List Mgmt. Honest analysis of our playing list - "is it the cowboy, or the cattle?"

[amaz199]

To be brutally honest, the club is delusional about its prospects if it genuinely thinks it will change naturally.

Change needs to be forced. It's how you break a bad habit.

 

[FlyHigh18]

This is the key thing to takeaway from the table I put together in the OP; the current list manager has been here for six years, and only five of the players on our entire list (that weren't father-son selections) weren't recruited by him.

He's the person in charge of list building and recruitment and retention. He's overseen it during the worst period of results in the clubs history.

Either we're a club that demands accountability or we are not. It's that simple.

isn't it thursfield's role to pick the talent and brady's to manage the trades and salary cap? or have i got that wrong?

 

[Johnny99]

To be brutally honest, the club is delusional about its prospects if it genuinely thinks it will change naturally.

Change needs to be forced. It's how you break a bad habit.

When we played the Dogs, I think their team had an average 40 games more than our players.
When you see a stat like that before the game, you already know its going to be tough.

That's also the case with teams like the Cats and Pies.

Until we start getting more games in our players, it will look bleak.

Looking at it another way....Is Colby going to be a better player, with another 40 games and 2 preseasons under his belt?
I think so.

Same with a lot of our squad.

Boring answer, but we need more time.

 

[ferball]

No we need the Hyperbolic chamber from DragonballZ!!!

 

[Marstermind]

It's the entire fricken ranch.

 

[Billy Not Really]

We’re pretty shit last time I checked, and we’ve been shit for a good 6 years now.

 

[Themanbun]

If we had the following metrics from 1-5, 1 being shit, 2 being below average, 3 being average, 4 being good, 5 being excellent/elite:

Composure/Football Intellect, Athleticism, Hardness, Skills, Work Rate

How many players on our list do we think would hit a score of 20+?

 

[Dinkers]

If we had the following metrics from 1-5, 1 being shit, 2 being below average, 3 being average, 4 being good, 5 being excellent/elite:

Composure/Football Intellect, Athleticism, Hardness, Skills, Work Rate

How many players on our list do we think would hit a score of 20+?

Dunno but I did a quick calculation and our squad total is 69: stern look

 

[Disco Dew]

Honestly it’s all ****ed.

 

[Dinkers]

Honestly it’s all ****ed.

It's not , weve 10/11 and 8 unknown

 

[amaz199]

I actually don't think the list is that bad. It's just, they don't know how to make things easier for themselves when defending, and when they need to attack. I kinda agree with TMB to an extent. I think we don't have the nous or confidence to execute set plays and back in each other to find the right option, etc.

When Sydney moved the ball, they found it really easy to find options at different angles, not just because they are a better side, but they have a strong connection with each other. Meaning, if they win the ball, they don't stay within 1m of each other; they spread and anticipate the play unfolding. It looks cohesive, but it's simply having some confidence in each other and executing coaching instructions instinctively.

Now, compared to us, when we move the ball, it's fumbly to start. It's rushed, hesitant, missing targets and worse, the one thing we are supposedly 'good' at (winning the clearance) is awful. None of the clearances go deep enough or wide enough, none of the forwards spread or lead enough (let alone work hard enough) and everything is clunky. It's like a bad transmission. When we somehow score, it's through individual brilliance or a lucky piece of play, when opposition score, its how a team working together should score regardless of the talent. A prime example is Stephens spoiling a perfect kick to Zurhaar and Sheezel having to mop up the mess. Individual brilliance got us the goal, but we didn't execute the play like a normal team should. It was rushed and made it harder for ourselves.

TMB makes a great point about the previous players though. They all had some form of experience to pass on, and it would've been integral to basically the youngest team in the AFL. Darling, Parker and even Daniel have helped to an extent, but it's like we've tried to reverse the damage we self-inflicted by desperately looking to get premiership-calibre experience through the door at any cost (regardless of their ability to impact on-field). It sounds great if you're a Geelong or Collingwood, but we're so far and away from a culture that sets standards. It's not going to move the needle much if at all. It has to come from the playing group that continually lets them and us, down.

We've put ourselves into this mess and unless we somehow figure out that we can play better footy for longer, we'll continue to struggle. It doesn't just happen. It needs to come from within and I think a lot of time has been given with very little to show for it.

Rawlings basically delisted those 11 guys to start with, but then he was in charge of the list managers who recruited the same types we needed to avoid (because they were the same types we delisted anyway - players with no upside). Guys like Curtis Taylor, Jack Mahony, Charlie Lazzaro... like what? What was the point? So we essentially kept going around in circles and were held together by whatever little experience we had left from an era that knew how to play like a team. You can't go into a season with almost zero experience from previous list builds that knew what finals were like or knew how to steady things when opposition got on top. It's not going to end well.

The list is mentally soft, but they can get out of it if they get real stubborn about losing. But I don't think they will. The young players have it tough, but the more experienced blokes that should be leading the way, don't know how to and its dragging back the youngsters.

Geelong are the complete opposite to us. They know how to do everything properly even though their list is nowhere near the quality of the 2011s or whatever. The culture, confidence and standards have all been ingrained into the four walls of the footy club and it's never gonna leave them. They all expect each other to execute the game plan as coached, and play like a normal football team should. They've cleverly held onto senior types with crucial experience so that their young players have a seamless transition from VFL/state leagues to AFL.

I bet Wardlaw, Sheezel and McKercher would be the talk of the town if they had a better senior core around them that knew how to win or had better standards. So much wouldn't be left to so few.

3 nights later, and I reckon I can make this exact post again with examples from tonight's game.

It's just not happening. You cannot get the best out of people by being too comfortable. We don't have leadership, nor do we provide sufficient support to Darling, Parker, and Daniel. Those three were meant to help us, not be forced to deal with tonight's shitfest.

It's an endless cycle. You cannot develop players in an environment where they get belted by 20 goals. Simply cannot. If all they know is losing, that is what they will continue to do until someone above them changes the mindset permanently. A total failure of a rebuild is unfolding before our very eyes, and I think the club is blind at the wheel.