Elite players - how do we get them?

[Deaneus!]

Elite players play middle or forward and win games Good defenders if elite would be moved forward

Dean Cox.
Nathan Bock.

 

[Mego Red]

I thought we drafted him - he was traded from Adelaide to Carlton for Ben Nelson.

Actually, i think officially Eccles was for Massie, and Gallagher was for Nelson. But, yes - you're right.

1. Regarding the amount of trading we do, what is relevant is not the fact we are trading less than 10 years ago - everyone is trading less than 10 years ago. What is relevant, is whether we are trading less than the rest of the competition.

We currently have very few first teamers from trades, sure. Thompson, Symes, Moran, Stevens, and of course McLeod. But is this a lower proportion than other teams?

For Hawthorn I can only see Gilham, Guerra and Croad, and for Geelong I see Ottens and Mooney, and a few from traded-in draft picks for each. I can't be bothered counting the other teams. In both cases they have mostly relied on draft picks to build the team, and filled a few gaps through trades.

At the end of the day, if we want to trade, we need a willing trade partner. Even for a player who wants to move, we may still have to pay high (see O'Keefe).

I reckon the club's talk about disliking trades has more to do with player morale, than a genuine preference to avoid trades; and the low number of trades by the club has more to do with the attitude of every club in the league than it does with the attitude of our club.

Reasonable analysis.

The evidence at hand is that successful clubs haven't built their teams through trading (though Sydney have been more active than most, and that helped keep them bubbling along for a few years - though their elite players were all drafted), and that we aren't vastly different from any other succesful side.

The next question is - should we be doing this differently than other sides? You don't get better by doing the same thing as everyone else.

Of course, there is no simple right or wrong answer to this.

2. Drafting is where it's at, and in the absence of high picks we will need to find an approach which out-performs the league.

This could include taking higher-risk options, such as youngsters who are new to the game or have been injured; we've done both of these things. It could also include looking for traits which are undervalued elsewhere.

I like the approach we have taken lately, and we have a good group of youngsters coming through.

While I'm not yet confident any of them will be elite, that might be a consequence of the strategy (ie drafting players which are higher risk due to being further off) rather than a lack of talent. Time will tell.

Also a reasonable analysis. Welcome to the limited ranks of "posters worth reading".

I would think any focussed analysis of our list would say we're very strong for disciplined, midlist players. So we're looking good for depth. The question will be whether we've taken enough risks and whether they pay off.

3. Coaching has a significant impact on performance. In my opinion, great players will be great regardless of the coaching, but the ability to get good performances out of limited players is the sign of a good coach.

In addition, the club's gameplan, and on-field coordination and discipline can have a major influence on results. We've also been quite successful in this regard.

But I tend to agree with the opening post, which is that without elite players it's hard to win the whole thing no matter how well coached you are.

We've maximised our performance for the cattle we've had. I truly believe we've achieved everything that could have been reasonably expected out of our list. The discipline and team structure has helped this, as had a pretty good coaching team. Not one that hasn't been out-coached on occasions, but one that has had more hits than misses.

4. Neil Craig has had 4-5 years - Mark Thompson won the premiership in his 8th I think. Both took over from Ayres-ed lists. It takes time to rebuild an entire list, and I think we've done that as well as could be expected.

The club has made a few comments early this year aimed at dampening expectations, and I expect that as our young players are exposed in the next year or two we will struggle to make the finals. There's now a good understanding of the need to have a solid core of players in the 100-200 game range, and we won't have that for a couple of years at least. We may yet come to curse the draft changes in the next 2-3 years.

Ultimately we can only judge the efforts of the last 5 years in about 3 years' time. But we can make judgements on potential now, and I'm more hopeful than confident that any of our current youngsters will be elite. If that proves to be the case, we might wish we had bottomed out earlier.

The 100-200 game point is an oft made but very valid one. I agree with your final point - I'm confident, but realistically I think we're building a list to spend a decade finishing fifth ...

 

[kulak]

Actually, i think officially Eccles was for Massie, and Gallagher was for Nelson. But, yes - you're right.

Oops.

Reasonable analysis.

The evidence at hand is that successful clubs haven't built their teams through trading (though Sydney have been more active than most, and that helped keep them bubbling along for a few years - though their elite players were all drafted), and that we aren't vastly different from any other succesful side.

The next question is - should we be doing this differently than other sides? You don't get better by doing the same thing as everyone else.

Of course, there is no simple right or wrong answer to this.

The problem is that where trading is concerned, it takes two. If other clubs say "well, I'm keeping my draft picks, and my senior players, and any junior player with a hint of talent" as has been the case lately, there's not much to be done.

btw Barry Hall was traded from the Saints.

Also a reasonable analysis. Welcome to the limited ranks of "posters worth reading".

"Reasonable" and "worth reading" is what I have always aspired to be described as

The 100-200 game point is an oft made but very valid one. I agree with your final point - I'm confident, but realistically I think we're building a list to spend a decade finishing fifth ...

I agree, that's what if feels like.

But then we (or at least I) thought the same about Geelong until GAbblet and Bartel stepped up, and then suddenly they were elite.

So I'm hopeful, but not confident, the same will happen for us.

 

[bomba4eva]

Bottoming out is the easiest way to get those top class players that make the difference over the course of a season. Look at Hawthorn's 2 top 5 picks in the 2004 draft. They got Roughead who proved particularly handy last year and then of course Franklin who will dominate the AFL for the next decade. It could be argued that without Franklin they wouldn't have won the flag. The top players are vital and give you an edge. Crows haven't had a high pick for a while which has resulted in picking up the likes of Meesen and Reilly.

Putting extra dollars into the football department is one way of getting ahead of the pack. For a wealthy club like Adelaide this shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Ozzie]

not sure about this.

yes he was signed and sealed to go to North, after doing a year at brisbane, which was gazumped at the last minute. which always makes me laugh when collingwood fans say he was only prepared to play for collingwood

but I didn't think he was illegally listed by brisbane?

He was DRAFTED by Brisbane and played the one year there. Wore #11 if I remember correctly.

 

[beagle2]

Disagree. Elite also applies to defenders and ruckman. An elite ruckman and elite tall defender can have a huge impact on whether you win a premiership or not.

Plays middle and forward eg Rehn

 

[beagle2]

Dean Cox.Not a defenderNathan Bock.Good player but not elite[/B

 

[tribey]

He was DRAFTED by Brisbane and played the one year there.

No he wasn't. He was an NT zone selection. He played just the one year there because the first year of Brisbane's 2-year rights to him were spent at Port Adelaide.

It's covered here.

 

[maccas_no1]

And while we may not appear to have the elite 3 or 4 players right now, I believe that we will have in the next 2-3 years. Some are already showing strong signs that they will be something special. Knights, Mackay, Van Berlo to name 3. And I'm sure there may be at least one or two others I've missed. I believe our list is developing into a very good one.

To me a great coach will be able to develop most players to their full potential and I think this is where Craigs true strength lies.

Knights will not be an elite player.

 

[Ozzie]

These players are legends of the game, there are lesser players than these, who should still be classed as elite.

IMO

Potentially elite:

Porplyzia (almost there)
Walker
Davis
Dangerfield
Petrenko

Will some of you stop getting carried away. Bl**dy hell, Porplzia is injured,will he ever stay sound. He is a good player NOT elite. Walker is kid, PLAYED 2 TRIAL GAMES and suddenly he is elite. Davis, WHO?, Dangerfield played 2 games and elite, I don't think so. Petrenko hasn't even played a real game yet and IYO these are soon to be elite players. Get real!
Mate it is ok to be happy with these youngsters the club has drafted but you are making yourself look totally stupid by making silly statements.

 

[Ozzie]

No he wasn't. He was an NT zone selection. He played just the one year there because the first year of Brisbane's 2-year rights to him were spent at Port Adelaide.

It's covered here.

Yes exactly...he was DRAFTED to Brissy under the ZoneSelection guidelines Gawd is that so hard to work out? Brisbane were extremely pissed off at the end of that 1st year because he was outta there no matter what.

 

[Ozzie]

Knights will not be an elite player.

Exactly right and to my mind discounting the latest draft kids, the Crows have not got a single elite player on the current list.

Better go and try and trade for one, good luck!

Oh we tried that when we made that stupid lopsided trade for Carey. Plan B folks.

 

[tribey]

Yes exactly...he was DRAFTED to Brissy under the ZoneSelection guidelines Gawd is that so hard to work out? Brisbane were extremely pissed off at the end of that 1st year because he was outta there no matter what.

Look, with respect, Zone Selections have nothing to do with the Draft. Don't pretend this is semantics or pedantry, it's fact.

And again, no, Brisbane knew full well Buckley was leaving - the only reason the Bears listed him in the first place was part of a pre-agreement they had signed with Greg Miller and North Melbourne to trade his rights immediately after the two years for a second round pick.

Miller had already signed a precontract with Buckley and paid him a substantial retainer and signing-on fee - Nathan was for all intent and purpose a North player before he so much as set foot in Queensland.

When Buckley caught fire and won every individual award going in 1992, causing other suitors to sniff around (namely Collingwood), the AFL to investigate the deal and the Bears to realise their listed player was worth much much more than a scabby second rounder, they reneged on the deal, as did Buckley who under new manager Geof Motley was alerted to just how valuable a commodity he was.

All Brisbane were concerned about was extracting their pound of flesh for the player, who fell in their laps to begin with.

 

[Ozzie]

Look, with respect, Zone Selections have nothing to do with the Draft. Don't pretend this is semantics or pedantry, it's fact.

It is all part of the WHOLE draft process, next you will be saying the stupid F/S rule is not part of the draft. I don't really give a sh*t but in the end Buckley was owned by Brisbane. End of story. The clubs can only get a player by either trading for them or having them come via the draft process. Is this not correct?

 

[James23]

Will some of you stop getting carried away. Bl**dy hell, Porplzia is injured,will he ever stay sound. He is a good player NOT elite. Walker is kid, PLAYED 2 TRIAL GAMES and suddenly he is elite. Davis, WHO?, Dangerfield played 2 games and elite, I don't think so. Petrenko hasn't even played a real game yet and IYO these are soon to be elite players. Get real!
Mate it is ok to be happy with these youngsters the club has drafted but you are making yourself look totally stupid by making silly statements.

I'm thinking u missed the word, 'potentially' in my post.

I dont think im getting carried away, just who IMO have the POSSIBILITY to become elite players

 

[Ozzie]

I'm thinking u missed the word, 'potentially' in my post.

I dont think im getting carried away, just who IMO have the POSSIBILITY to become elite players

NO, I did not miss the "potential" word. My question is, based on what?

 

[Crow-mo]

The saddest part about that comment is that because I disagree with your viewpoint, I am a "sheepdog". Could it not be that my opinion could possibly be right? Or that perhaps we BOTH could be partly right?

no, you are a sheepdog because you have ALWAYS been one. always.

this is not a new thing, and what we have is just another product of that. a blindly positive kool aid inspired position, with no substance or analysis behind it. again.

Oh and I am pretty sure I didn't say "the club's doing everything"... I am pretty sure I said, "trust me, they want to win" and I stand by that 100%. And it's not because "they" told me.

of course it is.

 

[Crow-mo]

Except they weren't. You can only argue with what has happened.

if only you lived by those words

And on Carlton - true, they have achieved less than nothing so far. But they are better positioned now for a decade of success than they have been since the 90's (or any period where their checkbook couldn't buy them success. Now it's Dick Pratt's checkbook).

positioned or restored? they've never known being in such a position without hope previously.

Their list hasn't been their problem for the last five years. It is an emotionally fragile club.

I thought we had to stick with what happened?
either way, they're singing the blues.

If we're talking changing a club's fortunes - Jarman, yes. Robran probably. Stevens, Caven, Koster maybe. The others (other than McLeod, who we were gifted) are solid list fillers and guys I have fond memories of, but let's not make them into something they weren't.

lets stick to not rewriting history. Both Bond and James were very good players, we struggle in 1997 without Bond's long goals from outside 50. Connell won a B&F - and McLeod was gifted? without dignifying that nonsese, lets just say you can't receive a gift without trading.

bottom line if they were such filler, why did Blight even select them? he was after all quite the ruthless list culler.

And let's not get into a list battle, comparing this list to players we acquired in the same period through our draft concessions.

seeing as its irrelevant, you'd only do that to shift focus away from your unsustainable position about trading. we had the concessions and went nowhere with them - that's the baseline.

you might want to cling on by your fingernails, but no one would seriously pretend that McLeod and Jarman did not take us over the top, when what we had before was not good enough. we made many incremental trades that all made us a little bit better.

I AGREE with you about trading - but you're comparing now to a time of larger lists and greater volume of trades. Anyone can see it is not apples and apples.

no anyone cannot, that is just convenience talking. seriously, the "everyone knows" manoeuvre?

and it has NO bearing on todays issues.

 

[Crow-mo]

How about the Port 2004 ones? No large list in 2004.

Without those players there would have been no premiership and every single one of those players would walk into both the current Crows or Port teams.

precisely. Given I know Kristof's views on trading, it is very unlikely he believes the position he is promoting.

 

[Crow-mo]

I would define elite as someone who is clearly in the top 25 players in the league over a five year period.

Edwards - not quite. McLeod and Ricciuto, yes.

very fair. agree with that

 

[betterthanu]

NO, I did not miss the "potential" word. My question is, based on what?

Talent. What else would potential be based on

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

I seem to remember Pavlich doing a Dangerfield and pledging to stay in SA to do his Year 12. When you consider he was only 187-188cms at the time and had some serious shoulder problems, no-one, not even Port or the Crows, were prepared to use their one 17yo pick on him.



Chris Grant went at #105 or so the year before around the same time Greg Miller bought Wayne Carey and John Longmire for a ham sandwich. That sort of thing will never ever happen again.

The most realistic way to snare an elite player under the radar is through extreme arsey magical foresight (Rhys Palmer and Sam Mitchell were both overlooked completely in their first draft) or taking a punt on a genuine project player.

And by project player I don't mean a 230cm unco spud poached from beach volleyball who will never make it in a million years, but a late bloomer (Michael Tuck, Brett Kirk), an injury victim (Ben Rutten) or raw potential (Dean Cox, Nathan Bock, Adam Goodes).

These players are still extraordinarily rare and you still need a ton of luck.

IMO Drafting and developing is the way to go

Sewell and Dale Morris are other elite player that has come through the rookie system

Throw in the likes of Kirk, Cox, Bock, Rutten, Lockyer all gems from the rookie draft process

Every year there is a club that finds a gem late in the draft, Ryan O'Keefe #56, Sam Fisher #55, Mathew Egan #62 have all made All Australian and were all late selections.

Unless the AFL make the trading process more flexiable it will be virtually impossible to snare elite players through a trade

 

[Crow-mo]

I thought we drafted him - he was traded from Adelaide to Carlton for Ben Nelson.

you're right. we did.

1. Regarding the amount of trading we do, what is relevant is not the fact we are trading less than 10 years ago - everyone is trading less than 10 years ago. What is relevant, is whether we are trading less than the rest of the competition.

sort of. the real question is not whether there is less trading, there is. whether we do less that the rest, probably. but the real point is that, if we do the same as everyone else, only the most optimistic would think we can out perform everyone from a midtable position.

that there is less trading, is actually a reason why we should be more aggressive in trying to do so.

We currently have very few first teamers from trades, sure. Thompson, Symes, Moran, Stevens, and of course McLeod. But is this a lower proportion than other teams?

we do not want to do the same as other teams.

For Hawthorn I can only see Gilham, Guerra and Croad, and for Geelong I see Ottens and Mooney, and a few from traded-in draft picks for each. I can't be bothered counting the other teams. In both cases they have mostly relied on draft picks to build the team, and filled a few gaps through trades.

well, Ottens is a massive in for them. its what they needed, and they paid a high price. further there is not a geelong fan anywhere, who will deny Ottens won them the 1997 prelim against collingwood in the last quarter.

I think you'll find Hawthorn were a bit more active than that too.

At the end of the day, if we want to trade, we need a willing trade partner. Even for a player who wants to move, we may still have to pay high (see O'Keefe).

quite the opposite. no one wants to give up draft picks, there will be no shortage of teams looking to receive them.

I reckon the club's talk about disliking trades has more to do with player morale, than a genuine preference to avoid trades; and the low number of trades by the club has more to do with the attitude of every club in the league than it does with the attitude of our club.

player morale is no more than a theory, and you could be right - perhaps the club subscribes to that theory. though it has done no harm in the past. professional sportsmen know its a business, and trades have a habit of energising teams more than anything else if improves their prospects.

the second part is not right. we have limited trades because the currency is draft picks, and there is a a heavily skewed demand side economics in the trade market. there are not trades, because there is limited supply. all we need to do, for example is supply a few picks and we match against the demand side. everyone has lined up on one side of the equation, that is the opportunity not the constraint.

2. Drafting is where it's at, and in the absence of high picks we will need to find an approach which out-performs the league.

good luck with that.

This could include taking higher-risk options, such as youngsters who are new to the game or have been injured; we've done both of these things. It could also include looking for traits which are undervalued elsewhere.

drafting 17 yr olds is very inexact. unrealistic to think you can normalise an outcome, relative to everyone else, from midtable.

I like the approach we have taken lately, and we have a good group of youngsters coming through.

what approach, the cross your fingers and hope 15 other clubs just happen to draft considerably worse than we do?

While I'm not yet confident any of them will be elite, that might be a consequence of the strategy (ie drafting players which are higher risk due to being further off) rather than a lack of talent. Time will tell.

true. but how much time elapses before its too late if we're wrong?

3. Coaching has a significant impact on performance. In my opinion, great players will be great regardless of the coaching, but the ability to get good performances out of limited players is the sign of a good coach.

this is contrary to the history of the game. bad coaching has had a significant effect on the output of good players. we only need to witness 1994/95/96 as an example in our past.

In addition, the club's gameplan, and on-field coordination and discipline can have a major influence on results. We've also been quite successful in this regard.

our gameplan contributed significantly to our results in 2005/06, and not since. we have struggle to innovate anything since we were worked out back then.

But I tend to agree with the opening post, which is that without elite players it's hard to win the whole thing no matter how well coached you are.

the opening post was pretty obvious. the need for elite players isn't the bit in doubt.

4. Neil Craig has had 4-5 years - Mark Thompson won the premiership in his 8th I think. Both took over from Ayres-ed lists. It takes time to rebuild an entire list, and I think we've done that as well as could be expected.

you mean you hope. not many coaches get to their 8th year, and they could just as easily replaced him and the new coach looks like a genius.

The club has made a few comments early this year aimed at dampening expectations, and I expect that as our young players are exposed in the next year or two we will struggle to make the finals. There's now a good understanding of the need to have a solid core of players in the 100-200 game range, and we won't have that for a couple of years at least. We may yet come to curse the draft changes in the next 2-3 years.

NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry, this is the same argument Vader was making about having young players on the list. these are not ends in itself. they are characteristics of the right players. giving 150 games to the wrong players (i.e. not good enough) doesn't win premierships. how do you think St Kilda, Footscray etc went so long? did they lack players with 150 games experience?

its who, not how many.

Ultimately we can only judge the efforts of the last 5 years in about 3 years' time. But we can make judgements on potential now, and I'm more hopeful than confident that any of our current youngsters will be elite. If that proves to be the case, we might wish we had bottomed out earlier.

bollocks. i utterly reject this nonsense that a coach and regime change taking over in mid 2004 can only be properly be judged in 2012.

this the terry wallace mentality. the 5 year plan is now the 10 year plan?

what happens if we get to 2012 and its no good, do we then enter a new 10 year plan - onwards to 2022??????

that's the problem.

 

[The Crows Truth]

IMO Drafting and developing is the way to go

Sewell and Dale Morris are other elite player that has come through the rookie system

Throw in the likes of Kirk, Cox, Bock, Rutten, Lockyer all gems from the rookie draft process

Every year there is a club that finds a gem late in the draft, Ryan O'Keefe #56, Sam Fisher #55, Mathew Egan #62 have all made All Australian and were all late selections.

Unless the AFL make the trading process more flexiable it will be virtually impossible to snare elite players through a trade

free agency (in whatever form it ends up) could be a realistic way to get a cooney for example back in a couple of yrs time

 

[Crow-mo]

Also a reasonable analysis. Welcome to the limited ranks of "posters worth reading".

you're a net consumer of reading material, not a content provider.

not that you couldn't be, you're just too lazy