Deconstructing Success

[jenny61_99]

In another thread I started to look at the breakdown of our players and the #'s of games played in an attempt to isolate possible reasons for our lack of success. In doing so I looked at Geelong and Hawthorns lists and thought it was fairly obvious why we are not competitive against these sort of teams. So I thought it might be interesting if we could break down the teams and see what it is they are doing, or personnel they have, that make them successful or less successful. I'll start with the breakdown of players that have played close to 100 games or more and see if this has an impact on success. There are sure to be other things, so just add them.

Geelong:

Ablett Jr, (144) Bartel (131), Chapman (154), Corey (174), Enright (148), Harley (182), Hunt (120), Johnson (110), Kelly (127), Ling (180), Milburn (233), Mooney (166), Ottens (202), Rooke (110), Scarlett (204), Wojcinski (131), Mackie (80).

Hawthorn:

Bateman (115), Brown (119), Campbell (100), Crawford (303), Croad (220), Dew (193), Guerra (154), Hodge (130), Jacobs (126), Mitchell (131), Williams (96), Sewell (83), Roughhead (81), Osborne (97), Lewis (81), Ladson (97), Clarke (96)

Western Bulldogs:

Akermanis (290), Boyd (113), Cooney (110), Cross (108), Eagleton (234), Giansiracusa (148), Gilbee (138), Hahn (135), Hargrave (139), Johnson (322), Lake (120), Morris (85), Murphy (149), Welsh (187), West* injured (324)

St Kilda:

Baker (154), Ball (122), Blake (134), Clarke (105), Dal Santo (142), Fiora (139), Gardiner M,(138), Gehrig* injured (260), Goddard (111), Harvey (381), Hayes (190), Hudghton (225), King (213), Koschitzke (117), Maguire (99), Milne (163), Riewoldt (156), Montagna (96), Schneider (115)

Adelaide:

Bock (86), Burton *injured (164), Doughty (142), Edwards (289), Goodwin (238), Johncock (147), Massie (131), McGregor *not playing (152), McLeod (304), Reilly (93), Rutten (102), Shirley (140), Stevens (102), Thompson (132)

Sydney:

Ablett ((119), Barry (233), Becan (88), Bolton,C (173), Bolton, J (210), Buchanan (107), Crouch (208), Davis (168), Everitt (290), Fosdike (164), Goodes (229), Hall (238), Jolly (143), Kenelly (157), Kirk (194), Mathews (198), Mattner (121), McVeigh (104), O'Keefe (163), O'Loughlin (286), Richards (102), Robert-Thomson (97)

Kangaroos:

Brown (181), Firrito (105), Grant (301), Hale (101), Harding (111), Harris (139), Harvey (264), Jones (145), Petrie (154), Power (106), Pratt (84), Rawlings (181), Simpson (288), Sinclair (192), Thompson (179), Watt (152), Wells (123)

Collingwood:

Burns (264), David (160), Didak (138), Fraser (173), Holland (155), Johnson (171), Lockyer (190), Lonie (123), Maxwell (94), Medhurst (139), O'Bree (214), Prestigiacomo (195), Rocca *injured (238), Shaw (93), Swan (99), Wakelin (251)

Now look at say the bottom 3 teams for comparison:

Melbourne:

Bruce (184), Davey (97), Green 186), Holland (191), McDonald (217), Miller (110), Robertson (215), Wheatley (132), Whelan (140), White (268) Yze (271)

West Coast:

Braun (228), Cox (167), Embley (166), Fletcher (174), Glass (166), Hunter (143), Jones B (83), Kerr (155), Lynch (128), Seaby (97), Selwood A (96), Staker (104), Stenglein (197), Wirrpanda (209)

Fremantle:

Bell (286), Black (192), Carr J (188), Carr M (162), Farmer (249), Grover (146), Hasleby (166), Hayden (94), Headland (152), Johnson M (208), McManus (228), McPharlin (133), Mundy (86), Pavlich (194), Sandilands (115), Schammer (105), Solomon (191), Tarrant (198)



(Age of players (and stages of career) above must bear a part in this too, but I haven't done that comparison yet).

 

[King Elvis]

I think you've backed up statistically what a lot of us already knew - in the 24-28 year old age bracket (the 100-200 gamers), we have a massive vacuum.

 

[jenny61_99]

I think you've backed up statistically what a lot of us already knew - in the 24-28 year old age bracket (the 100-200 gamers), we have a massive vacuum.

I wasn't sure what I was going to achieve by doing this whole exercise, but I agree, it certainly shows that!

 

[Vader]

If you're going to denote Burton & McGregor as non-contributors, the same should be done for Scott West. Has barely played a game all year, courtesy of injured knees. The fact that his team has done so well in his absence is a credit to him - he's survived long enough to make himself obsolete.

Maybe obsolete isn't the right word. Two years ago they would have fallen in a heap if he wasn't there. Today his team goes on without him.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

I think you've backed up statistically what a lot of us already knew - in the 24-28 year old age bracket (the 100-200 gamers), we have a massive vacuum.

It's what I like to call the "Ayers Gap". The total lack of opportunity given to any young players in his time at the club has meant we now have this vacuum of players who would have been 18-20 during Ayers' time. When you consider the dire state he left our list in, we are doing well to even be competitive at all tbh. Especially when you consider players generally peak between about 26-28.

Johncock is the sole shining light of Ayers' recruits. Even Bock and Rutten, who were on the list in Ayers' time, were only given an opportunity under Craig, and it was probably verging on too late for either of those guys to establish themselves at the time.

 

[jenny61_99]

If you're going to denote Burton & McGregor as non-contributors, the same should be done for Scott West. Has barely played a game all year, courtesy of injured knees. The fact that his team has done so well in his absence is a credit to him - he's survived long enough to make himself obsolete.

Maybe obsolete isn't the right word. Two years ago they would have fallen in a heap if he wasn't there. Today his team goes on without him.

I actually only put marks against the ones I knew at the time and hoped others would help me fill in the blanks.

 

[Crow-mo]

Johncock is the sole shining light of Ayers' recruits. Even Bock and Rutten, who were on the list in Ayers' time, were only given an opportunity under Craig, and it was probably verging on too late for either of those guys to establish themselves at the time.

what are you talking about?

they were key position player rookie picks in 2001. hell how much earlier should they have gotten in the team?

 

[jenny61_99]

what are you talking about?

they were key position player rookie picks in 2001. hell how much earlier should they have gotten in the team?

Bock's played 86 games, Rutten 93. I'm guessing neither of them got much of a look in in 2001/2/3?

 

[-CG-]

Bock's played 86 games, Rutten 93. I'm guessing neither of them got much of a look in in 2001/2/3?

Rutten notched up his 100th a few weeks ago along with Stevens.

 

[Crow-mo]

Bock's played 86 games, Rutten 93. I'm guessing neither of them got much of a look in in 2001/2/3?

i'm feeling they played very little in 2001, not having been drafted and all that.

but other than that, not sure what point you were trying to make?
how many key position rookies would expect to play in the first or second year?

2002 was their first year on the rookie list.

Rutten played his first game in round 16, 2003.
Bock played 18 games in 2004, starting in round 5.

pretty rapid rise i'd have thought.

 

[jenny61_99]

Rutten notched up his 100th a few weeks ago along with Stevens.

Yep, so he did.... I looked at his name and Reilly's figures! DOH

Rutten and Bock both elevated from the rookie list in early 2002. Rutten played 2 games in 2003 (round 16 he kicked 3 goals, and round 17 did nothing) and 9 games in 2004 (from round 13 on). Bock played nothing in 02/03 and 18 games in 04 (starting in round 5).

 

[jenny61_99]

i'm feeling they played very little in 2001, not having been drafted and all that.

but other than that, not sure what point you were trying to make?
how many key position rookies would expect to play in the first or second year?

2002 was their first year on the rookie list.

Rutten played his first game in round 16, 2003.
Bock played 18 games in 2004, starting in round 5.

pretty rapid rise i'd have thought.

Snap!

They were elevated from the rookie list in 2002 but not played (see above post). Point being, Ayres promoted both of them but didn't play them for almost 2 seasons.

 

[Crow-mo]

Snap!

They were elevated from the rookie list in 2002 but not played (see above post). Point being, Ayres promoted both of them but didn't play them for almost 2 seasons.

your maths is as wonky as most of your other views

2002 elevation means available for 2003 season...

 

[Alex99]

what are you talking about?

they were key position player rookie picks in 2001. hell how much earlier should they have gotten in the team?

Ben Rutten was in the SANFL team of the year 2002, he should have been an automatic selection round 1 2003 to remove the responsibility and pressure from Nathan Bassett at full back. If anyone watched Nathan Bassett get molested by Alistair Lynch – selecting Rutten at full back was a no brainer, except for Ayres.

So being SANFL team of the year in 2002, his form must have been very good

He didn’t get a go in the side until 2004 (2 or 3 games early) after Gary Ayres was no longer coach.

 

[jenny61_99]

your maths is as wonky as most of your other views

2002 elevation means available for 2003 season...

So I have wonky views! At least I can change these as I learn more, but you'll always be a..... ah never mind. Oh and what are my wonky views in this thread? That there is a huge gap in terms of 100+ game players between us and the Geelong/Hawthorns of this world? Or is it the view that I think we've done well despite this fact? You are so busy knocking my (and others views) you barely have time to voice a view of your own!

 

[Elder van Berlo]

Point being, Ayres promoted both of them but didn't play them for almost 2 seasons.

The exact point I was trying to make above. Ayres had young players on the list, no-one is denying that, but he never really gave any youngsters a chance in the side. Hence the 24-28 y.o. vacuum we have.

The current players on our list blooded by Ayres:
Bock (he played Ayres' last 8 or 9)
Doughty
Jericho
Johncock
Reilly
Shirley

Really, given that he was in charge for a full 4 1/2 years, that is a very, very poor output, and probably goes some way to explaining the rut that we are in - we have some truly great players who are getting a bit past it, and some young players with great potential, but to be a gun side in this league you need a core of mature, but not old, players in their mid 20s, with at least 80 odd games under their belt.

Give this side 3-4 years, and I think we will challenge for a flag. In the meantime, hopefully we can remain competitive.

 

[Crow-mo]

So I have wonky views! At least I can change these as I learn more, but you'll always be a..... ah never mind.

one can certainly hope.

Oh and what are my wonky views in this thread? That there is a huge gap in terms of 100+ game players between us and the Geelong/Hawthorns of this world? Or is it the view that I think we've done well despite this fact? You are so busy knocking my (and others views) you barely have time to voice a view of your own!

simply put, the point you responded to but didn't address.

how much earlier do you think a 2001 rookie KPP should have played?
you even suggested earlier they weren't given a go in 2001.

 

[Vince Van Mackay]

The exact point I was trying to make above. Ayres had young players on the list, no-one is denying that, but he never really gave any youngsters a chance in the side. Hence the 24-28 y.o. vacuum we have.

The current players on our list blooded by Ayres:
Bock (he played Ayres' last 8 or 9)
Doughty
Jericho
Johncock
Reilly
Shirley

Really, given that he was in charge for a full 4 1/2 years, that is a very, very poor output, and probably goes some way to explaining the rut that we are in - we have some truly great players who are getting a bit past it, and some young players with great potential, but to be a gun side in this league you need a core of mature, but not old, players in their mid 20s, with at least 80 odd games under their belt.

Give this side 3-4 years, and I think we will challenge for a flag. In the meantime, hopefully we can remain competitive.

Oh goody we can enjoy another 3-4 years of "We'll learn from that" and "Thats a good lesson" and "Player X put trust back in the trust bank" and "We want to play consistent finals football" and "We've got alot of work to do" and "Its not the personnel up forward, its the way we move the ball"

I wonder if the love affair with workman like midfielders and our defense/Defensive action (Which doesn't seem to work) will continue, oh and our perennially make shift "Shit house" forward line aka Flexibility, flexibility must be great, except when you have flexibility in being shit like Adelaide.

We may be getting experience into our younger players, but the question is. Is it the right sort of experience? Are they learning the right things?

Another question I've had for a while is, Do the Crows try to hard to make some players play out of their natural positions in the pursuit of flexibility? Do we now shun naturally talented players and natural flair and risk taking/match breaking in order to promote defensive action and flexibility.

You know the old chess nut Neil loves about Adelaide being about the team and not individual stars. One could question if we have any. What is it, A champion team will always beat a team of champions, well Adelaide isn't a champion team by a long margin, we aren't even a team of champions, we're sludge. As a result Opposition supporters are partly right, Adelaide are pretty boring to watch.

 

[dplggr47]

The exact point I was trying to make above. Ayres had young players on the list, no-one is denying that, but he never really gave any youngsters a chance in the side. Hence the 24-28 y.o. vacuum we have.

The current players on our list blooded by Ayres:
Bock (he played Ayres' last 8 or 9)
Doughty
Jericho
Johncock
Reilly
Shirley

Really, given that he was in charge for a full 4 1/2 years, that is a very, very poor output, and probably goes some way to explaining the rut that we are in - we have some truly great players who are getting a bit past it, and some young players with great potential, but to be a gun side in this league you need a core of mature, but not old, players in their mid 20s, with at least 80 odd games under their belt.

Give this side 3-4 years, and I think we will challenge for a flag. In the meantime, hopefully we can remain competitive.

yep, we're in a rut...and we'll have to wait for our current youngsters to become that core group...which would be at least 2-3 years away.

 

[James23]

The way i see it that Ayres was a very selfish coach and did not care about the long term future of the AFC, he just wanted his premiership and then to run off into the sunset when all hell broke loose.

Neil Craig then comes in and has a list with a bunch of old guys with no genuine youth coming through and I believe he has done a remarkable job with what he has been given. His job is now to gradually start building a new side from scratch with the the old guys chipping in to help the team maintain its competiveness. What will be exciting is when Neil Craig FINALLY has a team with a genuine core with plenty of talent in the 23-28 age range - because this is where premierships are won. Slowly the older players are clearing out and the third era of the AFC will come into fruition when the likes of Vince, Knights, van Berlo, Porplyzia, Griffin, Maric, Mackay, Tippett all reach this age group. Add to that Walker, Dangerfield and Petrenko and we have some genuine talent coming through the ranks.

I think we will see Neil Craig and the teams full capabilities on display when he has a full system of players coming through which includes a carefully balanced mix of players in all age groups (18-22, 23-27, 28+). When Neil Craig finally has this balance right, then I think we wil see all along what Triggy and co. mean by "sustained success", because I do not think what we are currently seeing is what they meant by "sustained success". We are still merely seeing the transition period from Ayres > Craig

 

[jenny61_99]

one can certainly hope.

As one could certainly hope you'd stop being an a....... !

simply put, the point you responded to but didn't address.

how much earlier do you think a 2001 rookie KPP should have played?
you even suggested earlier they weren't given a go in 2001.

Semantics. Whether it was 2001 or 2002 is (almost) irrelevant. The POINT being (and I did make it if you'd actually READ the thread) that Ayres promoted them but didn't play them. Bock had two seasons before he got a look in, Rutten marginally better, given 2 games late in 2003, and although showing promise (3 goals in first game) wasn't selected again until round 9 the following year. Ayres DIDN'T play youngsters and this is why we now have this massive gaping hole in our playing list. I don't know how I can spell it out any clearer for you.

 

[jenny61_99]

yep, we're in a rut...and we'll have to wait for our current youngsters to become that core group...which would be at least 2-3 years away.

In the meantime, we are still being competitive. This says a lot about Craig and his methods.

 

[relapse]

I think you've backed up statistically what a lot of us already knew - in the 24-28 year old age bracket (the 100-200 gamers), we have a massive vacuum.

Ayres still has a lot to answer for. Possibly the worst list management ever witnessed.