Crows vs. Demons - Match Talk

[Crow-mo]

I haven't checked the figures but I would say that we have had less Rising Star nominees over the last five years than any other club. I think we are overly-cautious with our younger players and that this will cost us in the long term.

if you are relying on rising stars as a useful metric, walk away from the table now.

Kane Johnson and Simon Goodwin were not out-and-out Judd-esque stars as junior players. I certainly don't think they were head and shoulders above our current crop of young players.

well it all depends on how you look at it. for a start, Goodwin was 20 when he made his debut - having been a late draftee? did a lack of opportunity when he 17/18 stifle his development, or did it come naturally when he was ready?
then of course there is this matter of him being state u/18 cricket captain - which was reported at the time as being a major factor in clubs steering clear of him. he was 19 when he was drafted.

Kane Johnson, was AA CHB in the teal cup in 1995. and I recall very clearly, that after about 2 weeks of training with the club, John Reid giving an Interview to KG raving about his footy smarts and how good he was going to be. Still he played 2 games in his first season.

Neither of these guys were rushed or given opportunities. Johnson played virtually every game in his second season - clearly showing he was ready for his opportunities. at the age of 19, he played every game for premiership team - inarguably he was not gifted opportunities.

Goodwin didn't even get picked up in the draft. We, along with every other club, overlooked him in the draft and we chose him as a late selection in the preseason draft.

when he was 19!

And when we got Kane Johnson across from Victoria he was meant to be behind Brent Williams in terms of ability and potential.

because he was our 2nd draft pick? the truth was, he was really meant to be too small to be a KPP. he played CHB. However, not unlike Stenglein who played some FB in perth, he had footy smarts - which is why we took him.

Unlike Judd/Gibbs/Murphy they didn't have 'future champion' stamped on their foreheads so it was not as easy a decision for the selectors to give them games as you are making it out to be.

well both played every game in the second season, so you seem a bit confused about what your point actually was. they played when they were ready, and stayed in the team. you have some weird idea that giving away a guernsey when they are not ready makes a player better than they are.

They worked hard. Showed some glimpses. Got an opportunity. Grabbed it with both hands.

when they were ready. they stayed in the team.

Our current youngsters are only getting to the 'glimpse' stage. Now, you could argue that it's up to them to demand that opportunity and leave the selectors with no choice but to pick them. But I think that coaches/selectors need to back their ability to identify talent and to occassionally give it a helping hand along the way.

and there you go again.
lumping them all together - that is the truly crazy element of your point of view.

 

[fightingdreamer88]

Based on last night's game I think we can safely say we've got some very talented youngsters in our side, crow-mo

 

[Stiffy_18]

Based on last night's game I think we can safely say we've got some very talented youngsters in our side, crow-mo

I think you need to re-read his posts and S-L-O-W-L-Y!!!!! He never said that we didn't. His argument is completely different to what you are claiming it to be

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Country athletes have a higher representation per capita in top level sport in Australia than athletes from metropolitan areas. There are a number of reasons for this:
1) sport is a key component of the community in country areas and children often play a wide variety of sports from a young age
2) there is plenty of open space in country areas to ride bikes, climb trees, skip stones etc, unlike the metro areas, especially now with the trend of shrinking back yards
3) exposure to senior sport from a young age ie talented kids get to play against men

Stories about sportspeople who have come from country areas are littered with examples of teenagers who played colts in the morning, seniors in the afternoon. Playing against men and being exposed to a level of sport that is out of their comfort zone is an absolutely crucial element in their development and a key advantage country athletes have over their metropolitan contemporaries. You are welcome to deny this final factor if you would like to - it is your opinion after all - but I find it surprising that anyone could.

I'm not saying that all of Adelaide's youngsters should be rushed in to the line up so don't really see how I am lumping everyone together. We have some (to me) obvious stand out prospects and, for them to be as good as they can possiby be, I feel they need more exposure to AFL football at the highest level during their crucial, formative years than they are currently getting.

Selecting a young player is always going to be a leap of faith for the coaching staff. No one's sure what they are going to do. No one's sure how they will handle the step up in pace. No one's sure how they will handle the extra pressure. No one's sure how they will react to the bigger bodies. No one's sure what sort of player they will become. These are all unknows. This is why it is exciting when you pick a young player - you want to see some of these questions answered.

Your argument that we should only pick young players when they are 'ready' is, to me, vastly over-simplifying things. There is no 'ready.' It is not black and white.

If a young player comes through this test then you know you might have something special. At the moment, I don't think we know what we've got and we seem a bit scared to find out.

That Goodwin first played in the year that he turned 20 rather than the year that he turned 19 is not exactly overwhelming evidence contrary to my argument. And I don't think too many duds have won the Rising Star award. Even the weekly nominations are usually pretty obvious - those judges have the easiest gig going around. You could argue the criteria re eligible players is flawed but not too much else.

 

[fightingdreamer88]

I think you need to re-read his posts and S-L-O-W-L-Y!!!!! He never said that we didn't. His argument is completely different to what you are claiming it to be

Fair enough, I just skimmed over it and wanted to defend our kids as per usual . Hurry up and get here round 1!!! THIS IS MY FIRST YEAR WITH SEASON TICKETS!!! pumped/10

 

[fightingdreamer88]

Country athletes have a higher representation per capita in top level sport in Australia than athletes from metropolitan areas. There are a number of reasons for this:
1) sport is a key component of the community in country areas and children often play a wide variety of sports from a young age
2) there is plenty of open space in country areas to ride bikes, climb trees, skip stones etc, unlike the metro areas, especially now with the trend of shrinking back yards
3) exposure to senior sport from a young age ie talented kids get to play against men

Stories about sportspeople who have come from country areas are littered with examples of teenagers who played colts in the morning, seniors in the afternoon. Playing against men and being exposed to a level of sport that is out of their comfort zone is an absolutely crucial element in their development and a key advantage country athletes have over their metropolitan contemporaries. You are welcome to deny this final factor if you would like to - it is your opinion after all - but I find it surprising that anyone could.

I'm not saying that all of Adelaide's youngsters should be rushed in to the line up so don't really see how I am lumping everyone together. We have some (to me) obvious stand out prospects and, for them to be as good as they can possiby be, I feel they need more exposure to AFL football at the highest level during their crucial, formative years than they are currently getting.

Selecting a young player is always going to be a leap of faith for the coaching staff. No one's sure what they are going to do. No one's sure how they will handle the step up in pace. No one's sure how they will handle the extra pressure. No one's sure how they will react to the bigger bodies. No one's sure what sort of player they will become. These are all unknows. This is why it is exciting when you pick a young player - you want to see some of these questions answered.

Your argument that we should only pick young players when they are 'ready' is, to me, vastly over-simplifying things. There is no 'ready.' It is not black and white.

If a young player comes through this test then you know you might have something special. At the moment, I don't think we know what we've got and we seem a bit scared to find out.

That Goodwin first played in the year that he turned 20 rather than the year that he turned 19 is not exactly overwhelming evidence contrary to my argument. And I don't think too many duds have won the Rising Star award. Even the weekly nominations are usually pretty obvious - those judges have the easiest gig going around. You could argue the criteria re eligible players is flawed but not too much else.

The nominations are frequently wrong but the same cannot be said for the winners. Is Douglas eligible this year? I think he's in with a chance somehow, if he continues to improve. The Glenelg coach doesn't rate him up there with Bryce Gibbs for nothing

 

[Crow-mo]

Country athletes have a higher representation per capita in top level sport in Australia than athletes from metropolitan areas. There are a number of reasons for this:
1) sport is a key component of the community in country areas and children often play a wide variety of sports from a young age
2) there is plenty of open space in country areas to ride bikes, climb trees, skip stones etc, unlike the metro areas, especially now with the trend of shrinking back yards
3) exposure to senior sport from a young age ie talented kids get to play against men

Stories about sportspeople who have come from country areas are littered with examples of teenagers who played colts in the morning, seniors in the afternoon. Playing against men and being exposed to a level of sport that is out of their comfort zone is an absolutely crucial element in their development and a key advantage country athletes have over their metropolitan contemporaries. You are welcome to deny this final factor if you would like to - it is your opinion after all - but I find it surprising that anyone could.

deny what, you just made some claims - and provided both zero evidence and zero attempts to define your assumed relationships.

what's to deny?

I'm not saying that all of Adelaide's youngsters should be rushed in to the line up so don't really see how I am lumping everyone together. We have some (to me) obvious stand out prospects and, for them to be as good as they can possiby be, I feel they need more exposure to AFL football at the highest level during their crucial, formative years than they are currently getting.

alright which ones should be getting more time, why, at the expense of whom - and why do you think this isn't happening?

Selecting a young player is always going to be a leap of faith for the coaching staff. No one's sure what they are going to do. No one's sure how they will handle the step up in pace. No one's sure how they will handle the extra pressure. No one's sure how they will react to the bigger bodies. No one's sure what sort of player they will become. These are all unknows. This is why it is exciting when you pick a young player - you want to see some of these questions answered.

agree it is exciting to see, and everyone looks forward to seeing how they do. but so what - you are once again, assuming this all luck. Once a player has been the system a little while, and the coaches have worked with them, given them instructions and areas to work on, watched them play in the SANFL etc. I think it's fair to say that it is not entirely random how they go. if it were as much guess work as you claim - and your argument requires this ludicrous unknown - then surely every young player would be given 2 games after being drafted; their cards marked; and we all move on. however, you'd need to believe in fairies too.

Your argument that we should only pick young players when they are 'ready' is, to me, vastly over-simplifying things. There is no 'ready.' It is not black and white.

says who? no, really who says there is no ready? based on what?
that again, has this fantasy element that the player himself doesn't know what he needs to do to get selected. do you really think players don't get feedback, training programmes, explanations of where they fit in the pecking order, and what they need to do to put themselves forward for selection?
c'mon please.

If a young player comes through this test then you know you might have something special. At the moment, I don't think we know what we've got and we seem a bit scared to find out.

I'd like to know what makes you think you're in a position to declare the club doesn't know more about the young guys training with them than you do?
of course they do. VB got some games early, Douglas looks like he will be in the mix this season too - seems to me, some of our players are being fast tracked, whilst others are being brought along more slowly. just as it should be.

might I also remind you of Brent Reilly's comments on waiting his turn?

That Goodwin first played in the year that he turned 20 rather than the year that he turned 19 is not exactly overwhelming evidence contrary to my argument.

that's because i'm not sure you understand your argument or anyone else's for that.

And I don't think too many duds have won the Rising Star award. Even the weekly nominations are usually pretty obvious - those judges have the easiest gig going around. You could argue the criteria re eligible players is flawed but not too much else.

um, are you saying that you rank the RS winners on a par with the weekly nominees? not many duds have won the RS, LOTS AND LOTS of duds have won a nomination. surely you're not arguing otherwise?

 

[Crow-mo]

I think you need to re-read his posts and S-L-O-W-L-Y!!!!! He never said that we didn't. His argument is completely different to what you are claiming it to be

indeed

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

alright which ones should be getting more time, why, at the expense of whom - and why do you think this isn't happening?

Well, here we are, back at the start again!

So, the fundamental argument we are still debating is Picking our best 22 for this weekend vs Picking the 22 that will give us the greatest chance of winning a premiership. I don't believe they are necessarily the same thing. Nothing you have said has made me change my mind that we overly cautious with our young players, as I'm sure I haven't convinced you one iota either!

For what it's worth, last season I would have liked to have seen more of Knights when he was fit (instead of Skipworth/Massie), Maric (instead of Biglands/Clarke) and even a few more games from Douglas.

The AFL with its draft and salary cap has set up a 'performance cycle' - finish down the bottom, get some good draft picks, blood some youngsters, slowly develop, improve, make the 8, have tilt at a flag, get older and stagnate, fall back down the ladder - then start all over again. Brisbane over the last 10 years is the perfect example.

I was very interested to hear Craig say that he is not a subscriber to the 'premiership window' theory. So, in essenece, he doesn't buy into the performance cycle either and believes a team can stay at the top for an extended period of time. Be smart enough to beat the system in other words.

It is easy to blood young players when your team is S.T. ruggling (like Port last season) and I'm sure in a few years time some of the kids they are bringing in will take them up the ladder. It is much harder for us to bring in talented young players for all the reasons you have been mentioning, as our senior players have been performing well and we don't want to derail our immediate premiership chances by planning for the future.

However, from Craig's comments about the premiership window I would have thought that we would have seen more young players exposed at the highest level as we constantly look to improve our list. Perhaps he places more faith in the SANFL system than I do. Other clubs wait until they are down the bottom of the ladder before blooding the kids - these clubs are slaves to the machine!

 

[betterthanu]

Brisbane over the last 10 years is the perfect example.

Brisbane haven't really bottomed out and they have a very good list. i think they have beat the system and will start rising up the ladder this year. They have very good youngsters and not so old champions.

 

[fightingdreamer88]

Brisbane haven't really bottomed out and they have a very good list. i think they have beat the system and will start rising up the ladder this year. They have very good youngsters and not so old champions.

It's easy to beat the system if you have a natural eye for talent imo. Just as many supergun players are drafted after pick 30 as in the top 10, if you've got the eye and abide by the salary cap (drums) you won't bottom out.

 

[fightingdreamer88]

Well, here we are, back at the start again!

So, the fundamental argument we are still debating is Picking our best 22 for this weekend vs Picking the 22 that will give us the greatest chance of winning a premiership. I don't believe they are necessarily the same thing. Nothing you have said has made me change my mind that we overly cautious with our young players, as I'm sure I haven't convinced you one iota either!

For what it's worth, last season I would have liked to have seen more of Knights when he was fit (instead of Skipworth/Massie), Maric (instead of Biglands/Clarke) and even a few more games from Douglas.

The AFL with its draft and salary cap has set up a 'performance cycle' - finish down the bottom, get some good draft picks, blood some youngsters, slowly develop, improve, make the 8, have tilt at a flag, get older and stagnate, fall back down the ladder - then start all over again. Brisbane over the last 10 years is the perfect example.

I was very interested to hear Craig say that he is not a subscriber to the 'premiership window' theory. So, in essenece, he doesn't buy into the performance cycle either and believes a team can stay at the top for an extended period of time. Be smart enough to beat the system in other words.

It is easy to blood young players when your team is S.T. ruggling (like Port last season) and I'm sure in a few years time some of the kids they are bringing in will take them up the ladder. It is much harder for us to bring in talented young players for all the reasons you have been mentioning, as our senior players have been performing well and we don't want to derail our immediate premiership chances by planning for the future.

However, from Craig's comments about the premiership window I would have thought that we would have seen more young players exposed at the highest level as we constantly look to improve our list. Perhaps he places more faith in the SANFL system than I do. Other clubs wait until they are down the bottom of the ladder before blooding the kids - these clubs are slaves to the machine!

Quoted for truth. We seem to have blooded more youngsters than a lot of other sides that are in the winners' circle, Sydney being a prime example. It was interesting to hear comments from my port supporting mates last year about how they think the Crows will rise to have some sort of dynasty, because they're playing this well and yet still consistently name blokes they've never heard of, like Vince, Douglas, Maric, Porplyzia, etc etc. That's pretty broad and sure we could argue the point about just how many we're blooding, but when another club's supporters look over and are impressed by something like that, it bodes well for us I reckon.

The best way to beat the system is most probably giving games to players purely on form (assuming you've picked good talent as I said in my other post), as Craigy does (the core leadership group are always named as you'd expect, but they're needed in the side for stability and fast-tracking of youngsters anyway). A lot of coaches blatantly ignore their kids when they've got a serious premiership contending outfit. We'll see how things go I guess.

 

[Crow-mo]

Carl,

we're not getting anywhere, i think your views are ridiculous and ill-thought out.
you obviously don't agree

time to move on.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Carl,

we're not getting anywhere, i think your views are ridiculous and ill-thought out.
you obviously don't agree

time to move on.

Agreed that it is time to move on, but "ridiculous and ill-thought out" out is unfair.

Talented players that are protected during their crucial, formative years and not exposed to the highest level of football available (provided they are physically able) will never reach their full potential. This is not some crackpot theory I have some up with myself, it has been gathered from listening to sports scientists (ie Damian Farrow) and high level coaches from various sports who do know what they are talking about. I am fortunate enough in my employment to have spent some time at the AIS in Canberra which I found fascinating. We even got to watch the AIS Canberra Darters (an U-21 scholarship team) play against the Sydney Swifts in the national netball competition. Isn't that interesting?

It might be different to your view and that's fine but there is not one, correct way to produce high level athletes. There will always be different philosophies and methods.

 

[Crow-mo]

Agreed that it is time to move on, but "ridiculous and ill-thought out" out is unfair.

Talented players that are protected during their crucial, formative years and not exposed to the highest level of football available (provided they are physically able) will never reach their full potential. This is not some crackpot theory I have some up with myself, it has been gathered from listening to sports scientists (ie Damian Farrow) and high level coaches from various sports who do know what they are talking about. I am fortunate enough in my employment to have spent some time at the AIS in Canberra which I found fascinating. We even got to watch the AIS Canberra Darters (an U-21 scholarship team) play against the Sydney Swifts in the national netball competition. Isn't that interesting?

not particularly. the world is quite a bit larger than that fairly esoteric oyster.

I'm going to cite 2 examples in reply.
1. Brent Reilly specifically and explicitly stated recently that whilst he was frustrated by not getting games early on, having been brought along at a pace more inlined with his own requirements (i.e. physically) that he wasn't ready, and he believes he has become a better player.
2. there is a much more interesting example going on in English Soccer at the moment. On the one hand Arsene Wenger from Arsenal is a big fan of fast tracking his juniors (he's had some big failures and some big successes with this philosophy); whereas Jose Mourinho has criticised publicly this method on the basis that it does not benefit a player by being promoted if he is not ready to claim his place in the team. Do you get a couple of games, and go back to the reserves, or is it better to come in when you're ready, and stay?
I should note, that whilst this is an ongoing debate - Arsenal's young players have started to flag noticeably in recent weeks, physically they don't appear ready for the long haul of a full premiership season. Which doesn't matter as they weren't expecting to contend. if nothing else, horses for courses.

what you're doing is a taking a broad, random swipe, and just deciding that certain players - whom you know SFA about, are ready against the expert advice of those professionals who are much closer to the action than you, an AIS expert or an u/21 netball team.

We have always fast tracked certain players, and held back others.

It might be different to your view and that's fine but there is not one, correct way to produce high level athletes. There will always be different philosophies and methods.

ah, but here's the rub - you're advocating change to the existing philosophy, therefore you have a higher onus of proof. one of which you have failed.

 

[fightingdreamer88]

not particularly. the world is quite a bit larger than that fairly esoteric oyster.

I'm going to cite 2 examples in reply.
1. Brent Reilly specifically and explicitly stated recently that whilst he was frustrated by not getting games early on, having been brought along at a pace more inlined with his own requirements (i.e. physically) that he wasn't ready, and he believes he has become a better player.
2. there is a much more interesting example going on in English Soccer at the moment. On the one hand Arsene Wenger from Arsenal is a big fan of fast tracking his juniors (he's had some big failures and some big successes with this philosophy); whereas Jose Mourinho has criticised publicly this method on the basis that it does not benefit a player by being promoted if he is not ready to claim his place in the team. Do you get a couple of games, and go back to the reserves, or is it better to come in when you're ready, and stay?
I should note, that whilst this is an ongoing debate - Arsenal's young players have started to flag noticeably in recent weeks, physically they don't appear ready for the long haul of a full premiership season. Which doesn't matter as they weren't expecting to contend. if nothing else, horses for courses.

what you're doing is a taking a broad, random swipe, and just deciding that certain players - whom you know SFA about, are ready against the expert advice of those professionals who are much closer to the action than you, an AIS expert or an u/21 netball team.

We have always fast tracked certain players, and held back others.



ah, but here's the rub - you're advocating change to the existing philosophy, therefore you have a higher onus of proof. one of which you have failed.

Unfortunately Reilly hasn't risen to the heights we perhaps expected as yet. He's definitely improving, but in the back of my mind I hear "Dal Santo, Dal Santo" chiming away. By the way, who would you say is the quicker of the two?

When sports scientists say you need to expose youngsters to the highest level very early on, I'd doubt they mean "play him every week", rather "give him a couple of games, give him a taste of it; if he adapts well straight away then continue but if serious deficiencies surface, send him back to the league below to address them - the player will now at least know where they need to be to compete at that top level."

I.e. different players will always have different requirements because they are just that: different. But I would suggest that early exposure is consistent with most of the more successful coaches, it's just the length of that exposure. Obviously a Marc Murphy or someone like that has shown they can step in straight away, but someone like a Dale Thomas, who has shown he's got the talent, but needs to bulk up, doesn't play every game but at least now knows what sort of size he needs to reach to hold his own physically. Collingwood haven't managed this as well as they could have however, they've probably played him too much (he's fortunate not to have hurt himself).

I don't think any young player with ability is held back (at the crows at least) - i.e. if their form permits they get a crack, either they prove themselves to be more or less developed enough to hold the spot down or they head back to the SANFL mindful of what it's like to tackle the big boys, and they've then got targets to aim for and are better for it. Gotta expose 'em either way imo, no use not playing them at all until they're 24 and finding issues that could have been sorted 6 years ago. Mind you, that then brings up the whole mature age recruit debate - I would suggest that the most commonly exposed aspect of a young player is their body size and strength, something that isn't an issue with most mature age players.


EDIT: Dale Thomas is probably a bad example but I can't think of anyone who fits that "not quite ready category" at this moment....Jericho?? >_>

 

[Southerntakeover]

^ Im glad you both moved on

 

[Stiffy_18]

I really don't see what the issue is here!

AFC, especially under Neil Craig has not once shown reservations in playing the youngsters when the opportunity arises and in their mind, they think that the player dserves a go.

Chris Knights made his AFL debut in the very first year on the list. So did Nathan Van Berlo, Bernie Vince, Richard Douglas even Fergus Watts.

Nathan Van Berlo has cemented his spot in the 22 in only his 2nd year on the list. The kid broke a collarbone, missed 6 weeks and came straight back into the 22 for us. I don't see the problem here.

Bernie Vince plays country football and 12 months later he is making his AFL debut at Telstra Dome in round 1.

Richard Douglas plays well in SANFL, injures his knee and misses ridicilous amound of football. A couple of weeks in the SANFL and he is making his AFL debut in showdown none the less.

Both Richard Douglas and Nathan Van Berlo made their debuts in the Showdown. Games that are widely considered to be of high intensity and enourmous pressue. The whole build up to a showdown is overwhelming enough for a young player but the club has shown that they are not afraid to throw these kids into the deep end if they think they can perform.

We can't group everyone together and say we should play them. Different player mature at different rates and a classic example of this is Meesen Vs Maric. Meesen came to the club as a more advanced ruckman that everyone thought could play in teh first year if needed. Come finals time in the same year Maric is pushing for an AFL game and being named as an emergency week in week out and Meesen is struggling in SANFL reserves.

I have the utmost faith in the club as to how they handle these youngsters. They have shown in the past that they are not afraid to give the kids a go. I think some people are expecting too much of these youngsters as well.

Judging by some posts here, everyone expects Douglas to play every game this season where as in reality 12-15 games would be a very good return. No one can expect the kid to be performing consistenty well in the AFL after only 3 games of AFL experience. More should be expected of the likes of Van Berlo, Reilly and Knights, rather than Douglas, Pfeiffer or Vince.

 

[fightingdreamer88]

I really don't see what the issue is here!

AFC, especially under Neil Craig has not once shown reservations in playing the youngsters when the opportunity arises and in their mind, they think that the player dserves a go.

Chris Knights made his AFL debut in the very first year on the list. So did Nathan Van Berlo, Bernie Vince, Richard Douglas even Fergus Watts.

Nathan Van Berlo has cemented his spot in the 22 in only his 2nd year on the list. The kid broke a collarbone, missed 6 weeks and came straight back into the 22 for us. I don't see the problem here.

Bernie Vince plays country football and 12 months later he is making his AFL debut at Telstra Dome in round 1.

Richard Douglas plays well in SANFL, injures his knee and misses ridicilous amound of football. A couple of weeks in the SANFL and he is making his AFL debut in showdown none the less.

Both Richard Douglas and Nathan Van Berlo made their debuts in the Showdown. Games that are widely considered to be of high intensity and enourmous pressue. The whole build up to a showdown is overwhelming enough for a young player but the club has shown that they are not afraid to throw these kids into the deep end if they think they can perform.

We can't group everyone together and say we should play them. Different player mature at different rates and a classic example of this is Meesen Vs Maric. Meesen came to the club as a more advanced ruckman that everyone thought could play in teh first year if needed. Come finals time in the same year Maric is pushing for an AFL game and being named as an emergency week in week out and Meesen is struggling in SANFL reserves.

I have the utmost faith in the club as to how they handle these youngsters. They have shown in the past that they are not afraid to give the kids a go. I think some people are expecting too much of these youngsters as well.

Judging by some posts here, everyone expects Douglas to play every game this season where as in reality 12-15 games would be a very good return. No one can expect the kid to be performing consistenty well in the AFL after only 3 games of AFL experience. More should be expected of the likes of Van Berlo, Reilly and Knights, rather than Douglas, Pfeiffer or Vince.

Throw Porplyzia into that mix I guess. 2007 is the year for our next generation midfielders to take control imo.

 

[- PC -]

Throw Porplyzia into that mix I guess. 2007 is the year for our next generation midfielders to take control imo.

To me this is the issue both you and Carl seem to have. You're right that we need to develop the kids, but it seems form skimming that you both feel they should take over immediately

How many games should Gibbs play for Carlton? I see some people advocating all 22, if I was coach of Carlton ( I would resign) I would pencil in 12 games for Gibbs , as noted in CrowMos post kids flag and tire , no matter their skill level. Its his first season of AFL training and has had to step up, no doubt he is a talent, but he will be burnt out imo if he plays more than 15 games

2007 is not the year those named take control, it is the year for them to play enough games for them to BELIEVE they belong.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

^ Im glad you both moved on

Bet you LONDON to a brick that one wont.

 

[Vader]

Quoted for truth. We seem to have blooded more youngsters than a lot of other sides that are in the winners' circle, Sydney being a prime example.

Sydney seem to be about the ONLY example.

Take West Coast - they've had at least 6 Rising Star nominees in the past three years and have probably blooded twice that many kids.

In the past three years we've blooded the following: Douglas, Van Berlo, Knights, Maric, Porplyzia, Vince, Watts, Hudson and that's it (as far as I can recall - unless there's been someone who debuted but has been delisted).

So... WCE have had 6 nominees, we've had 8 debutants with four of them having played 10 or more games and only two having reached 15 games.

 

[Stiffy_18]

To me this is the issue both you and Carl seem to have. You're right that we need to develop the kids, but it seems form skimming that you both feel they should take over immediately

...

2007 is not the year those named take control, it is the year for them to play enough games for them to BELIEVE they belong.

Nail. Hammer. Head.

These kids have hardly tasted AFL football and for anyone to expect them to take over is just way too unrealistic.

 

[fightingdreamer88]

Nail. Hammer. Head.

These kids have hardly tasted AFL football and for anyone to expect them to take over is just way too unrealistic.

By next generation midfielders I mean Knights, Porplyzia, Reilly, Thommo.

 

[Stiffy_18]

By next generation midfielders I mean Knights, Porplyzia, Reilly, Thommo.

And Knights only has some 12 odd games to his name and Porplyzia is about the same. You are expecting WAY too much here. Reilly and Thomo, yes fair enough but Knights and Porplyzia are still pups. Combined they don't have 25 games of AFL experience and you are expecting them to take over?! C'mon!