Crouch to play NAB Cup

[Southerntakeover]

I think you're cheapening the term elite, if you are going to include Grigg in it. Come on now.

But if that were a genuine assessment, and they were identified as being elite talents, I would have no problem with extending to fast track their development.

Thing is: I think its highly unlikely that a realistic assessment would place virtually any of our other new recruits in the same stratosphere as Crouch. He's supposed to be special, thats why we went after him. If hes not: we really need to reassess our recruiting.

 

[srv23]

This is a very grey area srv. I would be very disappointed if these players are not given opportunities this season. I want us to pick our best 22 each week, but also believe there should be some allowance in team selection to ensure all of these guys get some games.

Its probably a bit simplistic but maybe pick our best 20 each week and rotate this group through the other 2 spots. It may well be that a couple of these can force there way into the best 20 which of course would be a massive win for the team.

Doughty and Reilly need there gold cards burnt and disposed of.

I think this is the key. No-one is saying throw out any sense of ambition for success in 2012. Just that given the reality that, whilst I acknowledge anything can happen, we are probably at best looking at the bottom half of the 8 and unlikely to be in the same league as Hawks/Pies/Cats/ for example, we need one eye on the present but certainly the other eye with a clear view on the future and building a side that is a genuine premiership contendor over a number of years. What I don't want to see is a Davis type scenario where finals are shot, say a Brown or Grigg finally breaks into the 22 due to injuries to say Doughty, starts to look very comfortable and even wins a rising star nom, but the very next week Dogga is fit and is brought straight back in at the expense of the last man in ie Brown or Grigg because we think Dogga's overall output is likely to be better than the young kid's.

We need to get gametime into kids, but as has been mentioned, the right kids. The one's we have identified as the core of our future premiership side. They need to be given ample opportunity to find their feet at AFL level (ie not 10 minutes of gametime and then dropped the next week.) There is a huge difference between gifting games to kids who clearly aren't ready - Orval, Ellis-Yeolman etc etc, and seeing an 18 year old kid built like the proverbial you know what and show a bit during the NAB cup eg Kerridge and deciding that this kid is ready to find his feet in the big league.

In the past the people who have been in favour of Craig's make kids earn it for a year or 2 in the sanfl policy have scoffed at others who bring up the Martin/Trengove/Fyfe/Hurley/Sidebottom types who step up in year 1 and look like they belong stating that we've never had our hands on elite talent who had the ability to do that. Well now we do, and people still want those kids to not be "gifted" selection. The fact is they are not being gifted, they are being identified as potentially elite talent and given every opportunity to develop at AFL level as quickly as possible.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Taking a broader perspective, how do you rate Sando's approach to playing the kids in the pre-season Carl?

Is that a loaded question? I know you've mentioned previously that we've played fewer first year draftees than other clubs.

But overall very happy. Many of the 'new' players on show and genuine chances to play in Round 1 are 2nd, 3rd and 4th year kids. I like the way our team is taking shape.

I also like the seemingly logical progression that seems to be taking place as we explore how to set up our rucks/forwards - been whittled down to various combinations of Tippett, Jacobs, Walker, Lynch and McKernan to see what works best.

Similar in defence, the Rutten injury has allowed us to have a good look at Talia, Thompson, Otten, Shaw and co. You can also see our next quality midfield taking shape; Dangerfield, Sloane, Smith, Kerridge, Crouch.

I know many of these things aren't specific highs of this preseason necessarily and have in some cases been brewing for a few years but in general I like the players that have been brought into our club for a number of seasons now. With the right organisation you can see a healthy future and hopefully some moments of excitement in 2012.

 

[Vader]

In the past the people who have been in favour of Craig's make kids earn it for a year or 2 in the sanfl policy have scoffed at others who bring up the Martin/Trengove/Fyfe/Hurley/Sidebottom types who step up in year 1 and look like they belong stating that we've never had our hands on elite talent who had the ability to do that. Well now we do, and people still want those kids to not be "gifted" selection. The fact is they are not being gifted, they are being identified as potentially elite talent and given every opportunity to develop at AFL level as quickly as possible.

Is there anyone actually in that basket? Most of those who belong to the "make them earn it" brigade (including myself) recognise that potential elite talent needs to be brought into the team as fast as possible. Where people like myself differ from the likes of Carl is that I acknowledge that the club has already done that - take Dangermouse, Smith & Tippett as examples. I have no doubt at all that Crouch will play a lot of games next year, possibly all 22 (subject to 1st year burnout and injuries).

The fact that he'll be fast tracked next year is no justification in my eyes for including him in the team to play this week. If there's an opening available for an additional youngster in the team this week then it has to go to someone who can make a contribution to our 2012 campaign.

 

[A FEW GOOD MEN]

Is that a loaded question? I know you've mentioned previously that we've played fewer first year draftees than other clubs.

But overall very happy. Many of the 'new' players on show and genuine chances to play in Round 1 are 2nd, 3rd and 4th year kids. I like the way our team is taking shape.

I also like the seemingly logical progression that seems to be taking place as we explore how to set up our rucks/forwards - been whittled down to various combinations of Tippett, Jacobs, Walker, Lynch and McKernan to see what works best.

Similar in defence, the Rutten injury has allowed us to have a good look at Talia, Thompson, Otten, Shaw and co. You can also see our next quality midfield taking shape; Dangerfield, Sloane, Smith, Kerridge, Crouch.

I know many of these things aren't specific highs of this preseason necessarily and have in some cases been brewing for a few years but in general I like the players that have been brought into our club for a number of seasons now. With the right organisation you can see a healthy future and hopefully some moments of excitement in 2012.

Carl, I support your crusade that we should be playing the "kids". I have also enjoyed watching the further development of our 2, 3 and 4 year players.


Over the pre-season the 17 other clubs have played 132 teenagers. If you discount GWS (24) and Gold Coast(12) the average number of "kids" played per team is 6.4 players.

We have played two of our nine teenagers, plus Crouch. That means we have played the least" kids" compared to the other AFL teams and less than half the average number (excluding GWS and GC).

We are also at the bottom of the table for playing rookie listed players.

My question to you Carl, is do we develop our kids better by publically stating "we're going to play the kids" and not play them or by saying "We will make the kids earn their spot" and then play them?

As a comparison we played more "kids" in the last two pre-seasons.

 

[Vader]

Whilst we haven't played a whole lot of teenagers, we have played an awful lot of "new" players, by virtue of having been so active during trade week. While not teenagers, we still had to give these players a go so we could see what they were made of first hand.

Throw them into the equation and all of a sudden things don't look so bad.

 

[Southerntakeover]

More 'mature' aged recruits who IMO still fit the youth mould, and a clean bill of injury would also have contributed. I do appreciate the post though, its an interesting reality. Would kind of like to see the raw data though. I've got the suspicion that the teenager cut off is being used strategically to distort.

Regardless though, noone has ever argued that age should be the sole determinant in selection policy.

 

[A FEW GOOD MEN]

Whilst we haven't played a whole lot of teenagers, we have played an awful lot of "new" players, by virtue of having been so active during trade week. While not teenagers, we still had to give these players a go so we could see what they were made of first hand.

Throw them into the equation and all of a sudden things don't look so bad.

We are also near the bottom of the table for players to have their first "game" for their club (8). I have no problem with the way Sando has conducted the pre-season but I am surprised that the posters that have been outraged over the last two or three seasons by the opportunities given to "kids" have been surprisingly quiet this year.

Regarding the injury argument, how many injuries did we have in the first three rounds of the NAB Cup last year? Answer - Nil. We had nearly a full list to choose from until the overtraining kicked in and Tippett twisted an ankle, Henderson concussion, Martin wrenched knee and Callinan torn bicep. Then in the first two rounds of the season, Porplyzia shoulder, Mackay shoulder, Sloane broken thumb, and Davis shoulder.

I guess consistency isn't the strong suit of some critics.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Can I ask where you're sourcing your data from? Wouldnt mind having a look at some of it.


BTW, theres actually no inconsistency, given I have been critical of our failure to play Crouch.

 

[A FEW GOOD MEN]

Firstly, you were not on my list of "inconsistent" posters.

The list was compiled using the Champion Data ages in the AFL Prospectus and Fantasy Freako's pre-season rave outlining who has played each week.

My research is in the hope that I win the Big Footy League 2. The fact that it once again reveals the selective memory of some posters is a bonus.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

Interesting that while Hawthorn were planning for a future assault they picked up a flag along the way. Success came quicker than even they had expected. By investing heavily in the future they took care of the present.

Crouch not playing this week in isolation is no big deal. None of these types of decisions that have been debated on this board for years are major issues, by themselves. But when every single decision the club makes errs on the side of caution/next week No 1 priority it eventually adds up.

What I don't really understand is that in 2010 and 2011 we've seen exactly where this approach leads us. But people want us to make decisions that are consistent with previously held logic?

Not sure the bolded is actually that accurate - Hawthorn kept telling us how young they were, but as I posted in the "Experience - you can't have it til you've had it" thread, Hawthorn's premiership 22 age/games profile was more or less the same as other first time premiership teams. When Croad, Crawford and Dew (off the top of my head) fell by the wayside, so did Hawthorn, and their list has now developed back into a premiership profile again.

On topic, I'm not sure how playing this week or not is going to make this huge difference in terms of his development. I agree that we need to have one eye on how our list is developing towards a potential premiership when making selection decisions. We need to be doing everything possible to get as many games as possible into our best young players to have a best 22 average profile of about 25 years/120 games as soon as possible.

But I think it's too early in the current regime to be reading too much into selection for a pre-season game (even a GF) as representing a broader selection philosophy. And I have no problem with wanting to focus on round 1 and therefore not considering Crouch for selection.

I don't see how preparing for round 1, winning in round 1, being around the mark this season, and developing a premiership team for 2014 are necessarily all mutually exclusive goals. Crouch playing or not playing this week is not going to be the difference between him becoming Chris Judd or Brent Reilly.

 

[Tex200]

Brad is now conscripted to a full season at Westies, with no prospect of playing for AFC. He was given a taste, fair enough, but its the right thing for him to be released now to the Westies pre season trials program which should be his total focus. He needs to focus on being the best SANFL player he can be which means getting around his club, bonding with team mates, working with his coach etc etc.

A good season in the SANFL will see 2013 taking care of itself

 

[Southerntakeover]

Firstly, you were not on my list of "inconsistent" posters.

Jolly good then.

The list was compiled using the Champion Data ages in the AFL Prospectus and Fantasy Freako's pre-season rave outlining who has played each week.

My research is in the hope that I win the Big Footy League 2. The fact that it once again reveals the selective memory of some posters is a bonus.

Its nice work. Its always good to see people taking the time to develop an analysis, whether the conclusion is the one I want to see or not.

How do we stack up in terms of mean data around ages, and games experience?

 

[A FEW GOOD MEN]

How do we stack up in terms of mean data around ages, and games experience?

I would take too long to get exact numbers and ideally you would weight the result for the time played for each player.

My best guess is that we would be in the top half of the draw for age and experience of the squads that have played in the NAB Cup.

Most of the more experienced teams (St Kilda, Geelong, Western Bulldogs and Carlton) have had injury problems to their older players and have limited their game time. We have given limited game time to our youngest 10 Players (Crouch, Joyce, Kerridge, Ellis-Yolmen, Grigg, Lyons Brown, Laird, Martyn and Orval) and with the exception of Rutten, plenty of game time to our oldest 10 players (Doughty, Johncock, Callinan, Thompson, Reilly, Porplyzia, Symes, Vince and van Berlo).

Our squad is ranked 14th in average age and 13th in average games played so we are pretty young and inexperienced, however it is interesting to note that our squad was younger and had played less games last year. This was further accentuated by losing Stevens and Porplyzia in round 1.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Carl, I support your crusade that we should be playing the "kids". I have also enjoyed watching the further development of our 2, 3 and 4 year players.


Over the pre-season the 17 other clubs have played 132 teenagers. If you discount GWS (24) and Gold Coast(12) the average number of "kids" played per team is 6.4 players.

We have played two of our nine teenagers, plus Crouch. That means we have played the least" kids" compared to the other AFL teams and less than half the average number (excluding GWS and GC).

We are also at the bottom of the table for playing rookie listed players.

Which players out of Crouch, Henderson, Jaensch, Jenkins, Johnston, Kerridge, Lynch, Lyons, McKernan, Petrenko, Shaw, Smith, Talia, L Thompson, Wright... fit your categorisation of 'kids'?

My question to you Carl, is do we develop our kids better by publically stating "we're going to play the kids" and not play them or by saying "We will make the kids earn their spot" and then play them?

I'm not sure what you're aiming at here. What we say makes no difference, it's what we do that counts.

As a comparison we played more "kids" in the last two pre-seasons.

I don't recall too much criticism of Neil's preseason squads that he selected, certainly compared to the season proper anyway. That was where the real issue was for most critics. When the stable of 33 year olds were being nursed through a preseason and the season after when they all left there would have been preseason opportunities aplenty.

Regarding the injury argument, how many injuries did we have in the first three rounds of the NAB Cup last year? Answer - Nil. We had nearly a full list to choose from until the overtraining kicked in and Tippett twisted an ankle, Henderson concussion, Martin wrenched knee and Callinan torn bicep. Then in the first two rounds of the season, Porplyzia shoulder, Mackay shoulder, Sloane broken thumb, and Davis shoulder.

I guess consistency isn't the strong suit of some critics.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up. Neil was banned from over-training the squad last year, remember? An external group had to come in over his head and listed 20 inept practices we were engaged in that had to stop.

 

[A FEW GOOD MEN]

Which players out of Crouch, Henderson, Jaensch, Jenkins, Johnston, Kerridge, Lynch, Lyons, McKernan, Petrenko, Shaw, Smith, Talia, L Thompson, Wright... fit your categorisation of 'kids'?


I'm not sure what you're aiming at here. What we say makes no difference, it's what we do that counts.

I don't recall too much criticism of Neil's preseason squads that he selected, certainly compared to the season proper anyway. That was where the real issue was for most critics. When the stable of 33 year olds were being nursed through a preseason and the season after when they all left there would have been preseason opportunities aplenty.


I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up. Neil was banned from over-training the squad last year, remember? An external group had to come in over his head and listed 20 inept practices we were engaged in that had to stop.

1) As outlined earlier, my definition of "kids" was 18 or 19 year old players as stated by champion data. By definition they would be in either their first or second year on an AFL list (the only AFL exceptions are Crouch and O'Meara). Our "kids" are Ellis-Yolmen (19), Grigg (19), Joyce (18), Kerridge (18), Lyons (19), Laird (18), Martyn (19), Orval (18) and Crouch. If you want to include all players under 24 (e.g.Jenkins 23) then more than 50% of players on AFL lists are kids.

Other than Kerridge, Lyons is the only one of our "kids" that can play this year to be given a run and he has had less than 70 minutes game time. Contrast this with our players over 25 and we have given very little game time to our "kids" compared to other AFL clubs.

I do agree that Sando has given plenty of game time to "Craigie's Kids", that is the 20 to 23 year olds, and don't they look an exciting bunch.

2) My point is that you and others have posted ad naseum over the last couple of seasons about the lack of opportunities given to "kids", but have failed to notice that we have given less game time to kids during this pre-season. Your previous claims that we weren't playing kids was not supported by the facts when comparing the games played at AFC to the AFL average. Over the last two seasons we have said we will always pick our best 22 which you found very distressing yet we still gave considerably more game time to our kids than the AFL average. This year we have said we will be focussing on the younger players and have given our kids less than half the game time compared to the AFL average.

My point, Carl, is whether it is O.K. by you and others for the club to say we are going to play the kids but not carry it through.

Don't worry Carl, I also have the stats for the season proper and I will update you on how this season compares to previous seasons.

3) Regarding the comment on injuries, this was in response to a comment that we may have played more kids in the pre-season last year due to all the injuries. I simply pointed out that we had no injuries in the first three matches of the NAB cup last year and had almost a full squad to choose from until the final round of the NAB Cup.

The fact that many posters tried to pin the problem with the 8 major collision related injuries late in pre-season and in round 1 on our previous coach clearly demonstrates how clueless some people can be when they jump on a bandwagon.

Can't handle the truth Carl?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

1) As outlined earlier, my definition of "kids" was 18 or 19 year old players as stated by champion data. By definition they would be in either their first or second year on an AFL list (the only AFL exceptions are Crouch and O'Meara). Our "kids" are Ellis-Yolmen (19), Grigg (19), Joyce (18), Kerridge (18), Lyons (19), Laird (18), Martyn (19), Orval (18) and Crouch. If you want to include all players under 24 (e.g.Jenkins 23) then more than 50% of players on AFL lists are kids.

Other than Kerridge, Lyons is the only one of our "kids" that can play this year to be given a run and he has had less than 70 minutes game time. Contrast this with our players over 25 and we have given very little game time to our "kids" compared to other AFL clubs.

I do agree that Sando has given plenty of game time to "Craigie's Kids", that is the 20 to 23 year olds, and don't they look an exciting bunch.

Ok, but if a 23 year old ruckman who hasn't played a game doesn't qualify then I'm not too fussed about the figures. We have a bunch of 20-23 year olds who are in desperate need of game time and exposure who for various reasons haven't received it previously (this isn't a dig necessarily at Craig - Shaw has been injured, Lynch, Jenkins and Johnston elsewhere).

The club isn't currently in a position where we have a core of experienced stars who can waltz through a preseason playing only limited game time and giving a bunch of first year kids lots of minutes. Even many our 'experienced' players desperately need game time to prove that they are worthy of a game and in some cases try to learn a new role.

2) My point is that you and others have posted ad naseum over the last couple of seasons about the lack of opportunities given to "kids", but have failed to notice that we have given less game time to kids during this pre-season. Your previous claims that we weren't playing kids was not supported by the facts when comparing the games played at AFC to the AFL average. Over the last two seasons we have said we will always pick our best 22 which you found very distressing yet we still gave considerably more game time to our kids than the AFL average. This year we have said we will be focussing on the younger players and have given our kids less than half the game time compared to the AFL average.

My point, Carl, is whether it is O.K. by you and others for the club to say we are going to play the kids but not carry it through.

Don't worry Carl, I also have the stats for the season proper and I will update you on how this season compares to previous seasons.

That's great. If you could also point out the senior/mid-career players who play SANFL football during the season and compare that to past seasons that would be great. You know, the Lockyer, Medhurst, O'Bree, Johnson examples. Craig's 7 years yielded Massie sometimes... and Symes last season. And that was all.

Will be tough for Sando to have any players in this category given the age profile of our squad but we'll wait and see.

3) Regarding the comment on injuries, this was in response to a comment that we may have played more kids in the pre-season last year due to all the injuries. I simply pointed out that we had no injuries in the first three matches of the NAB cup last year and had almost a full squad to choose from until the final round of the NAB Cup.

The fact that many posters tried to pin the problem with the 8 major collision related injuries late in pre-season and in round 1 on our previous coach clearly demonstrates how clueless some people can be when they jump on a bandwagon.

Can't handle the truth Carl?

I like how 7 years of a demanding program that concluded with an external review and a raft of changes being ordered is being glossed over (by some) and the focus instead shifting to some later injuries that Craig can't be blamed for. Imagine if he'd had your bad luck injuries with his pre-review over training injuries! Might have had to pull on the guernsey himself.

 

[Vader]

By my count we've had 6 players (Lynch, Jenkins, Kerridge, Shaw, Lyons & Johnstone) make their "club" debut during the MMC, 7 if you include Crouch. None had played more than 6 games elsewhere. How does this compare with the league average?

By my count we've played 21 players (excluding Crouch) with <50 games to their credit during the pre-season. How does this compare with the league average?

The fact that we haven't played quite as many teenagers is neither here nor there, considering the number of players we have in that 20-23yo age group, who are still very inexperienced. So what if we've been playing this group instead of the kids who really aren't ready for the big time?

 

[Wood_Duck]

By my count we've had 6 players (Lynch, Jenkins, Kerridge, Shaw, Lyons & Johnstone) make their "club" debut during the MMC, 7 if you include Crouch. None had played more than 6 games elsewhere. How does this compare with the league average?

By my count we've played 21 players (excluding Crouch) with <50 games to their credit during the pre-season. How does this compare with the league average?

The fact that we haven't played quite as many teenagers is neither here nor there, considering the number of players we have in that 20-23yo age group, who are still very inexperienced. So what if we've been playing this group instead of the kids who really aren't ready for the big time?

I get all nervous when you are making sense.

 

[A FEW GOOD MEN]

By my count we've had 6 players (Lynch, Jenkins, Kerridge, Shaw, Lyons & Johnstone) make their "club" debut during the MMC, 7 if you include Crouch. None had played more than 6 games elsewhere. How does this compare with the league average?

By my count we've played 21 players (excluding Crouch) with <50 games to their credit during the pre-season. How does this compare with the league average?

The fact that we haven't played quite as many teenagers is neither here nor there, considering the number of players we have in that 20-23yo age group, who are still very inexperienced. So what if we've been playing this group instead of the kids who really aren't ready for the big time?

We are below the AFL average on all the factors you have outlined.

I am not saying this is wrong, I am just surprised at the deafening silence by Carl and the crew on these facts.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

We are below the AFL average on all the factors you have outlined.

I am not saying this is wrong, I am just surprised at the deafening silence by Carl and the crew on these facts.

Who's being silent?

Sando has a host of 20+ year olds who are a mile behind where they should be as footballers and he is having to play catch up with all of them. It's the main legacy of the Craig era and as you've pointed out is costing our first year draftees. I'm surprised to see you joining in on the Craig Bashing but I get the feeling this season will be full of surprises.

 

[Ad76]

The fact that we haven't played quite as many teenagers is neither here nor there, considering the number of players we have in that 20-23yo age group, who are still very inexperienced. So what if we've been playing this group instead of the kids who really aren't ready for the big time?

I'm with Vader on this one.

Squad profiles are different around the league, so the percentages being talked about here just arent meaningful. Look at it from the perspective of who in the list of "teens" is a development priority?

Played NAB Cup: Kerridge (18), Lyons (19), Crouch
Rookies (project players/speculative picks): Laird (18), Martyn (19), Orval (18)

That only leaves 3: Ellis-Yolmen (19), Grigg (19), Joyce (18).

 

[Wood_Duck]

Sando has a host of 20+ year olds who are a mile behind where they should be as footballers and he is having to play catch up with all of them. It's the main legacy of the Craig era and as you've pointed out is costing our first year draftees.

This is the exact point here. Our teenagers are obviously inexperienced but due to sins of the past we have plenty of post teen players who are also very inexperienced. Not surprising we have played less teenagers than other clubs.

 

[NTRabbit]

Who's being silent?

Sando has a host of 20+ year olds who are a mile behind where they should be as footballers and he is having to play catch up with all of them. It's the main legacy of the Craig era and as you've pointed out is costing our first year draftees. I'm surprised to see you joining in on the Craig Bashing but I get the feeling this season will be full of surprises.

What an utter load of garbage. The only 20+ year olds on our list with less games than you'd expect for their age are ones that came to use as mature selections already 20 years old or more, or via the trade table, plus Porplyzia, Knights, Mackay and Otten who have missed at least a season each in total through injury. The only number that could reasonably be considered low is Rory Sloane, and the simple answer for that is he took a little longer to reach the level.

There's no catch up to be played, there's no horrible distress being wrought on our most recent draftees, that is nothing more than sheer nonsensical fantasy from fans obsessed with the DOB statistic.

You keep peddling your fraudulent line, but as ever the facts and figures show you up.

I wonder how long it will be before the same three people start rumbling for changes in the coaching staff again this year, because despite his different approaches to preseason training, match day tactics, leadership and other things, Sanderson is still following more or less the same selection policy as his predecessor - a selection policy rooted in reality, rather than dreamland.

 

[Vader]

What an utter load of garbage. The only 20+ year olds on our list with less games than you'd expect for their age are ones that came to use as mature selections already 20 years old or more, or via the trade table, plus Porplyzia, Knights, Mackay and Otten who have missed at least a season each in total through injury. The only number that could reasonably be considered low is Rory Sloane, and the simple answer for that is he took a little longer to reach the level.

There's no catch up to be played, there's no horrible distress being wrought on our most recent draftees, that is nothing more than sheer nonsensical fantasy from fans obsessed with the DOB statistic.

You keep peddling your fraudulent line, but as ever the facts and figures show you up.

I wonder how long it will be before the same three people start rumbling for changes in the coaching staff again this year, because despite his different approaches to preseason training, match day tactics, leadership and other things, Sanderson is still following more or less the same selection policy as his predecessor - a selection policy rooted in reality, rather than dreamland.

I keep wondering which players Carl is referring to as having been held back by NC. I can't think of any at all.

There are a few who should have played more games than they have - the ones you named are all prime examples. In all of those cases their problems have been with injury, not the selection committee. You can argue all you like that NC's training regime contributed to their injuries and I'd agree in the cases of Knights & Mackay (but not Otten & Porps), but that's not the purpose of this particular debate.

Some will try to argue for Tex, saying that he should have made his debut back in 2008. I would disagree, pointing out that he still demonstrates the same flaws which the selectors wanted him to work on in the SANFL that year. Even so, Tex is just one solitary player. What's being alleged here is a systematic problem which requires far more than one example to be proven.

Precisely which players were held back in their development?