Changes v Freo Anchors

[Bacon8]

Top 8/Bottom 8.

What do 9th and 10th do?

 

[Mattrox]

What do 9th and 10th do?

GWS and GC ignored as special cases

 

[Mattrox]

Oh, in 2011 9th was North Aaron Black debuted in the last round and Aaron Mullet played 3 games as a 19yo. Mullet played 6 in 2012 and now has played all 16. And Black played 1 in 2011, 3 in 2012 and 12 this year.

Does that count as a bottom 8 side since 2010, (who made top 8 2012, like us) who managed a youngster in a similar way?

But why should we compare ourselves to bottom 8 teams anyway? We should be doing what top 8 teams do to stay in the 8...... Oh yeah, they all blood youngsters in a similar way, some are exposed early then slowly work their way into the team and some are ready made very highly rated and play all the games.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I don't really have a problem with them dropping younger players. A lot of these guys don't yet have the strength or fitness base to play at the top level for extended amounts of time.

What really annoys me is how they bring back underperforming senior players after one game. What kind of message does this send? You can play like shit for half a season and the worst you'll cop is one or two weeks in the SANFL. This is such a weak policy. Sando is still way too soft when revoking gold passes.

 

[Vader]

Missed the exception to the rule

Some players get fast tracked, because they have greater potential than most. Dangerfield is one, Tippett, Crouch & Smith are others.

The majority of players, those who are not on the fast track, follow the same development profile. 1-3 games in their debut season (not necessarily first year on the list), 10-12 in year 2, 18+ from year 3 onwards.

 

[Mattrox]

I don't really have a problem with them dropping younger players. A lot of these guys don't yet have the strength or fitness base to play at the top level for extended amounts of time.

What really annoys me is how they bring back underperforming senior players after one game. What kind of message does this send? You can play like shit for half a season and the worst you'll cop is one or two weeks in the SANFL. This is such a weak policy. Sando is still way too soft when revoking gold passes.

Yes, that is a concern. It is a fine line between backing senior players and resting/sending to SANFL (which they will dominate in, but still could be in poor AFL form). Players who have plenty of ability and have established themselves in the side get extended periods to try and find form. I think playing extended periods in the SANFL for otherwise senior players doesn't prove very much. (Another argument for a reserves side so they can go back and work on specific features of their game rather than just rack up 35+ possies and dominate)

In our case the poor form is not confined to isolated players, and compounding that we have lost about 100 goals per year that we are trying to replace with Walker and Tippett. We have also been playing 8 or so less than 50 gamers (Excluding Callinan) since round 1. I can see selectors being nervous to drop out a 100+ game player for a debutant.

Remeber Wright, Otten and Henderson started the season with less than 50 games, which all of them have surpassed now..... and now in round 17 there were still 8 less than 50 gamers. In fact we had 7 less than 30 gamers last round.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Yes, that is a concern. It is a fine line between backing senior players and resting/sending to SANFL (which they will dominate in, but still could be in poor AFL form). Players who have plenty of ability and have established themselves in the side get extended periods to try and find form. I think playing extended periods in the SANFL for otherwise senior players doesn't prove very much. (Another argument for a reserves side so they can go back and work on specific features of their game rather than just rack up 35+ possies and dominate)

In our case the poor form is not confined to isolated players, and compounding that we have lost about 100 goals per year that we are trying to replace with Walker and Tippett. We have also been playing 8 or so less than 50 gamers (Excluding Callinan) since round 1. I can see selectors being nervous to drop out a 100+ game player for a debutant.

Remeber Wright, Otten and Henderson started the season with less than 50 games, which all of them have surpassed now..... and now in round 17 there were still 8 less than 50 gamers. In fact we had 7 less than 30 gamers last round.

I wouldn't advocate dropping all our seniors just for the sake of playing the younger guys but the coach needs to demand more from the experienced players.

Look at Petrenko for example. He had an extended run of poor form that started well before the finals last year. He should have been on a knifes edge at the start of this season, but Sando gave him another half a season to pull it together before they finally dropped him. This isn't good enough. We can ramble on about a players confidence all we like, but this is the AFL. We can't coddle our players like that and if being dropped to the SANFL is all it takes to shatter a players confidence, they don't have what it takes anyway.

 

[King Elvis]

I don't really have a problem with them dropping younger players. A lot of these guys don't yet have the strength or fitness base to play at the top level for extended amounts of time.
.

I think it's a cop out and we've created a culture where there are excuses.

I don't care how old someone is - play them when their forms demands it, drop them when it doesn't.

 

[LC40]

It was definitely a good taster.. but that's all it was ever intended to be.. a taster. He earned his taster with good results in the SANFL and good performances on the training track, but he was never expected or planned to be a semi-regular as the likes of Kerridge & Lyons have become (Laird & Brown now being regulars, along with Crouch).

Why, if his form dictates his earned another shot surely he gets played.
Perhaps if we had given Gunston a few more tasters in his earlier years of his contract and for longer he may have felt a more integral part of the team and wanted to stay. Perhaps?
Players are strange beasts they want to play and talent shouldn't be held back.

 

[Jars458]

Unlucky.. maybe. The reality is that he was only ever going to get a handful of games this year, say 1-3 (probably 2), as a taster, so he knows the level he needs to achieve next year. It's the standard player development model they've gone through will all of our non-fast-track players. I don't know why people are surprised or disappointed.. I guess it's another symptom of shinytoyitis. Kid comes in, does OK (nothing particularly good or bad), therefore he must play again the following week. Doesn't work that way and never has.

How many flags has that approach got us? Stop pushing your shinytoyitis agenda.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

None of whom left because of a lack of opportunities, or because they thought they weren't being developed properly as a player. Gunston's comments about not liking what Adelaide did to him as a person (which begs the question what sort of person he is & wants to be) had nothing whatsoever to do with football or the AFC in general.

Yep, that was the reason.

It wasn't just Gunston fobbing us off at all with some non-committal bullshit response to spare our feelings.

But keep pushing your agenda.. it's rubbish as always.. but it's your agenda to push.

There is no agenda. The players left. I'm not making it up.

Yet players have stayed at contending clubs given the same circumstances. I'm not making that up either.

There is no arguing.

Even Sanderson has stated specifically that we have to make the AFC a club that players don't want to leave.

Those aren't my words. I am not making it up to fuel any agenda. They are from the coach of the club who has seen us both from outside and within. They aren't disputed, except by a few people who choose to ignore them to keep their own AFC Fanboy Fantasy alive and well.

 

[FullyBigKPro]

Yep, that was the reason.

It wasn't just Gunston fobbing us off at all with some non-committal bullshit response to spare our feelings.


There is no agenda. The players left. I'm not making it up.

Yet players have stayed at contending clubs given the same circumstances. I'm not making that up either.

There is no arguing.

Even Sanderson has stated specifically that we have to make the AFC a club that players don't want to leave.

Those aren't my words. I am not making it up to fuel any agenda. They are from the coach of the club who has seen us both from outside and within. They aren't disputed, except by a few people who choose to ignore them to keep their own AFC Fanboy Fantasy alive and well.

Hear hear.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Bartel played 11 games in year 2002 (9 in a row, then 2 indvidual games) as a Pick #8
Chapman played 4 games in 2000 (2 in a row, then 2 more including a final) as a Pick #31
Kelly played 15 games in 2002 (1 game, then 14 in row) as a Pick #17
Enright played 15 in 2000. (#47)
Johnson played 12 games in 2001 (2 in a row, then 10) as a Pick #24.
Corey played 5 games in 2000 (R17-21) as a Pick #8

So that's 50% of these guys got a small taster early, and Corey got a run late in the year.

These were 4-6 years before their Premiership run.
(Ablett had 12 games in 2002 (first 10 then 2 late, high disposal count of 13))

Hodge played 14 games in his debut year (In a run of 2-1-11)
Mitchell played 9 games in debut year (1-4-4)
Lewis played 19 games (in a row)
Sewell played 6 (3-3)

What are you trying to show here? How many significantly more games these players received than our youngsters? How many games do you think Grigg is going to get? I'll start the bidding at one. Well, one and a half quarters anyway.

Ok... I take the point that if Grigg plays one game, then gets dropped, then plays a dozen in a row that it isn't the end of the world. But remove the 'dozen in a row' part and it doesn't quite add up to the same thing.

And putting their draft numbers up is irrelevant. Unless you're arguing that we should have been playing MORE youngster more often in order to get ourselves more early picks.

 

[King Elvis]

Yea, I wasn't sure about that post - 10+ games a year isn't a 'small taster.'

 

[Tex200]

How many flags has that approach got us? Stop pushing your shinytoyitis agenda.

This is the bottom line.

Where has it got us? It ensures we keep our side well stocked with average, but experienced, players so that we can proudly badge and market ourselves as "The Value for Money Club"

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Because Since 2010 until now includes 2012, or do you want that year excised from the records to suit your statement.

Three years is more than one year.

Couch is a highly rated youngster, was anyway at Melbourne, played 3 games.

Never heard of him. I'm not disappointed at our treatment of John Hinge either.

You are right Smith played heaps but was rested round 4,5,6 then 9 & 10 (Bye 11) and round 17. It was widely reported that he was being managed.

All teams manage the workloads of young/inexperienced players. Top 8/Bottom 8. And when they don't manage them well, we get Jack Watts.

I agree, but I don't think we manage our young players at all. And I don't think we ever have.

I think they sneak into the team only when injuries open up a spot in the 22 and then they are gone as soon as the injured player(s) return.

 

[Elite Crow]

I think it's a cop out and we've created a culture where there are excuses.

I don't care how old someone is - play them when their forms demands it, drop them when it doesn't.

And rest them when their body demands it, aka Thommo

 

[Mattrox]

I agree, but I don't think we manage our young players at all. And I don't think we ever have.

I think they sneak into the team only when injuries open up a spot in the 22 and then they are gone as soon as the injured player(s) return.

That is ONE way kids come into the side.

Retirement is another. Brown has played from the start.

Sloane and Dangerfield were managed in a different manner and both cemented spots in the team.

Crouch has been managed through his hamstring issues and since returning he his performances indicate he was handled well. No one was injured to make way for him.

In the early 2000's there might not have been many vacant spots due to the calibre of the team and injury might have been a major way kids got games. I'm pretty sure things have changed. How did Wright and Smith establish themselves last year? ..... Don't recall injuries playing a part in their development last year.
Smith played 22 last year and 14 in his debut year in 2011. Clearly he was fast tracked and didn't wait at the mercy of injury.

You have many good theories and ideas. Unfortunately this one doesn't stack up under analysis.

 

[Mattrox]

Oh and in 2010 and 2011 there were so many injuries kids got games.....

 

[Ravenous Crow]

Couch is a highly rated youngster, was anyway at Melbourne, played 3 games.

Can't let this one slide. Complete mischaracterisation.

Tom Couch is a 25 year old mature age recruit. He could have been picked up at age 18 by Geelong as father-son but wasn't. He toiled away at VFL level until finally being given a rookie chance at Melbourne.

The reason he doesn't get a game is because he can't hit a barn door by foot. When your disposal is atrocious by Melbourne standards, you're not exactly a 'highly rated youngster'.

 

[Kickin_Goals]

In a side where Myke Cook plays 9 games there is something wrong.
You think their weren't giant spaces available in 2010 you are kidding yourself as well as the world beating 14th placed 2011 side. Using examples from these years is blowing up your own argument.

 

[Mattrox]

I stand corrected. On his age, was under the impression he was a few years younger, however there was quite a bit of hype about him.

Clearly with Viney, Toumpas and the current mature agers he has slipped in the pecking order.

 

[Elite Crow]

Thommo confined to kicking the ball yesterday but Sando reckons he's right. I hope this doesn't come back to bite us in the arse.

 

[Wood_Duck]

How many flags has that approach got us? Stop pushing your shinytoyitis agenda.

Yes that's why we haven't won any flags.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Can't let this one slide. Complete mischaracterisation.

Tom Couch is a 25 year old mature age recruit. He could have been picked up at age 18 by Geelong as father-son but wasn't. He toiled away at VFL level until finally being given a rookie chance at Melbourne.

The reason he doesn't get a game is because he can't hit a barn door by foot. When your disposal is atrocious by Melbourne standards, you're not exactly a 'highly rated youngster'.

He hadn't even played many VFL games.