Cox Extends Himself

[MarkT]

Re: Cox On The Rise

Interesting and it makes sense if you say it fast Fig but none of it has anything to do with promotion from the rookie a year earlier than required. The only issue is whether he will be demanding senior games. We have a truckload of players we can play for development games. Unless his form will demand senior games it was a pointless promotion and even then that’s only relevant if a spot didn’t open up due to injury and we already know one has at least for a good part of the season. Whether it is a damaging decision or completely irrelevant is impossible to say because we don’t who the alternative player on the senior list would have been. It wouldn’t have been Cloke. That is another debate again.

Nothing against Cox. I really do hope he is a star but if he is serviceable at his price I’ll be happy. I really do wonder about the sum total of all these individual list management decisions though. They are what add up to our results and that is the bottom line. I know we have Hine instead of Judkins heading youth recruitment up now but his bona fides are yet to be proven and in any case it’s only part of the puzzle that thus far we have been unable to master.

If I go back a year or two I thought we needed to cut deeper then and by now we may well have unearthed another player or two. If 2003 showed what we lacked then 2004 showed us we didn’t have it in our youth yet here we are with a big cull in 2006 and debating an early rookie promotion. There should be no room on the damn list for the bloke and we should have the difficult decision next year as to whether to cut someone for him to get promoted.

 

[FIGJAM]

Re: Cox On The Rise

If I go back a year or two I thought we needed to cut deeper then and by now we may well have unearthed another player or two.

Don't get me started on that!

I had massive arguments with Dan from Hotrod's (good poster who's since disappeared), who couldn't appreciate the philosophy of cutting deep (including some Uber Duds like Williams and Lokan).

It's OK valuing high picks, which Dan did extremely highly, but I reckon if your recruiting strategy is sound, then you can give yourself a very good chance later on and into the rookie draft of drafting some reasonable talent; possibly even stars!

I think Cam's issues were more than just injuries and/or ability and/or ruck depth. Along with Taz, there's a sense of "nobody's bigger than the Club" about it. Might be wrong, but that's my gut feeling.

 

[FIGJAM]

Re: Cox On The Rise

Oh, and the other thing is if we assume that Shannon Cox is more deserving of a spot on the senior list than Sharrod Wellingham, who we may have considered with Pick 79.

We took a while to pick Goldsack, and I'd assume that Wellingham would have been in serious contention at Pick 63.

In essence, we have made an assertive decision that Cox was worthy of a spot at least the equal of the Goldsacks, Wellinghams and Mcaffers. And hey, he's shown great improvement in the VFL, including a great last final, not just the TAC Cup.

That's not inherently flawed.

But what promotion also does, is dangle a serious carrot to young Wellingham and Macaffer, who have one year to show some goods, is that son, bust your gut, perform and we have no issues in making you a real Magpie in just 300 days from now! That's a hell of an incentive!!

 

[toommy]

Re: Screwballs the mad screwy

Who are our rucks when (not if, but when) Richards and Fraser get injured?

Its only tweaking the last spot on the list to get an extra ruck option, its hardly radical criticism.

they have bryan and rocca as back up

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Re: Screwballs the mad screwy

they have bryan and rocca as back up

Exactly.

A bloke who last year couldnt get a game for Carton and a CHF who is nearing 30 with chronic ankle injuries that prevent him playing in the ruck for anything more than ten minutes a match. In fact Rocca can barely play CHF these days - he's virtually a permanent full forward.

Any other suggestions?

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Re: Screwballs the mad screwy

Exactly.

A bloke who last year couldnt get a game for Carton and a CHF who is nearing 30 with chronic ankle injuries that prevent him playing in the ruck for anything more than ten minutes a match. In fact Rocca can barely play CHF these days - he's virtually a permanent full forward.

Any other suggestions?

Yep, and both of them are more likely to play good footy in the ruck than Cameron Cloke.

Got any other reasons as to why we should have kept the big dud?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Re: Screwballs the mad screwy

Yep, and both of them are more likely to play good footy in the ruck than Cameron Cloke.

Got any other reasons as to why we should have kept the big dud?

Plenty - its called depth.

We should have an extra ruck option on the list, at least for season 2007.

Cam Cloke's only 20 years old and all talls take time
Richards is always injured and cant be relied upon to play every game
Rocca cant ruck any more and hasnt for 2-3 years.
Fraser is our only genuine ruck option and its arguable if he's a real ruck anyway.
Bryan will probably be a handy ruck at best and also has his injury concerns
I dont want to see T Cloke thrown into the ruck as he supposed to be groomed as our no.1 key forward. If we're going to have cannon fodder in the ruck, I'd rather it be somebody less important to our long term future.
Its only one year. If Cloke fails again or cant get his shoulders right he's out the door at the end of the season.
Alan Didak's out for half a season, opening the door automatically for a promoted rookie.

 

[didaka]

Re: Screwballs the mad screwy

I would have kept Cam Cloke on the senior list and Cox on the rookie list.

Iacabucci was stiff to be delisted too, maybe he could have been kept for another year.

Lets never mention that word again

 

[MarkT]

Re: Cox On The Rise

Oh, and the other thing is if we assume that Shannon Cox is more deserving of a spot on the senior list than Sharrod Wellingham, who we may have considered with Pick 79.

We took a while to pick Goldsack, and I'd assume that Wellingham would have been in serious contention at Pick 63.

In essence, we have made an assertive decision that Cox was worthy of a spot at least the equal of the Goldsacks, Wellinghams and Mcaffers. And hey, he's shown great improvement in the VFL, including a great last final, not just the TAC Cup.

That's not inherently flawed.

Maybe, I don’t know who we would have taken. Your guess may be right or it may not. Who we could have taken had our mind set been different is an entirely different matter though. A ruck punt – Saints took a couple. A second chance mid – be nice to find a Licuria or Holland. How about a bloke with a bit of mongrel that we lack? There are always numerous ways of skinning cats and your logic, while not flawed is as mainstream and ho hum as Collingwood so far failed list management strategies that have placed un in the position that we had to cut so deep this year and fill the final list spots with not yet ready rookies because the late picks were deemed even less ready.

But what promotion also does, is dangle a serious carrot to young Wellingham and Macaffer, who have one year to show some goods, is that son, bust your gut, perform and we have no issues in making you a real Magpie in just 300 days from now! That's a hell of an incentive!!

Perhaps. If they need that then they aren’t mentally cut out for it – which is a problem at Collingwood IMO. They should know all too well that the better you perform as a rookie the better the odds that your second chance will pay off. These guys have already been overlooked and they would know the rookie promotion prospects and even if they don’t they are numerous people at the club to drum it into them. It’s not a basis for a list management strategy.

 

[MarkT]

Re: Cox On The Rise

Vinnie, just a question, what was the last Collingwood decision you disagreed with? Just curious if there has ever been one?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Re: Cox On The Rise

Vinnie, just a question, what was the last Collingwood decision you disagreed with? Just curious if there has ever been one?

He's very defensive in an argument about who should fill the last place on a list of 40, and whether or not a second year player should remain on the rookie list instead of be promoted.

Dale Thomas in the ruck indeed. You idiot, Vinnie.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Re: Cox On The Rise

Vinnie, just a question, what was the last Collingwood decision you disagreed with? Just curious if there has ever been one?

There have been many - Getting rid of a dud like Cameron Cloke is not one of them.

Keeping guys like Tarkyn Lockyer and letting Paul Licuria become a glorified linkman on the other hand...

There are many things this team and it's staff do that I wouldn't personally do, and that I don't personally agree with. I wouldn't have promoted Toovey and Cox, but I can see the logic in doing so.

I don't see the point in getting worked up over a decision like that - You always say that it is about premierships, and I don't see how premierships and Cameron Cloke have anything to do with each other, as he'll be lucky if he ever sees one at VFL level. He's aggro, and if you have to throw a big body into the ruck in an emergency, you probably want that attribute, but I don't have any issue with us going for Chris Bryan instead. I mean, with Bryan on board, Cameron Cloke would have been a 5th string ruckman.

As for decisions I have disagreed with, I also would have drafted a ruckman long ago, but I have made my peace with the fact that that isn't how Malthouse is going to build the team, so I don't really see the need to let my blood boil over it. A good tap ruckman can help, but I also feel Sydney would have done better with Josh Fraser going at Dean Cox in the Grand Final than AFL hitouts leader Darren Jolly.

I also wouldn't have given Malthouse a two year deal at the end of 2005 - It would have been a 1 year deal with the need to prove something, and following the soft play of the team as a whole in the elimination final, I probably wouldn't have given him another contract, depending on there being another quality coaching candidate available.

However, that isn't what happened, and I'm not going to cry about it, I'm going to support the team. The fact of the matter is, if any one of us was given unilateral control over the football club, it would be in much, much worse shape than it currently is, so the arrogance of believing that we always know better than the professionals in these jobs is alarming.

As for calling me an idiot, Timmy, it was clearly exaggeration to prove a point, or can you not comprehend that?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Re: Cox On The Rise

As for calling me an idiot, Timmy, it was clearly exaggeration to prove a point, or can you not comprehend that?

I was exaggerating too - using some Footy Show poetic licence. But it is a bit idiotic to say you dont care who rucks if our first 2-3 choices go down. We need depth - even if he's a fifth stringer (but he'd actually be a fourth stringer, ahead of Rocca and Trav).

It was just 2004 when we were down to our sixth and seventh choice rucks, so its not unrealistic to suggest we need another tall.

 

[MarkT]

Re: Cox On The Rise

I don't see the point in getting worked up over a decision like that - You always say that it is about premierships, and I don't see how premierships and Cameron Cloke have anything to do with each other, as he'll be lucky if he ever sees one at VFL level. He's aggro, and if you have to throw a big body into the ruck in an emergency, you probably want that attribute, but I don't have any issue with us going for Chris Bryan instead. I mean, with Bryan on board, Cameron Cloke would have been a 5th string ruckman.

I also always say it isn’t each individual decision (well maybe apart from one’s like pick 3 for McKee & 7) but about the sum total of all the decisions and policies that result in the list and the reality the results are there for all to see. This is just another aspect of list management that I disagree with. Whether it costs us I have no idea but list management is as much a numbers game as anything. Quality decisions result in quality lists. We make too many bad decisions and that’s why we are mid table and mediocre in spite of possibly the best set of draft picks of any club to add to the cream inherited by MM and the one real quality player he has traded for.

PS, once again, Cameron is 20. Bryan is 24 - nearly 25. Where was Bryan at 20? He debuted at 23 in 2005.

As for decisions I have disagreed with, I also would have drafted a ruckman long ago, but I have made my peace with the fact that that isn't how Malthouse is going to build the team, so I don't really see the need to let my blood boil over it.

It’s the building of the TEAM that is the issue. He’s had 8 drafts and 8 trade weeks not and he has not built a good enough team in spite of twice having priority picks amongst finishes of 2nd last x 2 and 4th last on the back of the inherited last in 1999 to add to some very good top end talent.

As far as the ruck goes, you can make your piece with a flawed theory of you like but when it costs us premierships and doesn’t get rectified I can’t make piece with it. The ONLY way to deal with it is dismissal. If the bloke can’t learn from mistakes then he can’t coach my club as far as I’m concerned and to treat the bloke at the AGM who asked about the finals failure and tried to get to the root of the issue makes me sick and concerned for his ability to analyse why he fails.

Christ, how long does the bloke get? Has any coach ever won a flag at a club after being here for 7 seasons?

A good tap ruckman can help, but I also feel Sydney would have done better with Josh Fraser going at Dean Cox in the Grand Final than AFL hitouts leader Darren Jolly.

Goodes s a better swing option than Fraser. They are miles in front of us in the ruck. The problem was mental – late nigh and birth of the baby.

I also wouldn't have given Malthouse a two year deal at the end of 2005 - It would have been a 1 year deal with the need to prove something, and following the soft play of the team as a whole in the elimination final, I probably wouldn't have given him another contract, depending on there being another quality coaching candidate available.

I was almost with you until you said 1 year deal. I would have sacked him after the insipid Freo debarcle early in 2005 and failing that after his dismal 2005. He was abysmal in the 2003 GF- at selection, during the match and after it.

I'm going to support the team.

Me too as I always have, but I am not going to support the administration as a cheerleader for mediocrity or failure.

The fact of the matter is, if any one of us was given unilateral control over the football club, it would be in much, much worse shape than it currently is, so the arrogance of believing that we always know better than the professionals in these jobs is alarming.

I don’t profess to know who to draft or how to coach a premiership but I can see objective results and make subject performance decisions. I raised this exact issue at the 2005 AGM. Needless to say it didn’t go down well but I expected that. What I spoke was confirmed to me by the VP after the meeting and has been displayed in no uncertain manner with the last review. Christ the bloke that did the review and then got the job to make people accountable was help accountable and sacked. We do a lot of things right off the field but we do a lot wrong with matters directly pertaining to winning games and premierships.

Whether I could do better or not isn’t the issue. This isn’t a board election it is an internet forum debate about decisions. If we weren’t hear caring and there weren’t so many of us Collingwood would have folded under the weight of it’s own failings years ago. You and I are equal in that regard we just disagree on performance issues.

 

[MarkT]

Re: Cox On The Rise

It was just 2004 when we were down to our sixth and seventh choice rucks, so its not unrealistic to suggest we need another tall.

It was 2000 when we said the number 1 pick wouldn’t play much only to ruck him for the entire season at the age of 18 because had so few viable options. It was 2002 when Brisbane beat us to a flag in the ruck AFTER their first ruck went down early in the grand final. It was 2003 when Brisbane smashed us in the ruck to play the game 100% in their terms from the first bounce while we backed up skinny Josh with Tex Walker after barely a game to his name.

And what have we learned?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Re: Cox On The Rise

PS, once again, Cameron is 20. Bryan is

...............not a person with a famous surname.

If Cam's surname was Jolly or Minson or Campbell or anything else, maybe he'd have been given the benefit of the doubt for one more year.

 

[Coin_Toss]

Re: Cox On The Rise

...............not a person with a famous surname.

If Cam's surname was Jolly or Minson or Campbell or anything else, maybe he'd have been given the benefit of the doubt for one more year.

I don't agree with you! Mick probably came to the conclusion that Cameron wasn't good enough, hence he got delisted, and I doubt Cameron had the ability to be a permanent selection in the Collingwood side. Perhaps at Carlton he will get more opportunities and he may prosper... who knows, we will have to wait and see I guess.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Re: Cox On The Rise

I doubt Cameron had the ability to be a permanent selection in the Collingwood side.

Most people doubt his abilities - he's not set the world on fire. But like Markt says - what had Bryan achieved by age 20?

But in a list of 38 there will always be one or two who are there purely as insurance against injury. They cant ALL be 200 gamers. I would have thought one more year on the list to (a) prove himself - after all he's young - and (b) potentially assist in the ruck - would have done no harm.

 

[toommy]

Re: Screwballs the mad screwy

Exactly.

A bloke who last year couldnt get a game for Carton and a CHF who is nearing 30 with chronic ankle injuries that prevent him playing in the ruck for anything more than ten minutes a match. In fact Rocca can barely play CHF these days - he's virtually a permanent full forward.

Any other suggestions?

so you have sacked bryan already before the season has started. well why don't they put 8 ruckman on list in case 7 get injured. 4 blokes capable of rucking would be enough on a list. what have the other teams got

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Re: Screwballs the mad screwy

4 blokes capable of rucking would be enough on a list. what have the other teams got

More than four.

We only have three, including the hapless Richards, unless you want T Cloke doing it.

 

[toommy]

Re: Screwballs the mad screwy

More than four.

We only have three, including the hapless Richards, unless you want T Cloke doing it.

name who the swans have in their rucks

 

[Big Bucks]

Re: Screwballs the mad screwy

name who the swans have in their rucks

Let,s see, Everitt,Jolly,Doyle and Currie,not a bad quartet.

 

[Jabso]

Re: Screwballs the mad screwy

Everitt = old
Doyle = Guy Richards
Jolly = solid backup, has his good and bad days as #1 ruckman
Currie = done nothing

 

[ant22]

Re: Cox On The Rise

Swans line up is ordinary but I must admit most premiers of the last 15 or so years seem to have had a pretty good ruck division and ours did cost us in out losing gf sides, all we could have had polly farmer in 03 and it would not have made a difference.

Obviously we are pretty light on this year. My bet is the club had its eye on a couple of rucks who they hoped would have slipped to pick 28 but it did not turn out that way. It was that or give up a player like brown for renouf. Spoke to a bloke who plays for southport on the weekend and he reckons renouf will be a star. Said he was leaps and bounds better than tippett in terms of talent. Other than him I suspect the club figured that the rest of the rucks in the draft were simply no up to it and they would rather try there luck next year either by trading or in the draft.

I know nothing about the guy but at 197 cm with the potential to get to 200 being so young is it totally out of the question that reid could be a ruckman? has he palyed there before? and if so does he have a clue what he is doing? Any knowledgable thoughts on this would be appreciated.

 

[toommy]

Re: Screwballs the mad screwy

Everitt = old
Doyle = Guy Richards
Jolly = solid backup, has his good and bad days as #1 ruckman
Currie = done nothing

and everitt wasn't even there last season