.e Fanning) is hardly going to destroy his career.

 

[marvin]

no.

missed the point. If you think they have to be blooding all these youngsters, where's the stampede? If they are just promoting next in line, which may be the case, that has nothing to do with the environment these guys go into.

the point is the environment they offer these young guys, it's the luxury of a strong team structure and leadership group. Ain't no one picking up any bad habits in that lot. unlike us at the moment.

I would agree with you that it's probably easier being Jed Adcock or Troy Selwood than it will be being Nathan Van Berlo this week, because of the quality of player they have around them.

Brisbane's list has a unique demographic, in that there is an extremely clear division between who is a legitimate AFL player and who is untried. The only player who they've got on their list who's played double digit games who you might doubt whether they would get to 100 is Dylan McLaren.

When one of Brisbane's best XXII is out, Matthews isn't faced with a choice between an unproven youngster and a fringe player who isn't up to it, because unlike the Crows, he doesn't have any of the latter.

There's no doubt that Matthews is prepared to "queue jump" a unique talent. Jarred Brennan is a case in point.

 

[rooboy]

Wow, a very passionate thread, I love it.

Personally, I think that it is important for 'kids' (and that's all these boys are at 18 years old) to be exposed to a level like the SANFL/WAFL where the bodies are bigger and the tempo is raised somewhat. Now like Arrowman and Crow-mosone have pointed out, I think it is not necessarily important what kind of stats these guys churn out at SANFL level, but more so the poise and composure that they show when they get near the football. By this reckoning, here is my take on some of the names that have been mentioned:

VB - Poised, classy, has played amongst men. Definitely look to play him. Should play some AFL footy this year.
Meese - No need to rush this boy. Exciting talent, but probably needs time for his body to fill out and adapt to the faster pace of SANFL footy before being selected at AFL level.
Knights - Impressive stats first up. By all accounts is a class act and looks the part. Like VB, should be exposed to AFL football this year.

That's my 2c

What he said.

 

[marvin]

agreed, but you seem to think there is certainty as to who these guys are? Not to mention when they are ready to take this step.

I would think it would be fairly obvious. Van Berlo, Meesen, Watts, Kruger if fit, Gibson, Knights, Jericho. Not saying that all these guys will go on to be AFL stars, but like St Kilda a few years ago, we need to sort the Dal Santo's from the Montagna's.

In earlier post, you stated that we all on hereknew who wouldn't be taking the club forward and that the match committee better know too. (if I have misquoted you in my paraphrasing, let me know).
The thing is, this suffers from the same point, a flaw presumption of certainty. We know nothing of the sort, and are guessing like amateurs, they know a hullva lot more than we do. We do not know, we have not identified with any certainty the key points of who and when is the right time to work with those players who will take us forward.

A fair summation of what I tried to say.

If we were to take a straw poll here of who would not be a part of the Adelaide Football club in season 2008, I reckon we'd gut a unanimous response about 12 names, and some arguing backwards and forwards about another 6 or so. Do you disagree with that?

Now, if us amateurs can do that, the professionals at the club better be able to.

Each development or fringe player on our list we have things to work on, as dictated to them by the coaching staff - there achievements in relation to this will determine when, if, or how many games they play for us.
It's a step too far to be making guesses from where we sit, on who is where in relation to this.

I have no problem if the coaching staff want to play 4 or 5 of our young guys this week, as long as they are comfortable it's the right thing to do at the right time. I don't think I have enough information to second guess the guys who are there everyday. I also want the team to have a chance of winning, not tieing one behind it's back, searching for the false prophet of 'player development'. You want to teach these guys about winning, and competitive contestability, and I think you can manage this as well as bringing in the new guys. I don't think you can do it with blue sky optimism and impatience.
As I said earlier, isn't this really about our impatience, and not the players development?

I'm not suggesting that the match committee are avoiding their responsibility if they don't pick 5 kids this week. I'm also not suggesting that sitting here in Melbourne I watch the boys as closely as they do, nor am I provy to their discussion.

I'm also not advocating we tank the season. By no stretch am I suggesting we drop Roo, Macca, Kenny McGregor and leave Goodwin at South Adelaide to look at Matthew Smith, Knights, Jericho and Van Berlo.

The thing I am arguing against is the notion that the selection panel needs to have more time to look at the likes of Bode, Skipworth, Shirley, Massie, Torney, et al, all of whom have been in the system for a number of years, and many of whom have now played the equivalent of half a season under Craig, plus had a full summer to impress him or otherwise.

I don't think the selection committee have the luxury of time to make a decision about these blokes for next year. Their folders should be fairly clearly marked as to whether they sitting at the end of the gangplank next to Chris Ladhams, or moving into the Hentschel/Rutten camp of being a walk up start each week.

I guess that with the number of players we've delisted and re-drafted, or de-listed, rookie-listed then elevated, I don't have confidence in the decision making ability of the football department at the club to actually make those decisions.

It may be impatience on my part, but I'd rather that than issue avoidance.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Marvin,

I think I know where you're coming from, and fair enough.

I would think it would be fairly obvious. Van Berlo, Meesen, Watts, Kruger if fit, Gibson, Knights, Jericho. Not saying that all these guys will go on to be AFL stars, but like St Kilda a few years ago, we need to sort the Dal Santo's from the Montagna's.

If we were to take a straw poll here of who would not be a part of the Adelaide Football club in season 2008, I reckon we'd gut a unanimous response about 12 names, and some arguing backwards and forwards about another 6 or so. Do you disagree with that?

Now, if us amateurs can do that, the professionals at the club better be able to.

I disagree with the idea, that whatever we think is right. just because we take a straw poll, means nothing. the amateurs can pull names out of thin air, but the professionals actually have to be right.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

every clubs supporters wants to see their young players get a game and i think most of the time club match committee's are just as keen. however, if the kid is not upto it then it will do more harm than good playing him. this problem is magnified in young ruckmen, if they are thrown into the deep end they have potential to lose alot of confidence and get pounded. i think alot of people dont realise the physicality of playing ruck. its not like the other positions on the ground and you will get found out if your not upto it with your body or mind.

meeson has talent, he will be a very good player. there is no point rushing it, let him learn to play against men because unlike smaller players, ruckmen rely on the ability of their opponent as much as their own ability. smaller players can use dash or skill but ruckmen are alot more restricted.

we drafted mark seaby in 2001 he had very similar proportions to meeson. mark played well in the WAFL in his first year, but he didnt get a game. the following year, he played the whole year in the WAFL, gunned it, was possibly the best ruckman in the league and was runner up in the Sandover Medal. he still didnt get a game. at the time alot of eagles supporters were getting restless but when 2003 came around, we all saw what the club had done. mark was ready to step up, he was confident, he knew how to ruck against grown men and knew what was required of him. i do not think we would have got that by playing 20 games of AFL and 20 games of WAFL over those 2yrs. in the AFL he would have got limited exposure and the moving back and forward to AFL and WAFL ranks would have upset his mindset and confidence.

i suppose the moral of the story is that ruckmen take time and the more you put into their development the more you will get out of them. by all means play VB, he is a completely different proposition but i would lock meeson into the SANFL at least until round 18 of the AFL. depending on form, oppositon etc give him a taste before the years out. the last thing you want is for john to get pounded in the ruck and then get dropped back to the SAFL, thinking, am i upto it?

Good Call. Let him develop in the sanfl. The last thing we need is to draft quality youngsters and then burn them. I would hope VB, Meeson, Gibson, and maybe Hinger play a few games, but no more than between 4-6. However, it's now time to throw SChuback, Kruger and to a lesser extent Watts to the lions to see if they have what it takes. I would also give Smith ( sigh ) a game or two to see if has it - I strongly doubt it, but why else would we elevate him??????

 

[Mong]

I agree. I've been watching this thread, it's been very interesting, and marvin's is one of the best contributions.

My 2 cents - let's forget about whether it's round 2 or round 5 or whatever. The issue is not whether VB and Meese (or anyone else) gets a gig v Collingwood, I can see the arguments both ways.

The real issue is how we handle those guys over the whole year. My view is -

If we are serious about rebuilding, we must put some serious game time (like 8-10 games plus) into at least some of the 2004 draftees this year - VB and Meesen at least, and the others as and when they show they're up for it (Gibson probably not at his age). And the same probably applies to some of the other youngsters from previous years.

That serious game time must come in 5 game blocks, not 1-2 games here and there. Give them a chance to settle.

The 2004 draftees (and other youngsters) do not have to "fully" earn their spot in the 1st 22 - they don't have to FORCE the match committee to select them - they just have to play "well enough" in the SANFL. I know that sounds soft, but the reality is we WANT to play them and we MUST play them or we are wasting the year. Reality is that those guys do not have to earn their spot in the 1st 22 as much as some of the older players, if you know what I mean. You'd never say that out loud to the playing group, but I'd say (I hope) that that is what is in the back of the match committee's minds.

Round 2, meh. But if VB and Meesen haven't played 5 games each by round 11, I'll be wondering what's going on.

This post pretty much sums up my feeling towards it. Sure, I am looking forward to seeing Meesen play as much as anyone but it is only round 2. There's a whole season of games still to be played. And they will get games this season, most probably in the first half of the season too.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Yes - Stiffys logic is Fraser was played early & has not lived up to his perceived potential, therefore he has not lived up to potential because he was played early, therefore all players who are played early will fail to reach potential.

Using the same logic I could argue Riewoldt was played early & has lived up to potential, therefore he has lived up to potential because he was played early, therefore all players who are played early will live up to potential.

Excuse me while I now do the rolly eye symbol.

This like saying that if all fish live under water & all mackrel are fish then if I buy kippers it will not rain or that trout live in trees.

The facts are that Craig supposedly wants to play Biglands in the pocket & change 2 ruckmen off the bench. He could have done this by promoting Meesen who would have been required for 5-10 minutes a quarter against an upgraded rookie in his 2nd game.

I think this is another short sighted selection by the club.

Is that the best you could come up with

Fraser has played over 100 AFL games and is not even close to becoming a player he was expected to become. He got thrown to the wolves early, before he could develop as a footballer and more importantly develop his body. Because he played so much fast paced footy at such an early age and with under-developed frame he copped more than his fair share of physical punishment. He even had OP and that has slowed him down considerably.

You mention Reiwoldt and thats fair enough but you I am not saying that every 18 year old is not ready. Nick was and still is a super talent that was always going to play if he was fit. Wells was another one that was going to get a lot of game time despite being skinny.

Another thing that completely staggers me is that you want to play Meesen on a back of a couple of solid pre-season games and Norwood internal trial where he was up against someone like Tim Nicholas. When he shows something promising against quality opposition then give him a game but don't give him a game just because he is an 18 year old and we our need to blood youngsters.

He will get his chance when he earns it not when some BF posters think he should.

 

[Stiffy_18]

every clubs supporters wants to see their young players get a game and i think most of the time club match committee's are just as keen. however, if the kid is not upto it then it will do more harm than good playing him. this problem is magnified in young ruckmen, if they are thrown into the deep end they have potential to lose alot of confidence and get pounded. i think alot of people dont realise the physicality of playing ruck. its not like the other positions on the ground and you will get found out if your not upto it with your body or mind.

meeson has talent, he will be a very good player. there is no point rushing it, let him learn to play against men because unlike smaller players, ruckmen rely on the ability of their opponent as much as their own ability. smaller players can use dash or skill but ruckmen are alot more restricted.

we drafted mark seaby in 2001 he had very similar proportions to meeson. mark played well in the WAFL in his first year, but he didnt get a game. the following year, he played the whole year in the WAFL, gunned it, was possibly the best ruckman in the league and was runner up in the Sandover Medal. he still didnt get a game. at the time alot of eagles supporters were getting restless but when 2003 came around, we all saw what the club had done. mark was ready to step up, he was confident, he knew how to ruck against grown men and knew what was required of him. i do not think we would have got that by playing 20 games of AFL and 20 games of WAFL over those 2yrs. in the AFL he would have got limited exposure and the moving back and forward to AFL and WAFL ranks would have upset his mindset and confidence.

i suppose the moral of the story is that ruckmen take time and the more you put into their development the more you will get out of them. by all means play VB, he is a completely different proposition but i would lock meeson into the SANFL at least until round 18 of the AFL. depending on form, oppositon etc give him a taste before the years out. the last thing you want is for john to get pounded in the ruck and then get dropped back to the SAFL, thinking, am i upto it?

Best post in this thread

 

[Stiffy_18]

Good Call. Let him develop in the sanfl. The last thing we need is to draft quality youngsters and then burn them. I would hope VB, Meeson, Gibson, and maybe Hinger play a few games, but no more than between 4-6. However, it's now time to throw SChuback, Kruger and to a lesser extent Watts to the lions to see if they have what it takes. I would also give Smith ( sigh ) a game or two to see if has it - I strongly doubt it, but why else would we elevate him??????

From what I have seen of Gibson this year he is a LONG way away from getting a game. I would say he wouldn't get a game this year.

Hinge is a rookie so he can only get a game if we have a long term injury and he gets upgraded. I think he would be ready for a couple of games.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

From what I have seen of Gibson this year he is a LONG way away from getting a game. I would say he wouldn't get a game this year.

Hinge is a rookie so he can only get a game if we have a long term injury and he gets upgraded. I think he would be ready for a couple of games.

Gibson has to get in the SANFL league side first

Likewise Hinge (playing reserves) has to play SANFL - seems peoples perceptions of players abilities is VERY VERY strongly dictated by their period of time on the list and their age.

Year 1 assessment - great potential going to be part of the team revival
Year 2 assessment - all the flaws in the players game suddenly materialise
Year 3 assessment - dud get rid of him - which is about 21-22 years of age.

So much for supporters assessment of players

 

[Stiffy_18]

Gibson has to get in the SANFL league side first

Likewise Hinge (playing reserves) has to play SANFL - seems peoples perceptions of players abilities is VERY VERY strongly dictated by their period of time on the list and their age.

Year 1 assessment - great potential going to be part of the team revival
Year 2 assessment - all the flaws in the players game suddenly materialise
Year 3 assessment - dud get rid of him - which is about 21-22 years of age.

So much for supporters assessment of players

Thats a pretty good summary

 

[marvin]

Another thing that completely staggers me is that you want to play Meesen on a back of a couple of solid pre-season games and Norwood internal trial where he was up against someone like Tim Nicholas. When he shows something promising against quality opposition then give him a game but don't give him a game just because he is an 18 year old and we our need to blood youngsters.

He already has. Jeff White and Mark Jamar.

 

[marvin]

I disagree with the idea, that whatever we think is right. just because we take a straw poll, means nothing. the amateurs can pull names out of thin air, but the professionals actually have to be right.

That's true. And to be fair to the professionals, the decisions they have made to release or trade players (excluding the want-aways like Johnson and Stenglein who they can't be blamed for) have not come back to bite us, suggesting they get it right often.

However, I doubt that another 10-15 games of AFL footy from Shirley, Bode, Ladhams et al is going to reveal the recessive Chris Judd gene hidden in them, and I would suspect the professionals have enough data to know that. They've still got to make the decision about whether to delist or to keep them as depth cover for more seasons, but they don't need to see them in the big league to make that decision.

 

[drakeyv2]

Is that the best you could come up with

Fraser has played over 100 AFL games and is not even close to becoming a player he was expected to become. He got thrown to the wolves early, before he could develop as a footballer and more importantly develop his body. Because he played so much fast paced footy at such an early age and with under-developed frame he copped more than his fair share of physical punishment. He even had OP and that has slowed him down considerably.

You mention Reiwoldt and thats fair enough but you I am not saying that every 18 year old is not ready. Nick was and still is a super talent that was always going to play if he was fit. Wells was another one that was going to get a lot of game time despite being skinny.

Another thing that completely staggers me is that you want to play Meesen on a back of a couple of solid pre-season games and Norwood internal trial where he was up against someone like Tim Nicholas. When he shows something promising against quality opposition then give him a game but don't give him a game just because he is an 18 year old and we our need to blood youngsters.

He will get his chance when he earns it not when some BF posters think he should.

I watched Norwood v Centrals on Saturday & if that is a true indicator of Norwood's "game plan" for the year then I hold out no hope for Meesen getting anything out of playing SANFL this year.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

From what I have seen of Gibson this year he is a LONG way away from getting a game. I would say he wouldn't get a game this year.

Hinge is a rookie so he can only get a game if we have a long term injury and he gets upgraded. I think he would be ready for a couple of games.

I wrote this before Saturdays discussion.

 

[The Smith Revolution]

If I may "moderate" this thread, as the creator, I believe the following (and i say this as someone who has been on the payroll of an AFL club as a "scout");

Yes, the initial comment was made out of frustration, and it had a lot of impatient supporter about it. The pro's and con's were extremely well discussed here.

Big men take a lot of time.

If you can play, you can play, regardless of all the ifs, buts and maybes chucked up on this thread. If your any good, it'll work out. Just think about Warnies debut!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thankyou and goodnight. And let the Smith Revolution begin!