Deepest list

[The Cryptkeeper]

The Eagles list is superb.

How you can lose both key defensive posts and still have the season they had is something rather remarkable.

In 2016 they can use McGovern at both ends as a true utility. And that is a very scary proposition for every other contender.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Those saying Hawthorn are kidding themselves they hardly lose anyone to injury teams with injuries would have deeper lists hate to say it but teams like GWS and Collingwood are the teams with the deepest lists

You don't know much about football, do you?

 

[Vintage]

I think if you're going to do this properly you need to do it by group - forwards, midfields, defenders, rucks - and look at depth across all of them.

I'd say we've got pretty good (excellent) depth in midfield and ruck, but pretty damn average for the other 2.

 

[blueiris]

You don't know much about football, do you?

What do you mean know much about football why because I don't agree with the sheep that say Hawthorn have the deepest list pretty sure GWS and Collingwood would have more depth players then Hawthorn

 

[beta_condition]

Those saying Hawthorn are kidding themselves they hardly lose anyone to injury teams with injuries would have deeper lists hate to say it but teams like GWS and Collingwood are the teams with the deepest lists

In 2014 Shiels missed 5 weeks, Mitchell 8 weeks, Lake 14 weeks, Gibson 8 weeks, Rioli 13 weeks and then various small injuries to Sewell McEvoy Anderson Suckling.

 

[TipBetPro]

We did a little squad analysis earlier in the season (prior to the Essendon bans) and rated Collingwood followed by West Coast and Port Adelaide as having the deepest lists (where depth is measured by highest quality players outside of best 22)

 

[EagleShore]

2014 lost Sam Mitchell, Josh Gibson, Brian Lake, Luke Hodge, Ben Stratton, Brad Sewell, Liam Shiels, Jack Gunston just to name a few and still win the flag... Indicates a little bit of depth

Sign of both a deep list and an effective coaching system really. A little like West Coast 2015 - we all thought we were shot early on after losing EMac and Brown and getting crushed in the derby but players lifted and the coaching system and game plan clicked.

Some clubs develop younger players better and have stronger systems of communication and coaching which ultimately crafts a "deeper" list.

 

[HairyO]

I think if you're going to do this properly you need to do it by group - forwards, midfields, defenders, rucks - and look at depth across all of them.

I'd say we've got pretty good (excellent) depth in midfield and ruck, but pretty damn average for the other 2.

Defence: Brand, Heatherly, Spangher, Litherland

Mids: Howe, O'Rourke, Hartung, Whitecross, Langford

Ruck: Pittonet, Fitzpatrick

Forwards: Sicily, O'Brien

Our forwards are where we probably are the shallowest, however our starting 22 has 18 players who can play forward. Rucks would be 2nd weakest. Apparently Pittonet has really stepped up over the pre-season and is doing well.

All of the above players will get at least a few games each this year. Some may play at least half a season. Hartung, Howe, Heatherley, Spangher and Langford are the most likely to get a lot of games. The others will come and go based on injuries, suspensions, octogenarians being rested.

While we didnt lose an entire season, both Lake and Frawley were out for a lot of games. Wasnt until the 2nd half of the year before they were able to work together.

We did a little squad analysis earlier in the season (prior to the Essendon bans) and rated Collingwood followed by West Coast and Port Adelaide as having the deepest lists (where depth is measured by highest quality players outside of best 22)

Problem there is, the ones in the 22 for Pies and Port are not that good. Replacing average with average only works if you have a LOT of injuries. Id much rather 22 great players, 5 or 6 good players, than 30 good players (Im sure people will argue over great, good... and you could include elite and average as ratings but I assume my point is easy enough to understand).

 

[Chrizzt]

Not suggesting the Crows have great depth but its improving. Link to the Adelaide bigfooty board concensus best 22..
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2016-team-inc-trades.1114702/page-38

Guys who will likely start as depth:
Nathan van Berlo, David Mackay, Kyle Cheney, Mitch Grigg, Matthew Jaensch (injured early part of this coming year), Luke Lowden, Rory Atkins, Andy Otten, Jarryd Lyons, Sam Shaw, Dean Gore, Ricky Henderson
Draftees: Wayne Milera, Tom Doedee, Jono Beech (SANFL mature ager), Paul Hunter (NEAFL ruckman)
Developing: Harrison Wigg, Mitch McGovern, Harry Dear, Keenan Ramsay, Reilly O'Brien, Alex Keath, Hugh Greenwood

I'd be concerned if the crows had to go into a game with more than one of those players on the depth list in their 22.

Interestingly with your inaccurate statement regarding Port's 2015:
Port won 6 of its last 7 games, and it was at the end of the season where we were most hit by injuries (Carlile, Trengove, Wines, Polec). In those games, it was the depth players that stood up and had breakout games (Sam Gray, Ah Chee, Amon)
Additionally, we beat Hawks in round 4 without 2 of our best mids in Gray and Wines.
Port's depth isn't outstanding, but it's a heck of a lot better than your average punter thinks it is.

 

[blueiris]

We did a little squad analysis earlier in the season (prior to the Essendon bans) and rated Collingwood followed by West Coast and Port Adelaide as having the deepest lists (where depth is measured by highest quality players outside of best 22)

GWS would have been high on that list surely they just have so much of everything

 

[TipBetPro]

GWS would have been high on that list surely they just have so much of everything

Correct - both expansion sides were up there on our "depth ladder"

 

[HairyO]

GWS would have been high on that list surely they just have so much of everything

Problem with GWS is they have 20 players who are effectively unknowns. Can score 200 points in the NEAFL but are untested at AFL level. In theory they could have half a dozen Ablett/Wines/Riolis in there, but in reality they may have none who will really make it.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

What do you mean know much about football why because I don't agree with the sheep that say Hawthorn have the deepest list pretty sure GWS and Collingwood would have more depth players then Hawthorn

See post #30 in this thread.

When stupid people come in here and make ignorant claims based on precisely no research then it makes it quite difficult to take them seriously.

Apologies, but from your statement I genuinely assumed that you didn't know much about football. You (well not you, but someone a little more switched on than you) can see how one would come to that conclusion based upon your baseless commentary.

 

[bombersfan4000]

Essendon, obviously....

full list and top ups = more players...

They will have the largest list but doesn't mean they are any good

 

[robertg22]

What do you mean know much about football why because I don't agree with the sheep that say Hawthorn have the deepest list pretty sure GWS and Collingwood would have more depth players then Hawthorn

We're not that deep at all, far too many kids/unknown quantities at this point

 

[Art Vandelay_]

They will have the largest list but doesn't mean they are any good

There's always one that misses that I'm taking the piss. Well done

 

[1990crow]

I'd be concerned if the crows had to go into a game with more than one of those players on the depth list in their 22.

Interestingly with your inaccurate statement regarding Port's 2015:
Port won 6 of its last 7 games, and it was at the end of the season where we were most hit by injuries (Carlile, Trengove, Wines, Polec). In those games, it was the depth players that stood up and had breakout games (Sam Gray, Ah Chee, Amon)
Additionally, we beat Hawks in round 4 without 2 of our best mids in Gray and Wines.
Port's depth isn't outstanding, but it's a heck of a lot better than your average punter thinks it is.

More than one? Nah. VB, Grigg, Jaensch, Henderson, Atkins, Otten and Lyons have all shown themselves to be decent AFL players at stages. Otten the only one to not do so recently due to injury.

As for Port. Of those 7 the draw was pretty easy if you look at it; Essendon, Saints, GWS (who had tailed away late in the year), Gold Coast and a depleted Fremantle. Hawks the only decent win.

 

[HairyO]

They will have the largest list but doesn't mean they are any good

With 7 of the best 10 players out, you could make an argument that their second 20 isnt far behind their first 20. Thus they bat deep. Its just that their first 20 are rubbish compared to other clubs.

 

[Donkey Chop]

Do North have players at the elite level other than Goldy ?

Probably not. However we do have a lot of good/very good players right across the board. We also have a lot of AFL standard players just waiting for thier chance in the 2s

 

[Big Bryza]

Those saying Hawthorn are kidding themselves they hardly lose anyone to injury teams with injuries would have deeper lists hate to say it but teams like GWS and Collingwood are the teams with the deepest lists

You either don't follow footy closely or slept through 2014...

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

I thought I would take a somewhat objective view, applying Supercoach scores as the 'best' indicator. Results below, but now wonder if they are at all valuable.

3300pts per game, 44 players = 75.0 points as true "Average"

Adelaide 4 (Sloane, Jacobs, Thompson, Laird)
Brisbane 8 (Beams, Martin, Rockliff, Zorko, Hanley, Redden, Robinson, Christensen)
Carlton 9 (Murphy, Cripps, Simpson, Kreuzer, Carazzo, Bell, Docherty, Graham, Curnow)
Collingwood 8 (Pendelbury, Sidebottom, Adams, Swan, Crisp, Grundy, Williams, Langdon)
Essendon 4 (Goddard, Giles, Hocking, Merrett)
Fremantle 8 (Fyfe, Mundy, Sandilands, Neale, Smith, Hill, Barlow, BENNELL)
Geelong 13 (Blicavs, Selwood, Enright, Guthrie, Caddy, Mackie, Duncan, Vardy, Motlop, Bartel, Johnson, Taylor, DANGERFIELD)
Hawthorn 5 (Hodge, Mitchell, Lewis, Gunston, Shiels)
Melbourne 8 (Vince, McDonald, Gawn, Viney, Cross, White, Hogan)
North Melbourne 2 (Goldstein, Higgins)
Port Adelaide 10 (Gray, Hartlett, Boak, Ebert, Wines, Gray, Wingard, Westhoff, Pittard, Ryder)
Richmond 12 (Deledio, Martin, Ellis, Edwards, Miles, Thomas, Cotchin, Rance, Houli, Maric, Riewoldt, Grigg)
St Kilda 7 (Armitage, Montagna, Steven, Newnes, Roberton, Riewoldt, Billings)
Sydney 8 (Hannebery, Kennedy, Jack, Parker, Mitchell, McVeigh, Franklin, Tippett)
Bulldogs 9 (Dalhaus, Bontempelli, Macrae, Wallis, Picken, Boyd, Stevens, Murphy, Wood)
Eagles 5 (Priddis, Gaff, Naitanui, Shuey, Kennedy)
GC 6 (Ablett, Prestia, Swallow, Rischitelli, Kolodashnij, Lynch, Saad)
GWS 11 (Shaw, Ward, Shiel, Treloar, Mumford, Smith, Griffen, Townsend, Patfull, Coniglio, Greene)

Seeing that list, it would appear the less players >75 average, the better the team, with both Grand Finalists right at the bottom, whilst Richmond, Geelong, GWS, Port and Carlton are near the top.

 

[Donkey Chop]

The two grand finalists in hawthorn and the Eagles.
Next best... Port?

Port has bugger all depth. As they get found out when they get a few injuries

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I thought I would take a somewhat objective view, applying Supercoach scores as the 'best' indicator. Results below, but now wonder if they are at all valuable.

3300pts per game, 44 players = 75.0 points as true "Average"

Adelaide 4 (Sloane, Jacobs, Thompson, Laird)
Brisbane 8 (Beams, Martin, Rockliff, Zorko, Hanley, Redden, Robinson, Christensen)
Carlton 9 (Murphy, Cripps, Simpson, Kreuzer, Carazzo, Bell, Docherty, Graham, Curnow)
Collingwood 8 (Pendelbury, Sidebottom, Adams, Swan, Crisp, Grundy, Williams, Langdon)
Essendon 4 (Goddard, Giles, Hocking, Merrett)
Fremantle 8 (Fyfe, Mundy, Sandilands, Neale, Smith, Hill, Barlow, BENNELL)
Geelong 13 (Blicavs, Selwood, Enright, Guthrie, Caddy, Mackie, Duncan, Vardy, Motlop, Bartel, Johnson, Taylor, DANGERFIELD)
Hawthorn 5 (Hodge, Mitchell, Lewis, Gunston, Shiels)
Melbourne 8 (Vince, McDonald, Gawn, Viney, Cross, White, Hogan)
North Melbourne 2 (Goldstein, Higgins)
Port Adelaide 10 (Gray, Hartlett, Boak, Ebert, Wines, Gray, Wingard, Westhoff, Pittard, Ryder)
Richmond 12 (Deledio, Martin, Ellis, Edwards, Miles, Thomas, Cotchin, Rance, Houli, Maric, Riewoldt, Grigg)
St Kilda 7 (Armitage, Montagna, Steven, Newnes, Roberton, Riewoldt, Billings)
Sydney 8 (Hannebery, Kennedy, Jack, Parker, Mitchell, McVeigh, Franklin, Tippett)
Bulldogs 9 (Dalhaus, Bontempelli, Macrae, Wallis, Picken, Boyd, Stevens, Murphy, Wood)
Eagles 5 (Priddis, Gaff, Naitanui, Shuey, Kennedy)
GC 6 (Ablett, Prestia, Swallow, Rischitelli, Kolodashnij, Lynch, Saad)
GWS 11 (Shaw, Ward, Shiel, Treloar, Mumford, Smith, Griffen, Townsend, Patfull, Coniglio, Greene)

Seeing that list, it would appear the less players >75 average, the better the team, with both Grand Finalists right at the bottom, whilst Richmond, Geelong, GWS, Port and Carlton are near the top.

Correlation does not imply causation.

I think using supercoach scores as a measurement is tenuous at best.

 

[MotleyLemon]

Geelong.

 

[Hawkboy62]

There guys were best 22. You can't quite count them as depth.

There was a forward too, bit of a party boy, can't remember his name. He was best 22.