Roast How much of the blame lies with Bailey and BP?

[Tulip]

How do you know who the Sting is, newbie?

You beat me.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

Good post CFH, and I particularly agree with the above quoted part. The mid-level senior players who are young enough to have a dip (and not be there simply on reputation) but old enough to have played more than 100-120 games are what this club is screaming out for. It would obviously help if they were talented too.

EDIT
In fact I just had a look at our list and these are our players with 100+ games:
Green - nearing end of career
Davey - as above
Moloney - no indication of good form this year, currently injured
Rivers - has a tough job in defence, not a world beater
Sylvia - injured, on-field inconsistencies
Jones - probably the best of the bunch so far this year
Jamar - needs to lift, a handy ruckman though
Macdonald - on borrowed time

Compare this with say, Carlton, who you could argue are a couple of years ahead of us in development and are maybe a good benchmark to set for ourselves in a year or two (yes very early days in the season but so far they are showing something). Now I don't know much about the Carlton list but it seems to me a much healthier group of 100+ game players:

Scotland, Heath
Judd, Chris
Thornton, Bret
Simpson, Kade
Betts, Eddie
Waite, Jarrad
Carrazzo, Andrew
Murphy, Marc
Walker, Andrew
Gibbs, Bryce
Russell, Jordan

Its possible in the future with another season under our belt we'll look in a much healthier position. Don't think it's panic stations yet but christ we better get some winning games into our boys because it doesn't matter if you've played 300 games if they're all 100 point drubbings.

Good comparison there mate and it shows how far behind we truly are. Carlton not only have a solid amount of players with 100+ games under their belt but they are good players also, some of them absolute guns. Gibbs and Murphy stand out for me as they are 2 of their 3 number one picks and they have come on in leaps and bounds. It's too early to tell for us, of course, but it shows if you get it right you REALLY get it right. Kreuzer would be up there too if not for injuries.

If you compared us to others like Hawthorn, Collingwood and Geelong we would look even worse. Looking at some of our "rivals" in terms of being outside the 8 like North, Essendon, Doggies and St. Kilda would be interesting also.

Just further shows that we are sorely, sorely lacking in leadership and good players in that 24-30 bracket and we won't win too many games or climb up the ladder without them.

 

[RandB]

With all due respect, I don't see the point in comparing us with a top 4 prospect like Carlton. It doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know. We've known since '08 that our 100+ brigade has been substandard. It's old news.

It is teams like Essendon, North, Richmond, Brisbane we should be looking at. These teams are on similar development curves to us and all have arguably overtaken us in the midfield. To that end both Bailey and BP as well as others have let us slip.

Our lack of senior leadership now won't mean didly in 3 or 4 years time and that should be our focus, I'm sure it's Neeld's focus.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

I took at look at North and Essendon. Here are their 100+ game players and the year they were drafted in.

North:
Michael Firrito - 171 (2003)
Brent Harvey - 324 (1996)
Hamish McIntosh - 101 (2006)
Drew Petrie - 200 (2001)
Andrew Swallow - 107 (2006)
Daniel Wells - 171 (2003)

Essendon:
Ricky Dyson - 102 (2004)
Dustin Fletcher - 349 (1993)
David Hille - 186 (2001)
Nathan Lovett-Murray - 127 (2004)
Mark McVeigh - 231 (1999)
Angus Monfries - 134 (2005)
Partick Ryder - 119 (2006)
Brent Stanton - 164 (2004)
Jobe Watson - 134 (2003)


Compare that to our 100+ game players

Aaron Davey - 151 (2004)
Brad Green - 243 (2000)
Mark Jamar - 112 (2003)
Nathan Jones - 116 (2006)
Joel MacDonald - 109 (2004)
Brent Moloney - 131 (2003)
Jared Rivers - 130 (2003)
Colin Sylvia - 121 (2004)

Our list doesn't really stack up to either two. They have some real match winners and each list has a long time veteran who leads from the front. For us we have two, probably three, players who don't deserve a game right now (Green, Davey and MacDonald), one player who is in great nick (Jones), one who is in good form (Rivers) and the rest aren't doing a great deal at all. It's not good.

We are well behind in this area and it shows. North have less 100+ players yet they seem further ahead in their development than we do because their senior players lead from the front more than ours do and they have match winners (Swallow and Harvey) which we don't have.

 

[RandB]

I took at look at North and Essendon. Here are their 100+ game players and the year they were drafted in.

North:
Michael Firrito - 171 (2003)
Brent Harvey - 324 (1996)
Hamish McIntosh - 101 (2006)
Drew Petrie - 200 (2001)
Andrew Swallow - 107 (2006)
Daniel Wells - 171 (2003)

Essendon:
Ricky Dyson - 102 (2004)
Dustin Fletcher - 349 (1993)
David Hille - 186 (2001)
Nathan Lovett-Murray - 127 (2004)
Mark McVeigh - 231 (1999)
Angus Monfries - 134 (2005)
Partick Ryder - 119 (2006)
Brent Stanton - 164 (2004)
Jobe Watson - 134 (2003)


Compare that to our 100+ game players

Aaron Davey - 151 (2004)
Brad Green - 243 (2000)
Mark Jamar - 112 (2003)
Nathan Jones - 116 (2006)
Joel MacDonald - 109 (2004)
Brent Moloney - 131 (2003)
Jared Rivers - 130 (2003)
Colin Sylvia - 121 (2004)

Our list doesn't really stack up to either two. They have some real match winners and each list has a long time veteran who leads from the front. For us we have two, probably three, players who don't deserve a game right now (Green, Davey and MacDonald), one player who is in great nick (Jones), one who is in good form (Rivers) and the rest aren't doing a great deal at all. It's not good.

We are well behind in this area and it shows. North have less 100+ players yet they seem further ahead in their development than we do because their senior players lead from the front more than ours do and they have match winners (Swallow and Harvey) which we don't have.

For all intents and purposes both teams are miles away from Carlton as we are.

My point about comparison was the next 3 or 4 years particularly with youth stocks.

But in any case if we look at North and Essendon and forget Richmond and Brisbane for a moment North's senior brigade isn't profoundly in front of ours. Boomer has been a stalwart but Petrie, McIntosh and Wells have all carried long term injuries in recent times which has hampered their impact. Firrito has been solid in a vanilla fashion. More to the point, North have done the best they can with re-stocking their midfield.

Essendon are in front wrt senior players and of the 4 clubs would be the most solid at this stage but like us they'll lose some in quick succession and will be looking to their next generation of players.

wrt development I don't think we can purely put it down to senior players when comparing ourselves to North. We quite simply have too many question marks on future prospects on our list and comparing 100+ gamers has no baring on this IMO.

I look at Blease, Gysberts, Strauss, Tapscott and many others and with rose tinted glasses I'm excited about the possibilities but they are still unknown quantities at this stage and Davey and co have nothing to do with this. Terry Wallace summed our situation up well in this regard a few weeks ago when he went over our list.

We've under-recruited in the midfield as well and that is not a senior issue either. It might be a mostly blue collar outfit but the midfield youth brigade at North is extensive and will give them the opportunity to pick the best options down the track from a larger pool.

Our midfield stocks have not been adequately tended to and it's a worry. We have a chance to address it at the end of the year, if we don't we're in trouble.

I understand your point CFH that our senior players have let the younger players down and that can influence their development (good point) but the pure number of question mark players is compelling and recruiting and coaching has played a part to a degree IMO.

 

[SPC 98]

We are putrid; the laughing stock of the comp again! As we have been for the last 4 years... Can't see things changing anytime soon....

 

[bing181]

We've known since '08 that our 100+ brigade has been substandard .... To that end both Bailey and BP as well as others have let us slip.

100+ brigade would put us pre BP. Pre Bailey as well in terms of early years of development etc.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

08' will make or break us.

Watts, Blease and Strauss all unquestionably have talent.

And all NEED to reach the heights they are capable of.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

What's got me buggered is why did we need to carry 12 mid sized forwards every year? Make some ****ing trades for **** sake.

 

[Supermercado]

SuburbanMe mate, not you!

Awesome, now I can tee off!

Nah, still convincing myself that it's all part of the plan.

 

[demonfan9]

The change in culture must come from the next wave of players who will be aged 24-25 going into next year. That's the age where you enter your prime and can really start to have an influence on the teams overall fortunes.

Mitch Clark
Nathan Jones
James Frawley
Ricky Petterd
Colin Garland
James Magner
Liam Jurrah (?)
Rohan Bail (?)
Clint Bartram (?)
Matthew Bate (?)
Lynden Dunn (?)
James Sellar (?)
Thomas Couch (?)

There's some real talent and leadership in those first six names. I've put question marks next to seven others who have an uncertain future or unknown ability. If half of them can be of good service, then we have a group of 9-10 players who are at the ripe age to help out our 4-5 older players next year.

Mark Jamar
Brent Moloney
Jared Rivers
Colin Sylvia
Stefan Martin
Aaron Davey (?)

Add in possibly one of two mature recruits and we'll suddenly have a group of roughly 15 serviceable players in the key 24-29 age bracket. Throw in 10 of our best youngsters to compliment the rest.

Jack Grimes
Jack Trengove
Jack Watts
Jeremy Howe
Jordie McKenzie
Luke Tapscott
Jack Viney
Jordan Gysberts (?)
Sam Blease (?)
James Strauss (?)

This is by no means going to win us the 2013 premiership but the team will be in a position where we can be much more competitive (Bailey buzz word) and hopefully not offer the garbage we've seen so far this year and last year.

 

[stickman11]

08' will make or break us.

Watts, Blease and Strauss all unquestionably have talent.

And all NEED to reach the heights they are capable of.

So Gysberts has no talent despite his two nominations for rising star?

Tapscotts first season last year = no talent?

Howe won't develop?

I think Cale will probably best adapt to Neelds game over time.

Watts just needs to be roughed up a bit. Feel some pain and realise it doesn't hurt that much.

Bennel is a bit of a concern - and a lack of a good small forward as well.

 

[demonfan9]

I think TPM was simply referring to the players drafted in the 2008 "super draft".

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

I never said Gysberts, Howe and Tapscott didn't have talent.. did I?

But 08' is the draft with the most question marks, but IMO also the highest upside.

Watts; potential superstar (no one will convince me otherwise).

Blease; line-breaking speed

Strauss; classy HBF'er.

Tell me we don't need one of each

People are saying 'our players are s**t, blah' and all that nonsense... but in reality they actually aren't.

Howe, Petterd, Clark, Sylvia, Moloney, Jamar, Frawley, Jones, Trengove, Grimes, Magner (jumping the gun? not on what we've seen so far), Watts (when in form, there's no doubt), Martin, Garland, Jurrah.

These are guys that would get a game on MOST AFL lists.

Tapscott, Blease, Strauss, Gysberts, Cook, McDonald, Davis, McKenzie, Tynan, Taggert, Gawn.

These are guys who have ability, and need to be developed properly.

What do we need?

1. Obviously to get used to the game plan; we've been working on a game plan based on completely different principles to the one these guys have been aiming to perfect for four years
2. Develop our players to their potential; I'm much more confident in this with our current back room staff
3. Develop some chemistry within our new structures.

Realistically we aren't going to look good until we know a complex game plan so thoroughly that we can pull it off in our sleep.

 

[RandB]

100+ brigade would put us pre BP. Pre Bailey as well in terms of early years of development etc.

It was more a figurative rolling reference to the seniors of the day year in year out.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

100+ brigade would put us pre BP. Pre Bailey as well in terms of early years of development etc.

True but the he and BP were way too focused on youth. I know they can't be all to blame for that as I'm sure the board wanted them to go the rebuild but they were too one sighted in this. Plus they let some senior players go, most notably McDonald, who still had plenty to offer and kept around others who haven't been what we wanted them to be.

Terrific discussion going on about it though. I think the message is clear - we have the talent, oodles of it, but also many question marks that go with it which is a slight concern, but we have time on our side.

Our senior players are what's letting us down at the present time more than anything but I nice chunk of those will be gone come seasons end.

 

[Captain Jack]

Quality thread, great to see some really robust discussion in here.

For me a lot is to do with the player management. As others have said above, the amount we HAVEN'T seen out of the likes of Grimes (34 games in 4 full years) Blease (6 in 3), Strauss (11 in 3), Tapscott (15 in 2), Gysberts (18 in 2), Gawn (4 in 2), Bail (20 in 3) even is ridiculous.
Maximum doesn't really count as he's a ruckman, but to have those 4 undoubtedly talented guys playing 104 of a possible 384 games is a farce. It reflects on 1. bad luck (Blease, Strauss leg breaks, Grimes foot); 2. bad facilities (Tapscott screwed his hip on a sprinkler at Junction Oval FFS); and, without being a medical expert, 3. terrible injury management (all 5 of them at one point or another).
Morton could probably slot in there as well, also Jetta now that I think about it... Cook, McKenzie, Jurrah, Spencer, Petterd too, to a lesser degree perhaps.
If those guys had played 250+ games between them, we would be a whole lot better off. Even just to have them all running around at Casey most weeks would put large amounts of pressure on positions in the seniors (Grimes would be in there already of course, I added him just now). Instead they've been cooped up in the medical room/rehab group for months at a time, taking far too long to get out on the park or else getting out there too soon and re-injuring themselves.
I don't think it's any coincidence that Strauss is already up and playing games this year... had he broken his leg in Round 20 of 2010 we may not have seen him at all last season, such was the apparent ineptitude of our medical facilities/team previously.

Also strongly agree with the concept that our rubbish drafting from 2001-2005 is behind a lot of this... we just don't have the core group of reliable contributors that almost every other club does have.

 

[RandB]

Quality thread, great to see some really robust discussion in here.

For me a lot is to do with the player management. As others have said above, the amount we HAVEN'T seen out of the likes of Grimes (34 games in 4 full years) Blease (6 in 3), Strauss (11 in 3), Tapscott (15 in 2), Gysberts (18 in 2), Gawn (4 in 2), Bail (20 in 3) even is ridiculous.

Yep, and I don't think anyone is actually saying they are no good on any level at all, merely that what we read in their draft bios and what we can actually pencil in at this stage are 2 different things and the amount of players this applies to is uncomfortably high atm.

Also strongly agree with the concept that our rubbish drafting from 2001-2005 is behind a lot of this... we just don't have the core group of reliable contributors that almost every other club does have.

Massive influence on how we've performed in recent times no doubt.

 

[Captain Jack]

Yep, and I don't think anyone is actually saying they are no good on any level at all, merely that what we read in their draft bios and what we can actually pencil in at this stage are 2 different things and the amount of players this applies to is uncomfortably high atm.

Yeah I'm still pretty confident they will all get to their potential, except for Blease who seems soft as butter unfortunately. Problem is a lot of their contemporaries are already at that 'potential fulfilled' level due to having 1. been on the park for most of their careers, and 2. not been coached by a molly-coddling idiot with no game plan or discipline to speak of.

 

[RandB]

I read somewhere (or possibly heard somewhere) that the club tried to trade Blease. I was surprised and sceptical, can anyone actually confirm or deny that?

 

[Captain Jack]

I read somewhere (or possibly heard somewhere) that the club tried to trade Blease. I was surprised and sceptical, can anyone actually confirm or deny that?

I think someone said that on here last week haha

 

[CowboyFromHell]

I read somewhere (or possibly heard somewhere) that the club tried to trade Blease. I was surprised and sceptical, can anyone actually confirm or deny that?

I think that all came about as a result of Blease supposedly being Scully's "best mate". Don't think we would be giving up on the kid yet.

Cpt. Jack - agree that we simply haven't been able to put alot of those younger players out on the park for long enough. Again, I think the new regime will need this season to get everything right and to build that momentum before we start seeing the results we want to see. We need the kids on the park and for Misson to get the fitness base up with minimal injuries. We have been unlucky with a variety of injuries we couldn't help but if we can keep everything else to a minimum it would certainly help.

 

[RandB]

I think that all came about as a result of Blease supposedly being Scully's "best mate". Don't think we would be giving up on the kid yet.

oh dear, is that really how it came about lol, wish I'd never asked now.

 

[guitarded]

I took at look at North and Essendon. Here are their 100+ game players and the year they were drafted in.

Essendon:
Ricky Dyson - 102 (2004)
Dustin Fletcher - 349 (1993)
David Hille - 186 (2001)
Nathan Lovett-Murray - 127 (2004)
Mark McVeigh - 231 (1999)
Angus Monfries - 134 (2005)
Partick Ryder - 119 (2006)
Brent Stanton - 164 (2004)
Jobe Watson - 134 (2003)


Compare that to our 100+ game players

Aaron Davey - 151 (2004)
Brad Green - 243 (2000)
Mark Jamar - 112 (2003)
Nathan Jones - 116 (2006)
Joel MacDonald - 109 (2004)
Brent Moloney - 131 (2003)
Jared Rivers - 130 (2003)
Colin Sylvia - 121 (2004)

The main difference when i compare the two lists is the passion and desire in the players. They all have the skills to be playing in the 1sts, but the Essendon players seem to play with more heart and endeavour. From our list, Jones and Rivers (he does try) are probably the only players who give their out and out all most weeks.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Common guys. Fire up!!!

Just a few months ago, everyone was pumping up the MFC saying it was THE place for new coach to go to. The most talented young list in the country some said. Many on this board agreed.

I don't think the list is as bad as you guys think it is. Talent doesn't drain out of players overnight. Confidence does. Once this goes up, you'll be back on track.

There are many things that haven't gone right for the club which they haven't had any control over. The Jurrah incident, The great man's death and Sylvia cracking a vertebrae.

One area I think that they may have erred on is the choice of captain. Don't get me wrong, because I think Trengrove will be a gun. But you have to earn the right to be a captain of a footy club. It cannot be gifted. Imagine if you are a senior type player at Melbourne. You hear your last coach say that he coached for draft picks (aka tanking). This means some of the best years of your football career have been wasted. The next coach comes in and ignores your efforts and selects a guy who has played a handful of games for the club. I know I would be seriously pissed. If he wanted to go young, someone like Frawley would have at least had someone there who has great football qualities AND has spilt enough blood for the team to qualify for the position. It's only a theory, but work place environments are no different in footy as they are in any day to day job. Picture yourselves at work with that position. Some young guy who has been there a minute gets to be head of your department and you are overlooked because the department performed badly because the CEO deliberately played it that way. I'm sure you wouldn't be happy and your performances may suffer as a result.

Anyway the older guys will get over it eventually and you'll find your performances will improve. I love it when I hate the Dees supporters for their cockiness. I don't like it when you guys are so down you you can't even raise a yelp! Common and start beating those chests of yours. BF is much more fun when you do!