List Mgmt. List Management Thread

[GreyCrow]

in what world? he is our best inside mid and we have no one coming through that are ready to play. He will 100% be playing in 2026.

Let's see what 2025 brings

I wouldn't be making contract decisions for 2026 now

 

[adelaidecrows]

Let's see what 2025 brings

I wouldn't be making contract decisions for 2026 now

he is a sure bet. sure, some players will begin to rotate through but nothing we didnt see this year as far as someone like a crouch. If someone said 2027 then id probably be more inclined to agree. But I think its just some old style crouch hate that think he is gone at the end of this year back to Sanfl. Thats just school kid stuff.

 

[spenze]

Think we need to be honest about Crouch. Next year is the year, if he can't get the ball to the outside mids to advantage if he holds up other mids progress, if opposition teams play through him in the midfield, then he needs to go. I am seeing all the same arguments used for Crouch that were used for Laird in the last few years and we should have sold Laird off three years ago and there were a bunch of us calling for it to the howls of the clappers.

 

[GreyCrow]

he is a sure bet. sure, some players will begin to rotate through but nothing we didnt see this year as far as someone like a crouch. If someone said 2027 then id probably be more inclined to agree. But I think its just some old style crouch hate that think he is gone at the end of this year back to Sanfl. Thats just school kid stuff.

If he wasn't coming out of contract
If he didn't get that contract late
If we felt he was out favour until injuries brought him back

I am happy for him to have a pivotal role in 2025 but I am still wary of making him part of 2026

It's like some posters already having Tex run around in 2026

Let's put the handbrake on

 

[spenze]

If he wasn't coming out of contract
If he didn't get that contract late
If we felt he was out favour until injuries brought him back

I am happy for him to have a pivotal role in 2025 but I am still wary of making him part of 2026

It's like some posters already having Tex run around in 2026

Let's put the handbrake on

Can't be too long til they start wanting to talk Sloane out of retirement using the Tim Watson precedent

 

[Danger in Texas]

I get that, but the ones we want to replace him long term (Curtin, Taylor, Draper) need to get 40 games into them before they're ready to do it full time.

I wouldn’t be surprised (assuming everything goes well injury-wise) if Draper’s ready for full-time midfield by year 2. Definitely by year 3

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

In 2025 we will have the 8th oldest team list - right in the middle of the pack. As you correctly note, age cannot be an excuse next year.

I would note though that we're still only 14th of 18 in terms of experience.

Wouldn’t be surprised if our average 22 is still in the bottom 6

 

[adelaidecrows]

Wouldn’t be surprised if our average 22 is still in the bottom 6

Our depth still falls away quickly because of Nicks lack of development down the list. Injuries will still hurt us especially if we lose some star players. Its just the reality of an under developed side. Blame Nicks 2023 season for lack of interest.

 

[Carmo]

I have a lot of time for Taylor because he is a footballer first, he has great skills and footy IQ.

The fitness issues are disappointing more so because that's something that with extra training can get better. If he really wanted to make it in the AFL world he would have hired a PT to help him.

I'm unsure why more players that have skills but not the fitness don't do this.

Wasn't there an interview with Burgess last year where he said Everytime he tries to up his training loads it's caused injuries? Said he's got himself past that now but still only ramping up cautiously cos he doesn't want to keep breaking down and going backwards.

 

[crows dude]

in what world? he is our best inside mid and we have no one coming through that are ready to play. He will 100% be playing in 2026.

And that is a failure on our developlement. When Crouch is 31 we should have younger players moving pass him. The same thats happend to all of our ageing mids over the years.

 

[Redline]

Think we need to be honest about Crouch. Next year is the year, if he can't get the ball to the outside mids to advantage if he holds up other mids progress, if opposition teams play through him in the midfield, then he needs to go. I am seeing all the same arguments used for Crouch that were used for Laird in the last few years and we should have sold Laird off three years ago and there were a bunch of us calling for it to the howls of the clappers.

You are right, he is definitely a liability when we don't have the ball, one of reasons he has never really been in demand from other clubs. Stats and watching on TV don't show how opposition play off him.

 

[Crouch#44]

Good to see Nick Ruccito out training with Sturt...

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Good to see Nick Ruccito out training with Sturt...

Was he with Ricciuto...

 

[Big Dub]

Our depth still falls away quickly because of Nicks lack of development down the list. Injuries will still hurt us especially if we lose some star players. Its just the reality of an under developed side. Blame Nicks 2023 season for lack of interest.

I posted on this a few weeks ago. None of the most successful rebuilding clubs played the kids at the expense of the (limited number of) veterans on their list. That approach led to premierships.

Play the best team you have, develop the kids as dominant players in the 2's and the better of them get games in the 1's when they earn them.

 

[Mostyn]

I posted on this a few weeks ago. None of the most successful rebuilding clubs played the kids at the expense of the (limited number of) veterans on their list. That approach led to premierships.

Play the best team you have, develop the kids as dominant players in the 2's and the better of them get games in the 1's when they earn them.

I completely agree.

A club should have fantastic development coaches. Play people in the right roles in the twos for development.

But don't think the only place to develop your game is at the senior level, against men. That is where you finish your development and get used to the speed and physicality of the game - but the reserves is where you can genuinely learn.

 

[Velvet George]

I posted on this a few weeks ago. None of the most successful rebuilding clubs played the kids at the expense of the (limited number of) veterans on their list. That approach led to premierships.

Play the best team you have, develop the kids as dominant players in the 2's and the better of them get games in the 1's when they earn them.

Hang on, you’ve posted that successful rebuilding clubs played cooked veterans ahead of kids and they were successful?

This isn’t another example of your rubbery facts?

 

[GreyCrow]

Play the best team you have, develop the kids as dominant players in the 2's and the better of them get games in the 1's when they earn them.

It goes to personal philosophy but this situation needs a strong minded coach who knows exactly what they are doing and it needs forward thinking - which not many coaches have the patience or contract for

You need to first identify if you have talent or a spot holder - sometimes the most talented dont work hard enough - then yeah leave them to stew

Once you identify talent you assess your own needs and spots you can give these kids 1 or 2 games to 1. showcase their skills 2. show them the level required

Happy for a kid to build the fitness base in the 2s but again you need to be very clear that you are correct on their fitness level - but also recognise that running harder happens when a player steps up

What I guess I'm not happy with is this idea that a player has to dominate the lower level. Have you seen the lower level? Each position requires different criteria and you need to be mindful that your assessment isnt purely stats based

tl;dr development can be hit and miss but YOU need a clear plan for everyone

 

[Golumless]

It goes to personal philosophy but this situation needs a strong minded coach who knows exactly what they are doing and it needs forward thinking - which not many coaches have the patience or contract for

You need to first identify if you have talent or a spot holder - sometimes the most talented dont work hard enough - then yeah leave them to stew

Once you identify talent you assess your own needs and spots you can give these kids 1 or 2 games to 1. showcase their skills 2. show them the level required

Happy for a kid to build the fitness base in the 2s but again you need to be very clear that you are correct on their fitness level - but also recognise that running harder happens when a player steps up

What I guess I'm not happy with is this idea that a player has to dominate the lower level. Have you seen the lower level? Each position requires different criteria and you need to be mindful that your assessment isnt purely stats based

tl;dr development can be hit and miss but YOU need a clear plan for everyone

Or can afford. After all, the only currency a coach has is wins.

Really though, this whole "we should be thinking about the next premiership side" is thrown out by all and sundry and yet is never implicated on purpose - which indicates its the wrong question to ask. The future seems to be something that sorts itself out in football, and sorts itself out by getting your drafting and list management right and having a solid amount of talent influxing into your system to undo whatever attrition is occurring.

Requiring a kid to dominate the lower levels just indicates the club doesn't see the kid as a star prospect in their system. Remember, we never asked Rachele, Soligo, Thilthorpe (though we have dropped him, but we selected him in 2021 off some pretty average performances) or Michaelanny to tear up the seconds. The kids we're in love with have the roadblocks removed.

Thinking back to Mitchell's justification of trading Mitchell/O'Meara, which boiled down "he'll select them if he has them", it seems like once you're at a selection level, it forces you to play everything with a straight bat.

edit: lesser was too harsh, so changed to star.

 

[GreyCrow]

Requiring a kid to dominate the lower levels just indicates the club sees the kid as a lesser prospect in their system. Remember, we never asked Rachele, Soligo, Thilthorpe (though we have dropped him, but we selected him in 2021 off some pretty average performances) or Michaelanny to tear up the seconds. The kids we're in love with have the roadblocks removed.

True

I came back to add that - from the outside looking in - apart from the golden children you identified - our philosophy seems to be '' eliminate all mistakes from your game''

I think that hinders people

I think it was Blight who said '' I dont mind if you make a mistake make sure you are ready for the next contest and make up for that mistake.

You wont get dropped or dragged if you make a mistake but you will if you get the sooks or go into your shell ''

It allows a player to recognise mistakes happen but life (until the last one) gives you time to rectify . Choosing not to just compounds the mistake

 

[adelaidecrows]

I posted on this a few weeks ago. None of the most successful rebuilding clubs played the kids at the expense of the (limited number of) veterans on their list. That approach led to premierships.

Play the best team you have, develop the kids as dominant players in the 2's and the better of them get games in the 1's when they earn them.

No thats not what I have said at all. In 2023 when i criticised Nicks the main problem was he was selecting the same 25 players rain hail or shine over a 16 game period because of lack of injuries. We were only winning 50% at that time too and often, some players were in such poor form but kept being selected. These werent even senior players. This was Murphy, Soligo, McHenry, Schoenberg before his injury. Crouch was sitting in the Sanfl smashing it every week too.

The point is, instead of taking small opportunities to drop a poor performing player or a player perhaps needing a rest and bringing in a Nankervis or Cook, he ignored them all. Worrell only got a game because Doedee went down. So yeah, coaches dont just throw old senior players for young players but they take opportunities when they arise, they dont wait until shits hit the fan and the side is broken as what the Essendon game represented. This was 16 games where we could have had so many more games into Nankervis and Cook.

 

[Big Dub]

Hang on, you’ve posted that successful rebuilding clubs played cooked veterans ahead of kids and they were successful?

This isn’t another example of your rubbery facts?

Hawks '04, West Coast '08, Collingwood '99 and Brisbane '15 had between 2 and 6 (average about 4) veterans (29yo+) on their lists in the early years of the rebuild. Each year an average 93% of these veterans got games and they got an average of 15.7 games per year (those that played only).

The same teams played 53% of their kids (19 or 20yo) each year for an average of 11 games a year (those that played only).

So if we had 4 veterans on our list, then yes, I'd play them ahead of the kids who hadn't earned a spot yet.

We had 8 veterans on our list last year and we got rid of one of them (Sloane, by his choice) and picked up another (ANB).

So I would have sacked 4 of our veterans and then would play the rest.

Those successful teams also had an average of 14 kids on their lists, to our 5 next year. So, ideally we'd get a dozen games into 7 kids, but that's not even an option. Getting games into all by Welsh should be achievable, because they are all good enough to earn games this year (my opinion only).

 

[Mostyn]

Hawks '04, West Coast '08, Collingwood '99 and Brisbane '15 had between 2 and 6 (average about 4) veterans (29yo+) on their lists in the early years of the rebuild. Each year an average 93% of these veterans got games and they got an average of 15.7 games per year (those that played only).

The same teams played 53% of their kids (19 or 20yo) each year for an average of 11 games a year (those that played only).

So if we had 4 veterans on our list, then yes, I'd play them ahead of the kids who hadn't earned a spot yet.

We had 8 veterans on our list last year and we got rid of one of them (Sloane, by his choice) and picked up another (ANB).

So I would have sacked 4 of our veterans and then would play the rest.

Those successful teams also had an average of 14 kids on their lists, to our 5 next year. So, ideally we'd get a dozen games into 7 kids, but that's not even an option. Getting games into all by Welsh should be achievable, because they are all good enough to earn games this year (my opinion only).

This is an interesting post - can you explain more about who would be your best 22, based on precedent?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I posted on this a few weeks ago. None of the most successful rebuilding clubs played the kids at the expense of the (limited number of) veterans on their list. That approach led to premierships.

Play the best team you have, develop the kids as dominant players in the 2's and the better of them get games in the 1's when they earn them.

That's what we've been doing for 20 years!

 

[Velvet George]

Hawks '04, West Coast '08, Collingwood '99 and Brisbane '15 had between 2 and 6 (average about 4) veterans (29yo+) on their lists in the early years of the rebuild. Each year an average 93% of these veterans got games and they got an average of 15.7 games per year (those that played only).

The same teams played 53% of their kids (19 or 20yo) each year for an average of 11 games a year (those that played only).

So if we had 4 veterans on our list, then yes, I'd play them ahead of the kids who hadn't earned a spot yet.

We had 8 veterans on our list last year and we got rid of one of them (Sloane, by his choice) and picked up another (ANB).

So I would have sacked 4 of our veterans and then would play the rest.

Those successful teams also had an average of 14 kids on their lists, to our 5 next year. So, ideally we'd get a dozen games into 7 kids, but that's not even an option. Getting games into all by Welsh should be achievable, because they are all good enough to earn games this year (my opinion only).

No what I asked is if they played cooked veterans?

There’s a big difference between playing a performing veteran like Luke Hodge, Burgoyne, Pendlebury and a cooked Sloane and Smith.

Without knowing who the players were the stats mean nothing.

 

[Scorpus]

I posted on this a few weeks ago. None of the most successful rebuilding clubs played the kids at the expense of the (limited number of) veterans on their list. That approach led to premierships.

Play the best team you have, develop the kids as dominant players in the 2's and the better of them get games in the 1's when they earn them.

Right but you also said they had not that many senior players on the list, so there weren't many opportunities to actually play senior players at the expense of kids

In 2021 we had 8 players that were 29 or older, though admittedly Talia and Gibbs didn't play a single game