List Mgmt. List Mgmt/philosophy/structure and analysis

[Partridge]

That might be true, but then there's only one way to go. Not as if we are a club that languishes at the bottom indefinitely. It does look grim after Joel, Hawk, Danger, Taylor, GAJ are gone, but it had to be that way. We have been on a high and a relative high for longer than most teams and we may pay the price for a little while, but had we not topped up, we may not have recruited that well anyway given our ladder finishes.

I never understand this thinking VD.

Finishing high on the ladder (which is after all, the aim), means that you may miss on a first round pick only. You still have other picks. You still have picks in the 20s and 30s and 40s. Which is incidentally, exactly where we found Steve Johnson, and Chapman, and Ling, and Enright, and Milburn, among many others. The last first round pick we truly, absolutely nailed was Harry Taylor in 2007 - when we won the flag.

If your recruiting and development is good you can easily cover for missing out on top 10 picks. What is now being felt is the poor development and lack of persistence the club showed in quite a number of them. Add the trading of picks to bring in some players (not Dangerfield, but definitely others), and that's where the big gap is. But it's incorrect to act like it was always going to happen, or that there's an evil AFL agenda against Geelong (absolutely idiotic and completely ill founded paranoia). It's because the club hasn't been good enough at list management. It's no one else's fault but their own.

 

[Cataholic]

I never understand this thinking VD.

Finishing high on the ladder (which is after all, the aim), means that you may miss on a first round pick only. You still have other picks. You still have picks in the 20s and 30s and 40s. Which is incidentally, exactly where we found Steve Johnson, and Chapman, and Ling, and Enright, and Milburn, among many others. The last first round pick we truly, absolutely nailed was Harry Taylor in 2007 - when we won the flag.

If your recruiting and development is good you can easily cover for missing out on top 10 picks. What is now being felt is the poor development and lack of persistence the club showed in quite a number of them. Add the trading of picks to bring in some players (not Dangerfield, but definitely others), and that's where the big gap is. But it's incorrect to act like it was always going to happen, or that there's an evil AFL agenda against Geelong (absolutely idiotic and completely ill founded paranoia). It's because the club hasn't been good enough at list management. It's no one else's fault but their own.

Can't disagree with any of that, and it must now be hoped that the club is genuine in a) its realisation that its been remiss and b) it's endeavour to rectify it going forward.

It's a challenge, but then again, that's the foibles, contradiction and fascination of human spirit and endeavour.

And the best part is we get to enjoy the ride. Sometimes it's not palatable, but if it were all plain sailing it'd be pretty damn boring after a while.

 

[Cataholic]

I see a likeness with the Australian cricket team at the moment.

Look how far its fallen....... can anyone identify the precise moment it happened? Nope, because its been insidious, a death by a thousand cuts.

Success depends on the perfect synchronicity, balance and harmony of all its moving parts, from coach to players to support staff. Just the slightest imbalance, mis-step or lack of judgement can slowly and surely throw the whole machine out of whack, even with coaches and players who have the ability to perform.

 

[cynical]

The worst players 26 and under .... I'm not sure what gauge you are using for that assertion? Is it the how many would get a game at clubs named etc?

Id say Carlton is the counter point to having to build thru kids and being at the bottom ... they have had ample time to build thru picks at the bottom..

To me in this era of FA a couple of years out of the finals is probably as much as id like ..as you then start to lose draw value after that.
The key to me is just how our under valued players develop. AS you mentioned our early picks that were late teens were no great outcome so I dont think any approach has a guaranteed success

any gauge you want

for ease I'd say any good player or better which I'd have as Stewart, Kelly and Parfitt (the likes of Henry, Sav etc are players with some potential which every club has a heap of)

the Hawks and Swans are in a similar spot list wise

Hawthorn have Mitchell, Wingard and O'Meara (I dont know how good the rest of their kids are in relation to Parfitt)
Sydney have Parker, Lloyd, Jones, Hewett, Mills, Heeney etc

only the Hawks really come close to the shitness of their 26yo and under group

Cant expect late picks like Henry, Narkle, Sav etc to turn into guns, they are all pretty limited. In a few years our list will be stacked with B graders as most of our A graders will have retired.

 

[Max Milburn]

Cant expect late picks like Henry, Narkle, Sav etc to turn into guns, they are all pretty limited.

Your crystal ball is no more accurate than anybody else's.
"Can't expect late picks like Enright, Ling, Rooke etc to turn into guns..."

 

[cynical]

Your crystal ball is no more accurate than anybody else's.
"Can't expect late picks like Enright, Ling, Rooke etc to turn into guns..."

Do you do nothing but troll?

Was easier to find late pick guns back then and it's still a low probability.

Pick 40+ players would be a 5-10% chance of turning into guns. So if you are lucky you might get 1 every 3-4 years (like Stewart).

For every Stewart you are going to be getting 5-10 players of the calibre of Buzza, Gardner, House, Waybill, Hayball, Parsons etc

and you'll get a few less ordinary B graders like Kolo, Bews, Menegola

 

[Vdubs]

I never understand this thinking VD.

Finishing high on the ladder (which is after all, the aim), means that you may miss on a first round pick only. You still have other picks. You still have picks in the 20s and 30s and 40s. Which is incidentally, exactly where we found Steve Johnson, and Chapman, and Ling, and Enright, and Milburn, among many others. The last first round pick we truly, absolutely nailed was Harry Taylor in 2007 - when we won the flag.

If your recruiting and development is good you can easily cover for missing out on top 10 picks. What is now being felt is the poor development and lack of persistence the club showed in quite a number of them. Add the trading of picks to bring in some players (not Dangerfield, but definitely others), and that's where the big gap is. But it's incorrect to act like it was always going to happen, or that there's an evil AFL agenda against Geelong (absolutely idiotic and completely ill founded paranoia). It's because the club hasn't been good enough at list management. It's no one else's fault but their own.

Well put.
My main point is that the club preferred the players they knew about (SS, Danger, Hendo, Smith, Tuohy, Clark etc,) rather than banking on unknown kids who may or may not have made it. I was in favour of all those picks except Clark, given the list we still had.
Secondly, I do NOT believe is some paranoia that the AFL is scheming to put us down- only that we have been up so long that it is inevitable we can not draft as well as cellar dwellers in theory, and it is impossible for our list to remain status quo with ageing, retirements , injuries etc.

 

[Max Milburn]

Do you do nothing but troll?

Was easier to find late pick guns back then and it's still a low probability.

Pick 40+ players would be a 5-10% chance of turning into guns. So if you are lucky you might get 1 every 3-4 years (like Stewart).

For every Stewart you are going to be getting 5-10 players of the calibre of Buzza, Gardner, House, Waybill, Hayball, Parsons etc

and you'll get a few less ordinary B graders like Kolo, Bews, Menegola

That's rich calling me a troll.
If you can't see that Henry is going to be an absolute gun, it's not my fault.

 

[Down at K Park]

I see a likeness with the Australian cricket team at the moment.

Look how far its fallen....... can anyone identify the precise moment it happened? Nope, because its been insidious, a death by a thousand cuts.

Success depends on the perfect synchronicity, balance and harmony of all its moving parts, from coach to players to support staff. Just the slightest imbalance, mis-step or lack of judgement can slowly and surely throw the whole machine out of whack, even with coaches and players who have the ability to perform.

I'd put a lot of it down to our failed first round picks. Lang, Thurlow etc. Cocky always being injured as well.

Yet we still have the same clowns crowing about trading out to get more draft picks, which may be busts just like that lot were/could be.

 

[Turbocat]

any gauge you want

for ease I'd say any good player or better which I'd have as Stewart, Kelly and Parfitt (the likes of Henry, Sav etc are players with some potential which every club has a heap of)

the Hawks and Swans are in a similar spot list wise

Hawthorn have Mitchell, Wingard and O'Meara (I dont know how good the rest of their kids are in relation to Parfitt)
Sydney have Parker, Lloyd, Jones, Hewett, Mills, Heeney etc

only the Hawks really come close to the shitness of their 26yo and under group

Cant expect late picks like Henry, Narkle, Sav etc to turn into guns, they are all pretty limited. In a few years our list will be stacked with B graders as most of our A graders will have retired.

Some of your points I can relate to..but Im not as certain as you about the negative outcome..as I feel that it relies on how these "limited "guys develop. Personally Id like to add a couple of guys with enough talent to do what Henry has shown... but of course even with very early picks over multiple years ..the picks may well be dry wells. If we take melb for instance... who would you say are their best 5-10 kids.

My main diversion from your opinions is Im not sure any method guarantees success , Im not certain that the risk of a pre emptive clean out is worth it when the chances of success from it a poor. ..what id prefer to see is we trust the kids..that we have and slowly transition them in and our stars out. If they fail then we will drop away..if they succeed then they whole concept changes. It freshens us. Id also prefer to be adding some very early picks , so a drop for a couple of years would not be so bad... but if we use Cockatoo as an example ..we really need to access earlier picks and multiple times to be sure we get something from them. Id agree that it might take more than two years but im hopeful that if we had a couple of really early pick kids that when matched with we develop we could be better than you forecast.

 

[Turbocat]

I never understand this thinking VD.

Finishing high on the ladder (which is after all, the aim), means that you may miss on a first round pick only. You still have other picks. You still have picks in the 20s and 30s and 40s. Which is incidentally, exactly where we found Steve Johnson, and Chapman, and Ling, and Enright, and Milburn, among many others. The last first round pick we truly, absolutely nailed was Harry Taylor in 2007 - when we won the flag.

If your recruiting and development is good you can easily cover for missing out on top 10 picks. What is now being felt is the poor development and lack of persistence the club showed in quite a number of them. Add the trading of picks to bring in some players (not Dangerfield, but definitely others), and that's where the big gap is. But it's incorrect to act like it was always going to happen, or that there's an evil AFL agenda against Geelong (absolutely idiotic and completely ill founded paranoia). It's because the club hasn't been good enough at list management. It's no one else's fault but their own.

"list management" is a good cover all term. Some bad luck as well but too many "IF" probably means we were too often trying to "beat the system" ..
I still think we can find enough of these late pick players but we must also find a way to add some early picked as well... for just like with SJ and Chappy etc..we also had the Corey's and Bartel's etc.. and they are an important part of the list build.

 

[Partridge]

"list management" is a good cover all term. Some bad luck as well but too many "IF" probably means we were too often trying to "beat the system" ..
I still think we can find enough of these late pick players but we must also find a way to add some early picked as well... for just like with SJ and Chappy etc..we also had the Corey's and Bartel's etc.. and they are an important part of the list build.

The difference is the players 15 years ago were persevered with. The club was willing to put 30-40 games into them. Even David Johnson got 79 games, and he was nowhere near an early pick. Scott seems to go cold on young players awfully quickly and once he has they're doomed.

 

[Cataholic]

I'd put a lot of it down to our failed first round picks. Lang, Thurlow etc. Cocky always being injured as well.

Yet we still have the same clowns crowing about trading out to get more draft picks, which may be busts just like that lot were/could be.

Yes, that's one aspect, with my point being that there are so many facets that must be in absolute, perfect alignment for a club to enjoy ultimate success.

From coaching methods to, strategy, list management, injuries, player investment, back office and the canteen lady..... Just one piece out of alignment and the whole machine becomes unbalanced.

 

[Landgraft]

The difference is the players 15 years ago were persevered with. The club was willing to put 30-40 games into them. Even David Johnson got 79 games, and he was nowhere near an early pick. Scott seems to go cold on young players awfully quickly and once he has they're doomed.

I think you can get a pretty decent indication as to whether or not a player has the potential to develop further in less than 30-40 games, we've had plenty of deeply terrible kids in the last few years that didn't deserve anywhere near 30-40 games.

Are there any examples of someone falling short of that 30-40 benchmark who you think deserved more of a chance to secure their place? Bearing in mind that both Lang and Thurlow played more than 40 games without securing their place on our list.

 

[Partridge]

I think you can get a pretty decent indication as to whether or not a player has the potential to develop further in less than 30-40 games, we've had plenty of deeply terrible kids in the last few years that didn't deserve anywhere near 30-40 games.

Are there any examples of someone falling short of that 30-40 benchmark who you think deserved more of a chance to secure their place? Bearing in mind that both Lang and Thurlow played more than 40 games without securing their place on our list.

Brown is the screamingly obvious one with only 14 games. Mysteriously enough he's the only one still on a senior list elsewhere.

It's not just the total though, it's how those games come. It's also where they're actually played on the field. Murdoch got more than enough games, but after 2014 hardly any up forward, where to me he looked a much better footballer. Lang looked far more comfortable as a midfielder yet hardly ever played there.

 

[cynical]

That's rich calling me a troll.
If you can't see that Henry is going to be an absolute gun, it's not my fault.

he can take some marks as a loose man in defence

the problem is he cant kick

so far he has shown a fair bit as a 3rd tall but he has a long way to go before being labelled a gun

 

[Max Milburn]

he can take some marks as a loose man in defence

the problem is he cant kick

so far he has shown a fair bit as a 3rd tall but he has a long way to go before being labelled a gun

Fair enough. But all the same, he has shown a lot in my eyes.
Not a gun yet, but trajectory suggests to me he will get there.
I also have pretty high hopes for Esava and Narkle...

 

[cynical]

The difference is the players 15 years ago were persevered with. The club was willing to put 30-40 games into them. Even David Johnson got 79 games, and he was nowhere near an early pick. Scott seems to go cold on young players awfully quickly and once he has they're doomed.

agreed guys like Brown, Thurlow and Lang were kicked to the curb way too early

if you are going to pick highly skilled players from the draft you have to give them the Varcoe treatment (carry them for a while)

unfortunately Scott only wants plug and play types with a low skill cap that he can throw around in different positions

he prefers consistently mediocre over inconsistent brilliance

 

[Landgraft]

Brown is the screamingly obvious one with only 14 games. Mysteriously enough he's the only one still on a senior list elsewhere.

It's not just the total though, it's how those games come. It's also where they're actually played on the field. Murdoch got more than enough games, but after 2014 hardly any up forward, where to me he looked a much better footballer. Lang looked far more comfortable as a midfielder yet hardly ever played there.

Brown is an interesting one... who can say if he'd have lasted this long without the opportunity granted by 2016 Essendon? And Essendon fans still don't think of him as best 22. Does this mean he was a success or not?

I can't say I care about making excuses for players who were given their chance at the top level either. They didn't make it, such is footy. Ultimately the reality is that those guys seemed to have the potential to be one thing for a while, but never developed into it - at least not with us. I don't really see why that should be any sort of indictment on our management, it's just the way footy can be.

 

[Landgraft]

agreed guys like Brown, Thurlow and Lang were kicked to the curb way too early

if you are going to pick highly skilled players from the draft you have to give them the Varcoe treatment (carry them for a while)

unfortunately Scott only wants plug and play types with a low skill cap that he can throw around in different positions

he prefers consistently mediocre over inconsistent brilliance

I'm not convinced you've actually watched Thurlow and Lang play.

 

[cynical]

Brown is the screamingly obvious one with only 14 games. Mysteriously enough he's the only one still on a senior list elsewhere.

It's not just the total though, it's how those games come. It's also where they're actually played on the field. Murdoch got more than enough games, but after 2014 hardly any up forward, where to me he looked a much better footballer. Lang looked far more comfortable as a midfielder yet hardly ever played there.

The Bomber's dominant second half of the season was mainly from having Brown create so much space up forward.

He would continually push up the ground and drag the second or 3rd best defender away.

On top of that his goal kicking has really improved (he was a bit shaky in his first 50 games) and he is excellent at giving off quick handballs or kicking it to a teammate on the run.

I cant believe we didnt develop him and work to his strengths, such a waste.

Give a highly skilled player 50 games in their best position and they will most likely reward you.

 

[Vdubs]

The Bomber's dominant second half of the season was mainly from having Brown create so much space up forward.

He would continually push up the ground and drag the second or 3rd best defender away.

On top of that his goal kicking has really improved (he was a bit shaky in his first 50 games) and he is excellent at giving off quick handballs or kicking it to a teammate on the run.

I cant believe we didnt develop him and work to his strengths, such a waste.

Give a highly skilled player 50 games in their best position and they will most likely reward you.

I have always been a Brown fan, but let's see if even gets a game this year. Most Bombers fans do NOT have him in top 22.
Could say similar things about Hamling. Liked the look of him, but zero games for us. At least Brown was tried. We also had Vardy and Walker at that stage, with Taylor at his best, Lonergan at his best, Pods and Hawkins. Was there really an opportunity to persevere with any of them long enough to get 50 games?

 

[ATSAM]

The difference is the players 15 years ago were persevered with. The club was willing to put 30-40 games into them. Even David Johnson got 79 games, and he was nowhere near an early pick. Scott seems to go cold on young players awfully quickly and once he has they're doomed.

Drop one mark and you are gone. Then it is a lack of confidence that keeps you out and before you know it likely to be traded off. At the very best languish in the 2's for some time with the promise of a few good games and you are into the 1's. That never seems to happen and suddenly you are traded off.

 

[Turbocat]

The difference is the players 15 years ago were persevered with. The club was willing to put 30-40 games into them. Even David Johnson got 79 games, and he was nowhere near an early pick. Scott seems to go cold on young players awfully quickly and once he has they're doomed.

Another good point... that did have something to with choice to really clean sweep the side with fresh faces... but also when you look at the games we have given some players like Murdoch and to some degree players like GHS and Parsons and others... we have put a lot games into dry wells... where as back in that era ..the players that we picked and persevered with .. mostly stood up. The players have to demand selection but they also have to be given some trust..plenty on here questioned Varcoes selection at time but they persisted etc..

Which players do you feel he gos cold on?

 

[Turbocat]

Brown is the screamingly obvious one with only 14 games. Mysteriously enough he's the only one still on a senior list elsewhere.

It's not just the total though, it's how those games come. It's also where they're actually played on the field. Murdoch got more than enough games, but after 2014 hardly any up forward, where to me he looked a much better footballer. Lang looked far more comfortable as a midfielder yet hardly ever played there.

Brown is extremely lucky to be on a list ..I doubt with the ess concessions and penalties etc he would have gotten a second go.