Changes for next week

[Vader]

BUT to isolate Burtons mistakes / supposed flaws and basically overlook 70% of the rest of the team player mistakes / flaws is just targeted fan obsession

I readily accept that Vince & Thompson have been poor this season and that Burton is certainly not on his Pat Malone in that regard. There are a couple of fundamental differences though.

Firstly Vince and Thompson, the two you named, are getting a LOT more of the pill than Burton. In the last 2 weeks Vince has had 44 disposals and Thompson 44. Burton has managed just 23. Their usage of the ball, unfortunately, has been just as bad as Burton's.

Secondly, Vince and Thompson are both considerably younger than Burton and will probably be around for our next attack on the finals. Vince is 24, Thompson is 27, Burton is 32 and won't be around past the end of 2010.

Thirdly, Vince and Thompson don't have any ready made replacements waiting in the wings at the moment - the only options for replacing them at present are Armstrong, Sloane and (maybe) Gunston. We can only hope that the players returning from injury are able to step things up and put pressure on the incumbents in our midfield. In contrast, Burton has Walker waiting, ready and willing. Walker might not be a massive upgrade on Burton given his current form - but Burton is 32 and spiralling rapidly downwards at the end of his career, Walker is 20 and his star is on the rise. There is little to no justification for continuing to select Burton ahead of Walker.

 

[relapse]

Yep ..i can handle strong player assessment ....i do it all the time

BUT to isolate Burtons mistakes / supposed flaws and basically overlook 70% of the rest of the team player mistakes / flaws is just targeted fan obsession

All based on the premise that Burton is holding Walker out of the side

We're 1-6 in wins ........our turnovers are killing us, our stoppage clearances are killing us .... we're 15th IIRC for contested ball in the comp .....and yet it appears Burton is the player that all our rage is targeted at

As I have said fair is fair and Burton has been a good servant of the club and doesn't deserve this .....simply because of Walker

You need to look at the bigger picture, most of us have written off 2010. There is no blame there is only the realisation that we need focus more on development now than we have been in recent seasons.

We can either continue down the pointless path of trying to play into form senior players who are struggling in their final year or use the time to build towards 2011. There is no hatred towards Burton, but just the common understanding that with the season gone we gain nothing by trying to play Burton into form and are only robbing development time away from a player like Walker.

 

[WALL-e]

So the FSI indicator included Moran, Symes and Otten in our best 22 at the start of the year, but now their places are taken by Dangerfield, Davis and Douglas in our best FSI team. Now, you can argue around the margins about which of those 6 players are in our best 22, but what you can't argue ist hat Moran, Symes and Otten dropped out of our best 22 on performance - they dropped out because they are injured and haven't played this year.

It's a team stability index to some extent, but to call it a full strength index when the baseline varies so much is crazy.

This!

So Otto is no longer worthy of a spot in our 22.....why? Because he's ****ing injured, thus we are not at full strength!

Our bloody FSI changed when our team didn't!

This is crazy, I understand the formula they're trying to use based on form and a rolling best 22 to include any new revelations, but to just dicount players that haven't played in a while is stupid. Like so many things, it's a good idea in principal, but doesn't work.

 

[Allefgib]

Allefgib -
I have no problem with the concept of the FSI - and it makes perfect sense that teams which are close to full strength will perform better than those who are missing key players due to injury. This is backed up by the statistics you have provided.

My questions relate to the implementation of the FSI, something which you didn't address at all.

Fair enough mate.

However, I do think its valid, to a degree, for Crow-Mo to refer to it whenever people point to our injury issues. Basically because the statistics back up a reasonable level of accuracy in applying the FSI. Therefore irrespective of our understanding of how it works it would appear reasonably valid to apply it rather than our own subjective interpretation of our injury issues.

Given the subsequent responses by others - good work guys - we now all have a little more ability to debate HOW it is done.

The results of it's accuracy obviously need a bigger sample pool but they can be produced in black and white. So far they would indicate there are bigger issues at play at our club then our injury issues. So let's debate those issues!

 

[BunjiMac]

If we want Burton bashing, I will look no further than the Power threads. Burton has not been at his best in front of goals (I think we can all agree on that). He has made some mistakes in a the last few weeks (but who in the Squad hasn't? Notice we are 1-6). What he does do is use his agility to get to where the ball is going. He has an enermous tank and can run through the game better than most of the kids.
He does do plenty of things which I think becomes unnoticed. Unfortunately it is easy to see him miss from set shots, and think they guy is useless.

He does have a good tank and does run to alot of places, however something has definitely changed this season. That tank may still be there, but at the end of a run, he seems to get a case of the jelly legs, or fails to execute properly. His aerobic capacity may still be strong but his anaerobic capacity has definitely diminished. I believe the recovery from his knee reconstruction and his age has resulted in the decrease in his overall anaerobic muscle mass. This isn't something that can be fixed mid-season and something that is difficult to fix as you get older. I think if Burton is to stay in the side, it should not be as a forward, at best he should play on a wing.

 

[Bovo]

We can either continue down the pointless path of trying to play into form senior players who are struggling in their final year or use the time to build towards 2011. There is no hatred towards Burton, but just the common understanding that with the season gone we gain nothing by trying to play Burton into form and are only robbing development time away from a player like Walker.

And here in lies the difference from the Crows and those mobs over the boarder who repeatedly tank. Craig has a simple philosophy and that is whoever is in form plays. Who is out, does not. We can argue whether Burton, Edwards, McLeod, Doughty, and Goody are in form based on our beliefs, but put simply it is up to Craigy.
He won't give Armstrong a jumper, unless the guy earns his spot. I, as a fan who goes to the game, am not sure I want to go and watch my club continually lose because they are throwing youngens into the game who are not ready. It is not fair to the fans, the sponsors, or the winning attitude the club seeks.
This year we are down not because the over 30's are not performing, it is because the whole team has not been performing. Whether that be due to injury, form, or, over training....who knows?!?! What we do know is that the Crows had the potential to be a finals contender this year. If we can manage our injuries for the rest of this year, than that would put us in good stead for next year.

Blooding kids is an excuse that clubs use when they are going to bottom out. The Crows will never adopt that philosophy, and personally I say Thank God!!

 

[Bovo]

He does have a good tank and does run to alot of places, however something has definitely changed this season. That tank may still be there, but at the end of a run, he seems to get a case of the jelly legs, or fails to execute properly. His aerobic capacity may still be strong but his anaerobic capacity has definitely diminished. I believe the recovery from his knee reconstruction and his age has resulted in the decrease in his overall anaerobic muscle mass. This isn't something that can be fixed mid-season and something that is difficult to fix as you get older. I think if Burton is to stay in the side, it should not be as a forward, at best he should play on a wing.

I actually don't mind if Burton played on the wing. He can still come forward and help out with the odd goal. The thing is, he does get enough of the ball to earn his spot. If he was kicking some of these "easy" goals than the Burton topic probably would not even exist. But he is missing them, and we will criticise him accordinly.

 

[Allefgib]

This!

So Otto is no longer worthy of a spot in our 22.....why? Because he's ****ing injured, thus we are not at full strength!

Our bloody FSI changed when our team didn't!

This is crazy, I understand the formula they're trying to use based on form and a rolling best 22 to include any new revelations, but to just dicount players that haven't played in a while is stupid. Like so many things, it's a good idea in principal, but doesn't work.

It has its weakness in that regard sure.

But it's like tackles - that stat is a massive focus for the competition right now. There are many subjective interpretations associated with tackle count but the big things is this - you win the tackle count and you usually win (or many clubs have stated that I actually have not analysed this one myself).

So you can easily measure tackles and their 'rough' accuracy on impacting results.

The same thinking should be applied to the FSI - if it continues to show a strong correlation to actual results.

As Vader indicated I actually prefer the 'CD' score or whatever it was. That number would just compare relative strengths of the sides and would show an 80% Geelong is better than a 100% most other clubs

What it boils down to for me is that it's an interesting stat that seems to have give a reasonably accurate insight into how much of a team we are putting on the park relative to our opponents. Looking at the raw numbers for the first 3 rounds, overall if you had a higher FSI you won 70% of the time. For the year our average FSI has been 87.4. Our opponnets has been 87.9. Bugger all difference.

What may be different though is that our 'best' players do not measure up against the oppositions 'best' players. Or we are playing unfit players due to having insufficient depth so are forced to etc.

That's all some of us are trying to use the FSI to reflect - the problems are not the injuries themselves but elsewhere and that is where the clubs review of our efforts and improvement should be focussed!

 

[BunjiMac]

Blooding kids is an excuse that clubs use when they are going to bottom out. The Crows will never adopt that philosophy, and personally I say Thank God!!

That's not quite true. Some would argue that NC's philosophy of playing the best 22 each week lacks vision and consideration of the future, especially when we have a losing side and the season is almost a right off. This philosophy may save the supporters immeditate pain, however it is counter-productive for player development and leadership transitioning. Those sides blooding youngsters are looking to the future have a view that a football education is best learnt at the highest level. Investing in this education now will see you reap rewards earlier.

I think NC's philosophies are geared towards bringing up great people, and not great footballers. There is nothing wrong with this and probably should be commended, however it doesn't translate into premierships.

 

[Vader]

You need to look at the bigger picture, most of us have written off 2010. There is no blame there is only the realisation that we need focus more on development now than we have been in recent seasons.

We can either continue down the pointless path of trying to play into form senior players who are struggling in their final year or use the time to build towards 2011. There is no hatred towards Burton, but just the common understanding that with the season gone we gain nothing by trying to play Burton into form and are only robbing development time away from a player like Walker.

As usual, you're misrepresenting Neil Craig's coaching (and selection) philosophy.

He believes that the best environment for developing the youngsters is one where the team standards are maintained at the highest possible level. That usually means that the veterans will continue to be selected ahead of the kids, no matter where we are on the ladder.

What he believes is that we're better off playing 7 kids in the team and all of the veterans, expecting those kids to maintain the same high standards as the more senior players around them, than playing 12 kids and having to accept lower standards. He'd rather have 7 kids learning the right lessons, rather than 12 kids learning the wrong lessons.

Many on this board would disagree, regarding any experience as good experience - and hence preferring the 12 kids option.

I don't agree that "any experience is good experience". I think that the kids need to justify their selection. However, I also think that nobody should be gifted games, no matter how senior the player is. Where I would query Craig's approach is his willingness to continue selecting senior players when they are not performing to the high standards demanded of everyone else. If the player isn't maintaining the high standards demanded by the club (and coach) then they should be replaced (if possible) by another player who is/will, no matter how senior the player might be. This is where the Burton/Walker issue comes to the fore - Burton is NOT performing to an acceptable standard and should be dropped as a result. There are several others who are not performing to high standards, unfortunately our lengthy injury list means that there are few (if any) alternatives for replacing them.

 

[Vader]

That's not quite true. Some would argue that NC's philosophy of playing the best 22 each week lacks vision and consideration of the future, especially when we have a losing side and the season is almost a right off. This philosophy may save the supporters immeditate pain, however it is counter-productive for player development and leadership transitioning. Those sides blooding youngsters are looking to the future have a view that a football education is best learnt at the highest level. Investing in this education now will see you reap rewards earlier.

I think NC's philosophies are geared towards bringing up great people, and not great footballers. There is nothing wrong with this and probably should be commended, however it doesn't translate into premierships.

I beg to differ. Neil Craig's philosophy is to introduce the youngsters into a team performing at the highest possible standard. He doesn't agree with the idea of gifting games to youngsters who don't deserve them. He thinks that there is more benefit to be obtained from playing a smaller number of kids in a team maintaining high standards than there is in playing a larger number of kids in a team maintaining lower standards.

He'd rather have a smaller number of kids learning good habits, rather than a large number of kids learning bad habits. Put it that way and it's difficult to disagree with him.

 

[Bovo]

That's not quite true. Some would argue that NC's philosophy of playing the best 22 each week lacks vision and consideration of the future, especially when we have a losing side and the season is almost a right off. This philosophy may save the supporters immeditate pain, however it is counter-productive for player development and leadership transitioning. Those sides blooding youngsters are looking to the future have a view that a football education is best learnt at the highest level. Investing in this education now will see you reap rewards earlier.

I think NC's philosophies are geared towards bringing up great people, and not great footballers. There is nothing wrong with this and probably should be commended, however it doesn't translate into premierships.

Sure, and that is a great argument. I personally, have no issues blooding young kids. It needs to be done. My argument is more geared towards blooding kids for the sake of it (because we are going to miss finals or similar).

The other very important side of the argument is whether a kid is ready or not. An AFL career can be destroyed very quickly because not everyone are a Trengove or Scully and can pick up the game running. You throw a kid who is not playing well or just doing enough in the SANFL, suddenly into AFL and see how he goes. The comparision between the two competitions is enormous. Some will swim, whilst most will sink.

A lot of clubs have done it in the past, but many of these clubs have gained pretty decent concession players in the draft to make their team strong again. I am not sure how many of the "blooded" medium players even end up staying on the list....

Also, kids need to look up to the seniors for guidance and example. Any changes need to be done with plenty of thought.

Personally, I believe if we can get our preferred 22 for the year onto the park, then we are going to play decent footy. We may have left our run too late to make finals, but I am not certain we need to blood kids.

Of course my thoughts only

 

[jackster83]

Well if we keep all the veterans in the team, then the kids are still going to end up in a sink or swim situation anyway...it will just be delayed until the start of next year.

How will we have gained (apart from maybe finishing 1 or 2 spots further from the bottom this year)?

 

[Vader]

Well if we keep all the veterans in the team, then the kids are still going to end up in a sink or swim situation anyway...it will just be delayed until the start of next year.

How will we have gained (apart from maybe finishing 1 or 2 spots further from the bottom this year)?

What we have gained is that the youngsters who DO get to play with the veterans will have developed good playing habits, not bad ones. That puts us in good stead for the longer term future. The kids will have been indoctrinated to a culture which demands the maintenance of high standards, rather than one which accepts failure as a viable option.

We will also have not damaged the confidence and egos of kids who aren't ready for AFL football by playing them before their time.

 

[sbenno]

That's not quite true. Some would argue that NC's philosophy of playing the best 22 each week lacks vision and consideration of the future, especially when we have a losing side and the season is almost a right off. This philosophy may save the supporters immeditate pain, however it is counter-productive for player development and leadership transitioning. Those sides blooding youngsters are looking to the future have a view that a football education is best learnt at the highest level. Investing in this education now will see you reap rewards earlier.

I think NC's philosophies are geared towards bringing up great people, and not great footballers. There is nothing wrong with this and probably should be commended, however it doesn't translate into premierships.

I diasgree. The philosophy behind competition for spots based on form (regardless of age) forces players to gain form to be selected. This guards against things like complacency (why try if you're going to be selected anyway; or conversely, you need to play well to stay in the side) and kids being played when they aren't ready (unless you have no-one else). The philosophy is good, and it will (theoretically) maintain your strongest 22 out on the park, and instill a competetive attitude when it comes to selection.

There are issues with it, in terms of future. Bottoming out appears to have it's advantages, the best examples of which are currently in form (St Kilda, Melbourne and Fremantle), but there is no guarantee that bottoming out will actually work (e.g. Richmond). The draft yields unpredictable results, and there's no guarantee you'll get the best player (in the long run) for all your tanking or "development".

The issues arise when the philosophy is not applied (some could argue that Burton is a case of this, but Walker hasn't set the world on fire either), but in general it's a sound long term strategy.

 

[relapse]

Well if we keep all the veterans in the team, then the kids are still going to end up in a sink or swim situation anyway...it will just be delayed until the start of next year.

How will we have gained (apart from maybe finishing 1 or 2 spots further from the bottom this year)?

Because we will be using the fact that we are having a bad season to enable us to use the time to develop players, we are risking a couple of less wins in a season which is over vs being far better prepared going into 2011.

 

[BunjiMac]

He'd rather have a smaller number of kids learning good habits, rather than a large number of kids learning bad habits. Put it that way and it's difficult to disagree with him.

Why would he assume these habbits will be bad?

One of the great things I've found about team sports is when you have a group of guys going through things together. The more this same group of people go through, good or bad, and the more you share with this same group the more instinctive you learn to play together and the connected you are as individuals and the better you play as a team.

I don't disagree though, gifting games can be a bad thing. However allowing a young player who is close but not in the best 22 a spot in the side, when the season is over, and you have players who are not going to be around next year, is a no brainer for me. Senior players can still play a massive mentoring role without being in the starting side each week.

 

[Vader]

Because we will be using the fact that we are having a bad season to enable us to use the time to develop players, we are risking a couple of less wins in a season which is over vs being far better prepared going into 2011.

Or far worse prepared if the kids who play develop bad habits (which is what Craig is trying to prevent), or if they have their confidence/egos dented by being played before they're ready.

Swings and roundabouts... It's by no means proven that bottoming out and playing the kids prematurely has any positive benefits at all, let alone that doing so is better than the alternative.

 

[BunjiMac]

I diasgree. The philosophy behind competition for spots based on form (regardless of age) forces players to gain form to be selected. This guards against things like complacency (why try if you're going to be selected anyway; or conversely, you need to play well to stay in the side) and kids being played when they aren't ready (unless you have no-one else). The philosophy is good, and it will (theoretically) maintain your strongest 22 out on the park, and instill a competetive attitude when it comes to selection.

This would be fine if this was truly the way it was done and the same barometer for "form" was used for all players regardless of age. As it clearly isn't, you can throw this argument out the window.

Noone is suggesting you play an out of form youngster in place of in inform player. In a season such as one we are having, if there was a choice between 2 players, an in form youngster and an averagly performing veteran, I would play the inform youngster every day of the week.

 

[Bovo]

This would be fine if this was truly the way it was done and the same barometer for "form" was used for all players regardless of age. As it clearly isn't, you can throw this argument out the window.

Noone is suggesting you play an out of form youngster in place of in inform player. In a season such as one we are having, if there was a choice between 2 players, an in form youngster and an averagly performing veteran, I would play the inform youngster every day of the week.

Definitely a hard one. You can have an "in form youngster" who copes well in the SANFL, but can still be lost in the AFL.

I think coaches look for certain things to minimize the impact from SANFL/VFL/WAFL etc to AFL. You can have a seasoned player not setting the world on fire but would be still far more valuable than one that is roaring in a different league.

I think your arguement would have more value if we had a proper reserves league.

That being said, I do tend to agree with you. Give the kid a chance....but only if he deserves it. Not for the sake of blooding him.

 

[Vader]

This would be fine if this was truly the way it was done and the same barometer for "form" was used for all players regardless of age. As it clearly isn't, you can throw this argument out the window.

Noone is suggesting you play an out of form youngster in place of in inform player. In a season such as one we are having, if there was a choice between 2 players, an in form youngster and an averagly performing veteran, I would play the inform youngster every day of the week.

The reality of our current situation is that there are only 1 or 2 veterans with viable alternatives at present. Those under the hammer would be Burton (Walker - well documented) and Stevens (who could be dropped to make way for Griffin as the 2nd ruckman). The situation with Stevens' concussion makes his current performance a little harder to judge than Burton's.

 

[BunjiMac]

The reality of our current situation is that there are only 1 or 2 veterans with viable alternatives at present. Those under the hammer would be Burton (Walker - well documented) and Stevens (who could be dropped to make way for Griffin as the 2nd ruckman). The situation with Stevens' concussion makes his current performance a little harder to judge than Burton's.

you could arguably add Edwards to that category in the coming weeks.

 

[Vader]

you could arguably add Edwards to that category in the coming weeks.

You could.. and I probably will. Unfortunately, he doesn't have any pressure from SANFL performers below him right now. The only alternatives are Armstrong, Sloane and (maybe) Gunston. Sloane might be the player to knock him out of the team, but he'll need to earn a few credits in the SANFL first (having just come back from a 5-week injury).

 

[Bovo]

The reality of our current situation is that there are only 1 or 2 veterans with viable alternatives at present. Those under the hammer would be Burton (Walker - well documented) and Stevens (who could be dropped to make way for Griffin as the 2nd ruckman). The situation with Stevens' concussion makes his current performance a little harder to judge than Burton's.

And Vader, whilst we have a mathematical chance I would be reluctant to make huge changes to the side....
Walker - Maybe
Griffin - Would love to see him get a jumper so we can leave Tippet in the Goal square....although Maric has been a God send this year.
Dangerfield - Would love to see him have a go at Stiffy's position, if stiffy does not pull up (no pun intended). Both are fierce at the ball type of guys. And Dangerfields run out of defence may well be as damaging.

The thing that we have noticed this year is that too many changes are disrupting our team.

 

[relapse]

As usual, you're misrepresenting Neil Craig's coaching (and selection) philosophy.

He believes that the best environment for developing the youngsters is one where the team standards are maintained at the highest possible level. That usually means that the veterans will continue to be selected ahead of the kids, no matter where we are on the ladder.

What he believes is that we're better off playing 7 kids in the team and all of the veterans, expecting those kids to maintain the same high standards as the more senior players around them, than playing 12 kids and having to accept lower standards. He'd rather have 7 kids learning the right lessons, rather than 12 kids learning the wrong lessons.

Many on this board would disagree, regarding any experience as good experience - and hence preferring the 12 kids option.

I don't agree that "any experience is good experience". I think that the kids need to justify their selection. However, I also think that nobody should be gifted games, no matter how senior the player is. Where I would query Craig's approach is his willingness to continue selecting senior players when they are not performing to the high standards demanded of everyone else. If the player isn't maintaining the high standards demanded by the club (and coach) then they should be replaced (if possible) by another player who is/will, no matter how senior the player might be. This is where the Burton/Walker issue comes to the fore - Burton is NOT performing to an acceptable standard and should be dropped as a result. There are several others who are not performing to high standards, unfortunately our lengthy injury list means that there are few (if any) alternatives for replacing them.

My post had little to do with Neil Craig and everything to do with the philosophy of the poster who was suggesting that age should be irrelevant in the selection process, which my opinion especially in the case of Burton is no different to most other people on this forum.

I said to him that there is no point carrying Burton in his final season hoping to play him into form when we have someone who is ready to develop (Walker), the whole process is futile and does not add anything to our side and arguably will be detrimental in the long run. This differs very little to what everyone else is saying.

You seem to have this misguided belief that I apparently want to drop every senior player in our side and seem to misconstrue my posts and take them off onto a "drop all senior players" tangent.

I have said in numerous posts that both Goody and McLeod should remain in our side for the rest of the year, Burton is the main player that I am having massive issues with being in the side because we have younger options that should be in the side developing. I have never been one for just throwing young players into the side, but advocated that once players have developed to the stage where they appear ready to take the next step (ie Walker and now potentially Davis and Sloane) that we need to start making room for them in the side to maximise their development.