Lists by Numbers

lamaros · Mar 8, 2012

TheDon35 said:
No, because the guys they recruited 9+ years ago are exceptional. And,

based on the fact that they get a bloke like Menzel at pick 17 or there abouts when we're trading out of that order to bring in Williams.

Based on them taking Selwood at number 7. Multiple All Australian. Harry Taylor in the 20's: All Australian, Christensen in the 30's or 40's...

Based on the fact that they see potential in the sausage eater Mumford with a rookie pick and he's now in the best 5 rucks in the competition. That wasn't enough from a ruck perspective they get a gem in trent West with pick 31.

Based on the fact that they draft Matty Egan with pick 62 then 3 years later he's the All Australian CHB....

And based on the fact that despite being on the top of the pile for 5 - 7 years, they are still bringing in quality players that are stepping straight into the side and making a positive impact.

Again, sorry if those inconvenient facts don't suit your arguement.

Lets play this game. 2011 stats.

Menzel (#17 2009) v Melksham (#10 2009)

Code:

Player		Team	K		D		CP		DE%	Clg		M		CL		T		1%		G		GA
 	 		TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG
Daniel Menzel	GEEL	153	8.5	221	12.3	80	4.4	67	31	1.7	82	4.6	7	0.4	31	1.7	28	1.6	28	1.6	6	0.3
Jake Melksham	ESS	240	10.4	385	16.7	138	6.0	64	60	2.6	94	4.1	64	2.8	78	3.4	37	1.6	6	0.3	6	0.3

Duncan (#28 2009) v Colyer (#26 2009)

Code:

Player		Team	K		D		CP		DE%	Clg		M		CL		T		1%		G		GA
 	 		TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG
Mitch Duncan	GEEL	192	9.1	357	17.0	112	5.3	73	46	2.2	100	4.8	20	1.0	49	2.3	28	1.3	22	1.0	13	0.6
Travis Colyer	ESS	73	7.3	105	10.5	31	3.1	69	18	1.8	25	2.5	8	0.8	18	1.8	3	0.3	7	0.7	5	0.5

Christensen (#40 2009) v Howlett (R#30 2009)

Code:

Player		Team	K		D		CP		DE%	Clg		M		CL		T		1%		G		GA
 	 		TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG
A. Christensen	GEEL	154	8.1	304	16.0	142	7.5	73	43	2.3	59	3.1	54	2.8	70	3.7	22	1.2	18	0.9	11	0.6
Ben Howlett	ESS	248	10.8	425	18.5	202	8.8	69	56	2.4	59	2.6	91	4.0	153	6.7	44	1.9	9	0.4	5	0.2

T Hunt (#48 2008) v Zaharakis (#23 2008)

Code:

Player		Team	K		D		CP		DE%	Clg		M		CL		T		1%		G		GA
 	 		TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG
Taylor Hunt	GEEL	103	7.9	185	14.2	68	5.2	73	31	2.4	37	2.8	11	0.8	32	2.5	21	1.6	1	0.1	4	0.3
David Zaharakis	ESS	277	12.0	472	20.5	170	7.4	69	55	2.4	103	4.5	51	2.2	88	3.8	16	0.7	31	1.3	16	0.7

Vardy (#42 2009) v Carlisle (#24 2009)

Code:

Player		Team	K		D		CP		DE%	Clg		CM		HO		CL		T		1%		G		GA
 	 		TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG
Nathan Vardy	GEEL	29	3.2	62	6.9	35	3.9	73	9	1.0	6	0.7	104	11.6	6	0.7	18	2.0	18	2.0	6	0.7	0	0.0
Jake Carlisle	ESS	56	8.0	100	14.3	39	5.6	74	13	1.9	15	2.1	1	0.1	1	0.1	19	2.7	50	7.1	3	0.4	1	0.1

West (#31 2005) v Bellchambers (PS#8 2007)

Code:

Player		Team	K		D		CP		DE%	Clg		CM		HO		CL		T		1%		G		GA
 	 		TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG
Trent West	GEEL	51	5.7	83	9.2	47	5.2	69	25	2.8	7	0.8	183	20.3	17	1.9	36	4.0	37	4.1	7	0.8	1	0.1
T. Bellchambers	ESS	68	5.2	140	10.8	87	6.7	74	30	2.3	22	1.7	276	21.2	22	1.7	18	1.4	23	1.8	8	0.6	5	0.4

Smedts (#15 2010) v Heppell (#8 2010)

Code:

Player		Team	K		D		CP		DE%	Clg		M		CL		T		1%		G		GA
 	 		TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG
Billie Smedts	GEEL	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	-	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0
Dyson Heppell	ESS	262	11.4	493	21.4	151	6.6	74	36	1.6	132	5.7	37	1.6	63	2.7	63	2.7	3	0.1	12	0.5

I think Heppell wins that one.

Kersten has not played an AFL game so I'm ignoring that absurdity.

Who else have Geelong drafted since 2007? Taylor and Pods? We've got Myers, Pears, Hooker, Crameri, Hibberd, Hardingham and Hurley in the same time.

What about 2002 - 2006?

Watson v Selwood
Winderlich v Byrnes
Stanton v Tenance
Slattery v Blake
Dyson v ?
Monfries v Stokes
Lovett v Prismall
Lovett-Murray v Lonergan
Ryder v Hawkins
Dempsey v Mackie
Lonergan v Hogan
Hocking v ?
Gumby v Egan
Jetta v Varcoe
Davey v ?
Reimers v ?

TheDon35 · Mar 8, 2012

lamaros said:

Lets play this game. 2011 stats.

Menzel (#17 2009) v Melksham (#10 2009)

Code:

Player        Team    K        D        CP        DE%    Clg        M        CL        T        1%        G        GA
              TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG
Daniel Menzel    GEEL    153    8.5    221    12.3    80    4.4    67    31    1.7    82    4.6    7    0.4    31    1.7    28    1.6    28    1.6    6    0.3
Jake Melksham    ESS    240    10.4    385    16.7    138    6.0    64    60    2.6    94    4.1    64    2.8    78    3.4    37    1.6    6    0.3    6    0.3

Duncan (#28 2009) v Colyer (#26 2009)

Code:

Player        Team    K        D        CP        DE%    Clg        M        CL        T        1%        G        GA
              TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG
Mitch Duncan    GEEL    192    9.1    357    17.0    112    5.3    73    46    2.2    100    4.8    20    1.0    49    2.3    28    1.3    22    1.0    13    0.6
Travis Colyer    ESS    73    7.3    105    10.5    31    3.1    69    18    1.8    25    2.5    8    0.8    18    1.8    3    0.3    7    0.7    5    0.5

Christensen (#40 2009) v Howlett (R#30 2009)

Code:

Player        Team    K        D        CP        DE%    Clg        M        CL        T        1%        G        GA
              TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG
A. Christensen    GEEL    154    8.1    304    16.0    142    7.5    73    43    2.3    59    3.1    54    2.8    70    3.7    22    1.2    18    0.9    11    0.6
Ben Howlett    ESS    248    10.8    425    18.5    202    8.8    69    56    2.4    59    2.6    91    4.0    153    6.7    44    1.9    9    0.4    5    0.2

T Hunt (#48 2008) v Zaharakis (#23 2008)

Code:

Player        Team    K        D        CP        DE%    Clg        M        CL        T        1%        G        GA
              TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG
Taylor Hunt    GEEL    103    7.9    185    14.2    68    5.2    73    31    2.4    37    2.8    11    0.8    32    2.5    21    1.6    1    0.1    4    0.3
David Zaharakis    ESS    277    12.0    472    20.5    170    7.4    69    55    2.4    103    4.5    51    2.2    88    3.8    16    0.7    31    1.3    16    0.7

Vardy (#42 2009) v Carlisle (#24 2009)

Code:

Player        Team    K        D        CP        DE%    Clg        M        CL        T        1%        G        GA
              TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG
Nathan Vardy    GEEL    29    3.2    62    6.9    35    3.9    73    9    1.0    6    0.7    104    11.6    6    0.7    18    2.0    18    2.0    6    0.7    0    0.0
Jake Carlisle    ESS    56    8.0    100    14.3    39    5.6    74    13    1.9    15    2.1    1    0.1    1    0.1    19    2.7    50    7.1    3    0.4    1    0.1

West (#31 2005) v Bellchambers (PS#8 2007)

Code:

Player        Team    K        D        CP        DE%    Clg        M        CL        T        1%        G        GA
              TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG
Trent West    GEEL    51    5.7    83    9.2    47    5.2    69    25    2.8    7    0.8    183    20.3    17    1.9    36    4.0    37    4.1    7    0.8    1    0.1
T. Bellchambers    ESS    68    5.2    140    10.8    87    6.7    74    30    2.3    22    1.7    276    21.2    22    1.7    18    1.4    23    1.8    8    0.6    5    0.4

Smedts (#15 2010) v Heppell (#8 2010)

Code:

Player        Team    K        D        CP        DE%    Clg        M        CL        T        1%        G        GA
              TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG    TOT    AVG
Billie Smedts    GEEL    0    0.0    0    0.0    0    0.0    -    0    0.0    0    0.0    0    0.0    0    0.0    0    0.0    0    0.0    0    0.0
Dyson Heppell    ESS    262    11.4    493    21.4    151    6.6    74    36    1.6    132    5.7    37    1.6    63    2.7    63    2.7    3    0.1    12    0.5

Kersten has not played an AFL game...

Who else have Geelong drafted since 2007? Taylor and Pods? We've got Myers, Pears, Hooker, Crameri, Hibberd, Hardingham and Hurley in the same time.

Ok, If you want to compare them head to head I'll have:

West over Bellchambers - By a long way.

Menzel over Melksham (Knee aside). Convenient of you to use possessions to compare a forward with a midfielder...

Christensen over Howlett.. Again, using possessions to compare an out and out mid against a half forward... Convenient. Also, you're comparing a mature body to one that is very young.

Zaharakis clearly over Hunt (Poor comparison)

I'd have Colyer over Duncan but that's very tight.

Heppell obviously over Smeddts though you'd hardly complain with Smeddts at #15.

Vardy and Carlisle... To be honest i'd be happy with either. A fit Vardy could be a star and Carlisle looks good as well. Too early on them.

Further to this, when you use possessions to compare our youngsters against theirs, you need to bare in mind that our youngsters are getting far more exposure than theirs given our lack of talent above 25 yo. This naturally assists how their stats look.

Finally The underlying theme is that we've had a much better draft order over the last 5 years than what they have. Despite this, they still look pretty bloody good.

TheDon35 · Mar 8, 2012

lamaros said:
Watson v Selwood
Winderlich v Byrnes
Stanton v Tenance
Slattery v Blake
Dyson v ?
Monfries v Stokes
Lovett v Prismall
Lovett-Murray v Lonergan
Ryder v Hawkins
Dempsey v Mackie
Lonergan v Hogan
Hocking v ?
Gumby v Egan
Jetta v Varcoe
Davey v ?
Reimers v ?

Watson v Selwood - Selwood
Winderlich v Byrns - Winderlich
Stanton V Tennace - Stanton
Slattery V Blake - Blake
Monfries v Stokes - Stokes
Lovett v Prismall - Lovett
NLM v Lonergan - Tie - Both ordinary.
Dempsey v Mackie - Mackie to date but Dempsey should be better
Lonergan v Hogan - Lonergan
Gumby v Egan - Egan
Jetta v Varco - Varco

Hocking, Dyson, Riemers Davey... Other than Hocking, we've been forced to keep c - d grade players like dyson riemers and davey on our list because we've been rubbish through that whole period. I'd be sure that they have got rid of equal quality to those players over the last few years.

If this is you putting me into my place... i'll politely let you know that you're arguements are stupid.

lamaros · Mar 8, 2012

TheDon35 said:
Ok, If you want to compare them head to head I'll have:

West over Bellchambers - By a long way.

Why?

Menzel over Melksham (Knee aside). Convenient of you to use possessions to compare a forward with a midfielder...

There's a reason Menzel is playing forward. Because he's a fringe player. Here's Menzel compared to a forward in his team who actually does the heavy lifting:

Code:

Player		Team	K		D		CP		DE%	Clg		M		CL		T		1%		G		GA
 	 		TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG	TOT	AVG
Steve Johnson	GEEL	319	13.9	514	22.3	187	8.1	66	67	2.9	13	6.2	56	2.4	84	3.7	36	1.6	50	2.2	31	1.3
Daniel Menzel	GEEL	153	8.5	221	12.3	80	4.4	67	31	1.7	82	4.6	7	0.4	31	1.7	28	1.6	28	1.6	6	0.3

Christensen over Howlett.. Again, using possessions to compare an out and out mid against a half forward... Convenient. Also, you're comparing a mature body to one that is very young.

So what? Howlett is actually playing a key role and not getting cheap touches off the back of the players in the team who have actually proven something. If you haven't done something then it's stupid to say you're a gun. I'm illustrating how little these Geelong players you are pumping up actually do in comparison to the Essendon players you don't rate.

You compared Trent West to Bellchambers and it was ok, even though he's two years older, but I can't compare Howlett, who was picked in the same draft as Christiensen? Get your hand off it.

Zaharakis clearly over Hunt (Poor comparison)

Why? Because one player has clearly done more? Absurd reason to not allow it.

I'd have Colyer over Duncan but that's very tight.

I'd have Duncan over Colyer...

Heppell obviously over Smeddts though you'd hardly complain with Smeddts at #15.

Why? What has Smedts done at all to prove he'll be a better player than many of the others they could have picked? NOTHING as yet.

Vardy and Carlisle... To be honest i'd be happy with either. A fit Vardy could be a star and Carlisle looks good as well. Too early on them.

Too early on them for sure. So why are you going crazy for Geelong and not being reasonable about it?

Further to this, when you use possessions to compare our youngsters against theirs, you need to bare in mind that our youngsters are getting far more exposure than theirs given our lack of talent above 25 yo. This naturally assists how their stats look.

So what? You're saying one group is better because... it hasn't done anything yet? It's absurd to prefer a player who sits on the fringes of a star team and gets cheap kicks and goals to ones who are the heart of a team. Especially if they're the same age and that second team made the finals...

All the stats I posted demonstrate the superficial element Geelong's young players fill in their side compared to ours.

Finally The underlying theme is that we've had a much better draft order over the last 5 years than what they have. Despite this, they still look pretty bloody good.

To some degree. You are ignoring the picks of Howlett and Ballchambers, and the closeness of much of the picks in general. In addition to this, Essendon has another group of players on top of this - Myers, Pears, Hooker, Crameri, Hibberd, Hardingham and Hurley - than there are no comparisons for because the players you listed are the full extent of Geelong's youth.

lamaros · Mar 8, 2012

TheDon35 said:
Watson v Selwood - Selwood
Winderlich v Byrns - Winderlich
Stanton V Tennace - Stanton
Slattery V Blake - Blake
Monfries v Stokes - Stokes
Lovett v Prismall - Lovett
NLM v Lonergan - Tie - Both ordinary.
Dempsey v Mackie - Mackie to date but Dempsey should be better
Lonergan v Hogan - Lonergan
Gumby v Egan - Egan
Jetta v Varco - Varco

Hocking, Dyson, Riemers Davey... Other than Hocking, we've been forced to keep c - d grade players like dyson riemers and davey on our list because we've been rubbish through that whole period. I'd be sure that they have got rid of equal quality to those players over the last few years.

If this is you putting me into my place... i'll politely let you know that you're arguements are stupid.

Essendon team, 2002 onwards:

B: Hibberd Pears Myers
HB: Hooker Dempsey Heppell
C: Winderlich Stanton Zaharakis
HF: Monfries Hurley Crameri
F: Jetta Carlisle Reimers
R: Ryder Watson Hocking

Int: Bellchambers Melksham Howlett Colyer Lonergan Gumby Hardingham Davey NLM Dyson Slattery Lovett

Geelong team, 2002 onwards:

B: Lonergan Egan Hogan
HB: Mackie Taylor Prismall
C: Varcoe Selwood Christiensen
HF: Byrnes Hawkins Tenance
F: Gamble Pods Duncan
R: West Menzel Stokes

Int: Blake Hunt Vardy

Bold are no longer playing for the club.

ant555 · Mar 8, 2012

I think you seriously under rate Geelong but it is all opinion based.

I agree with Don 35 a bit in the fact i think they have done very well recruiting wise and they do have the best team going around at the moment. Four Grand Finals and three premierships says they do and the simple fact is blokes have been able to feed into the side and play the game plan and keep the structures in place unlike other clubs.

What drives Geelong will be the passion of the older blokes and how much they want it again when the chips are down. If they drop away just a little mentally then they will fall away. I think they do have some exceptional young players that will stop them from falling too far off the pace but after 5 years in a row being in the best 3 one has to think their time in the top 4 is starting to become limited. Maybe another shot this year.
Then again wedo not know how the FA effect will work out for certain so there is another element.

As good as the reviews are i think it is dangerous to under sell players who are under 25 games. A lot depends on where their development is at as you can look at blokes at Hawthorn like Smith and Puopolo who have had VFL and SANFL experience and are a bit older so they come in with an advantage over the under 18 kids who are around the same amount of games.

The Hawks list does have depth and the reason i say it is they where 3 points away from a Grand Final despite having a shocking year with injury. It does not matter who you line up against who the simple fact is they got bloody close despite not being able to field their best side most weeks.

And just on Prismall not all rated him at Geelong. I thought he was ok value for a third round pick but have never really rated him as much more than a handy player.

lamaros · Mar 8, 2012

I will agree that what Geelong have are excellent structures that allow players to shine. I will agree that they seem to do very well with development.

I will disagree that over the past 10 years the have demonstrably out-recruited us, as the 2002+ teams above I think illustrate. We have had an advantage in our picks, but we have done pretty well with them, and done very well indeed with some other later and rookie picks.

I am very confident that the reason Geelong is so good once a game starts, pretty much the whole reason, is because their key players are skillful and disciplined and hungry. And these key players are for the most part older guys.

Time will tell.

ant555 · Mar 8, 2012

lamaros said:
Essendon team, 2002 onwards:

B: Hibberd Pears Myers
HB: Hooker Dempsey Heppell
C: Winderlich Stanton Zaharakis
HF: Monfries Hurley Crameri
F: Jetta Carlisle Reimers
R: Ryder Watson Hocking

Int: Bellchambers Melksham Howlett Colyer Lonergan Gumby Hardingham Davey NLM Dyson Slattery Lovett

Geelong team, 2002 onwards:

B: Lonergan Egan Hogan
HB: Mackie Taylor Prismall
C: Varcoe Selwood Christiensen
HF: Byrnes Hawkins Tenance
F: Gamble Pods Duncan
R: West Menzel Stokes

Int: Blake Hunt Vardy

Bold are no longer playing for the club.

This is where it starts to be a spin the facts session.
The only was to judge the recruiting is to list all the players drafted in the period and not just pick out a few.
What you have produced above proves nothing.

Then you have the fact that we have been regularly picking in the first 10 while Geelong have been a number of slots back and the fact that with established stars in the side the bottom end does not get enough chances and often fall off the lists a lot earlier and it changes the way you look at the draft as often you will find them taking a risk on blokes who may be a bit longer term.

ant555 · Mar 8, 2012

lamaros said:
I will agree that what Geelong have are excellent structures that allow players to shine. I will agree that they seem to do very well with development.

I will disagree that over the past 10 years the have demonstrably out-recruited us, as the 2002+ teams above I think illustrate. We have had an advantage in our picks, but we have done pretty well with them, and done very well indeed with some other later and rookie picks.

I am very confident that the reason Geelong is so good once a game starts, pretty much the whole reason, is because their key players are skillful and disciplined and hungry. And these key players are for the most part older guys.

Time will tell.

Based on exposed form and your opinion only, i see a few more of the young blokes at the Cats that i have seen for a few years now and one thing Geelong are good at is having blokes ticking along in the reserves, building their bodies up and turning out to be good players in their 3rd and 4th year. They tend to draft, smart players with skill.

lamaros · Mar 8, 2012

ant555 said:
This is where it starts to be a spin the facts session.
The only was to judge the recruiting is to list all the players drafted in the period and not just pick out a few.
What you have produced above proves nothing.

Then you have the fact that we have been regularly picking in the first 10 while Geelong have been a number of slots back and the fact that with established stars in the side the bottom end does not get enough chances and often fall off the lists a lot earlier and it changes the way you look at the draft as often you will find them taking a risk on blokes who may be a bit longer term.

Edit: Noticed I did forget a couple for Geelong who were traded. Laidler (21 career games) and Djerrkura (12 career games).

Who have I not included? The only ones I haven't put in there are the ones that failed as players or left the club without compensation (Mumford and Houli, Bradley).

If you think I'm spinning things please point out how I have done so or what I have missed. Those are the players both teams have picked up in the period.

I have not included guys who have yet to play many games from both sides.

Essendon: Long, Steinberg, Browne, Davis, Ross.
Geelong: D. Simpson, Brown, Gillies, Motlop, Cowan, Smedts, Guthrie, Horlin-Smith, Schroder.

We have had 6 top 10 picks. Hurley, Myers, Heppell, Ryder, Gumby and Bradley.
Geelong have had 3: Mackie, Tenance, Selwood.

Edit: Lol, what else am I going to base my opinion on but exposed form? Numerology?

Kong · Mar 8, 2012

+ Melksham

lamaros · Mar 8, 2012

Kong said:
+ Melksham

My bad, I read his words as "inside" the first 10. Took it as 1-9.

We've had Melksham and Laycock

() at #10 since 2002.

lamaros · Mar 8, 2012

Here are those teams with the top 10 picks taken out and the two I forgot (as they played 6 total games for Geelong) added back in.

Teams from picks #11+ since 2002 (inclusive):

B: Hibberd Pears Hardingham
HB: Hooker Dempsey Myers
C: Stanton Howlett Zaharakis
HF: Monfries Crameri Jetta
F: Winderlich Carlisle Reimers
R: Bellchambers Watson Hocking

Int: Colyer Lonergan Davey NLM Dyson Slattery Lovett Laycock Bradley Houli Nash

B: Lonergan Egan Hogan
HB: Laidler Taylor Prismall
C: Varcoe Christiensen Hunt
HF: Byrnes Hawkins Djerrkura
F: Gamble Pods Duncan
R: West Menzel Stokes

Int: Blake Vardy Mumford

Bold are no longer playing for the club. Italics are no longer playing AFL.

ant555 · Mar 8, 2012

lamaros said:
Who have I not included? The only ones I haven't put in there are the ones that failed as players or left the club without compensation (Mumford and Houli, Bradley).

If you think I'm spinning things please point out how I have done so or what I have missed. Those are the players both teams have picked up in the period.

I have not included guys who have yet to play many games from both sides.

Essendon: Long, Steinberg, Browne, Davis, Ross.
Geelong: D. Simpson, Brown, Gillies, Motlop, Cowan, Smedts, Guthrie, Horlin-Smith, Schroder.

We have had 6 top 10 picks. Hurley, Myers, Heppell, Ryder, Gumby and Bradley.
Geelong have had 3: Mackie, Tenance, Selwood.

Read what i said, i my opinion you can not judge it unless you line up all the players recruited to start with and then work with why certain players did not play or stay on the list.

Then you have to look at the types drafted.
And as said how many stars are already playing so how many guys get limited games.

At the end of the day they have 3 Grand Finals, the most of any side since Brisbane and those two sides hold a better record than any side since the Hawks in the 80's when they played in 7 GF's in a row.

What you have come up with is am opinion. You can not say Geelong do not have the best recruiters as they have the runs on the board and where there in 2000 when the core of their premiership team started to come on board.

At the moment we have 2 losing finals appearances and it is subjective as to how far we can go in the future and sides on paper are exactly that.

At the end of the day we could win a couple of flags and Geelong may still only have 3 from this period so when you look at it in 10 years time they still had the best team.

How about we wait until we actually get past 12-10 a few times before we start on the virtues of our recruiting team.

ant555 · Mar 8, 2012

lamaros said:
Edit: Lol, what else am I going to base my opinion on but exposed form? Numerology?

Funny opinion based on exposed form but as a side picked in the last 10 years we are better despite having no results.

This really is a discussion that should be had in 5 years time when there are some real facts available.

lamaros · Mar 8, 2012

ant555 said:
Read what i said, i my opinion you can not judge it unless you line up all the players recruited to start with and then work with why certain players did not play or stay on the list.

Then you have to look at the types drafted.
And as said how many stars are already playing so how many guys get limited games.

At the end of the day they have 3 Grand Finals, the most of any side since Brisbane and those two sides hold a better record than any side since the Hawks in the 80's when they played in 7 GF's in a row.

What you have come up with is am opinion. You can not say Geelong do not have the best recruiters as they have the runs on the board and where there in 2000 when the core of their premiership team started to come on board.

At the moment we have 2 losing finals appearances and it is subjective as to how far we can go in the future and sides on paper are exactly that.

At the end of the day we could win a couple of flags and Geelong may still only have 3 from this period so when you look at it in 10 years time they still had the best team.

How about we wait until we actually get past 12-10 a few times before we start on the virtues of our recruiting team.

They have three grand final wins because Ablett, Bartel, Kelly, Scarlett, Ling, Johnson, Corey, Chapman, Enright, Ottens, and so forth are/were ****ing terrific players for them.

That has nothing to do with what has been discussed in this thread.

What is being discussed in this thread is the fact that those players are getting old, and that their team is still reliant on them.

Then there has been a digression about "omg, but their kids are just as good", which is deluded and premature. I have attempted to illustrate why it is premature to those without brains.

No one at any point has said any of the stuff you seem to be arguing against.

lamaros · Mar 8, 2012

ant555 said:
Funny opinion based on exposed form but as a side picked in the last 10 years we are better despite having no results.

This really is a discussion that should be had in 5 years time when there are some real facts available.

Yeah, because when you hedge your bets and only talk about the past you can't be wrong, right?

On exposed form our younger players, defined here as 2002 draftees or later, have done more than Geelong's. This is what we are talking about. If you want to talk about something else then make another thread.

If you want to talk about why you think those kids are going to be good, fine - I'm not going to disagree with you, I think a few of them will be good too - but that is a different thing to the clearly obvious points I have made in this thread:

A: The key players in Geelong's current/recent side are getting old.
B: Our kids have done more at an AFL level to date than Geelong's kids.

ant555 · Mar 8, 2012

lamaros said:
Here are those teams with the top 10 picks taken out and the two I forgot (as they played 6 total games for Geelong) added back in.

Teams from picks #11+ since 2002 (inclusive):

B: Hibberd Pears Hardingham
HB: Hooker Dempsey Myers
C: Stanton Howlett Zaharakis
HF: Monfries Crameri Jetta
F: Winderlich Carlisle Reimers
R: Bellchambers Watson Hocking

Int: Colyer Lonergan Davey NLM Dyson Slattery Lovett Laycock Bradley Houli Nash

B: Lonergan Egan Hogan
HB: Laidler Taylor Prismall
C: Varcoe Christiensen Hunt
HF: Byrnes Hawkins Djerrkura
F: Gamble Pods Duncan
R: West Menzel Stokes

Int: Blake Vardy Mumford

Bold are no longer playing for the club. Italics are no longer playing AFL.

Even here it does not tell the complete story, ie Egan success as a player but cut down by injury.
Then a few as i said forced out by not getting a spot in the side with a few duds amongst them and a couple leaving because of salary cap pressure.

One thing you can look at with the Cats is they have continually drafted ruck men which is a risk in itself but with the list they have had they could afford to do it and do it with ND selections rather than the rookie draft.

One thing you can say and not counting who left last season as the results are not in but they have continually filled spots left by retiring or players leaving in the previous 4 years yet they have still been able to play at the same level and win 3 flags.

What happens next is yet to be seen.

lamaros · Mar 8, 2012

ant555 said:
Even here it does not tell the complete story, ie Egan success as a player but cut down by injury.
Then a few as i said forced out by not getting a spot in the side with a few duds amongst them and a couple leaving because of salary cap pressure.

One thing you can look at with the Cats is they have continually drafted ruck men which is a risk in itself but with the list they have had they could afford to do it and do it with ND selections rather than the rookie draft.

One thing you can say and not counting who left last season as the results are not in but they have continually filled spots left by retiring or players leaving in the previous 4 years yet they have still been able to play at the same level and win 3 flags.

What happens next is yet to be seen.

There is no doubt that Geelong has done very well to keep their premiership threat going for so long, and that they have managed to address the points they have needed to to maintain it. However there is also no doubt that the heart of that success is a core group of players recruited over 10 years ago who have turned out extremely well.

Yeah, Egan was a great loss for them. The few that have been forced out - Prismall, Gamble, Djerrkura, Laidler - haven't exactly set the world on fire once they've left Geelong. In many cases their stock was heightened by not being able to make the Geelong side... only for them to not be able to make it in other sides as well. The myth of the Geelong 'depth' is perpetuated on the fact that whenever someone comes into the first team the good players there make the fringe player look good.

It will be interested to see how Geelong's ruck holds up now that Ottens is gone. If it struggles then Mumford is going to be a real blunder - Granted Mumford got an excellent offer from Sydney, but Geelong's handling of the Blake situation wasn't ideal either.

ant555 · Mar 8, 2012

lamaros said:
Yeah, because when you hedge your bets and only talk about the past you can't be wrong, right?

On exposed form our younger players, defined here as 2002 draftees or later, have done more than Geelong's. This is what we are talking about. If you want to talk about something else then make another thread.

If you want to talk about why you think those kids are going to be good, fine - I'm not going to disagree with you, I think a few of them will be good too - but that is a different thing to the clearly obvious points I have made in this thread:

A: The key players in Geelong's current/recent side are getting old.
B: Our kids have done more at an AFL level to date than Geelong's kids.

No because when you talk about it now it is an opinion and a 50/50 guess !!!

A. They have a few who have now played 3 years of resrves although a couple are injury prone.

B. Off course they have as Knights was bleeding off the list and building to the future and not winning premierships.

As for clearly obvious it is still only your bloody opinion ! It is not fact ! You have a 50/50 chance of being right in the same way i have the same chance of being right the amount of game we will win this year.

I will say this, Christianson good player, Duncan, Good player, Menzel good player, Brown good player but always injured, Vardy good player, Hogan good player, West will show how good he is this year,Taylor hunt good player, Guthrie good player. Chances are some will prove me wrong but i will back what i have seen of these guys since their under 16 days and what i have seen of them in the VFL.

ant555 · Mar 8, 2012

Anyway i give in, i forgot your opinion holds more weight than anyone in the football world where the general opinion of those who are out there week in and week out looking at the players agree that they want to have their list ticking along as nice as Geelong's is.

lamaros · Mar 8, 2012

ant555 said:
No because when you talk about it now it is an opinion and a 50/50 guess !!!

A. They have a few who have now played 3 years of resrves although a couple are injury prone.

B. Off course they have as Knights was bleeding off the list and building to the future and not winning premierships.

As for clearly obvious it is still only your bloody opinion ! It is not fact ! You have a 50/50 chance of being right in the same way i have the same chance of being right the amount of game we will win this year.

I will say this, Christianson good player, Duncan, Good player, Menzel good player, Brown good player but always injured, Vardy good player, Hogan good player, West will show how good he is this year,Taylor hunt good player, Guthrie good player. Chances are some will prove me wrong but i will back what i have seen of these guys since their under 16 days and what i have seen of them in the VFL.

Opinion isn't 50/50, it's dependant on the the knowledge and critical ability of the person giving the opinion. As well as luck.

Christiansen, Duncan, Menzel, Brown, Vardy, Hogan, West, Hunt and Guthrie need to be better than 'good'. To maintain the Geelong of last year they need to step up to Ling and Ottens.

To maintain Geelong into the future they need to step up to Enright, Kelly, Corey, Bartel, Johnson, Scarlett & Chapman.

That's more than being good, much much more. Odds are a couple of them will be very good players, and a few decent players. But they need to all do it, otherwise Geelong is looking at a lot of quality leaving their side over the next stretch.

I am comfortable saying that there is a less than 50% chance of that happening.

lamaros · Mar 8, 2012

ant555 said:
Anyway i give in, i forgot your opinion holds more weight than anyone in the football world where the general opinion of those who are out there week in and week out looking at the players agree that they want to have their list ticking along as nice as Geelong's is.

Every argument you make is nothing more than an appeal from authority.

You have no authority to appeal from. Your track record on these things is no better than anyone else. If you're not willing to make an actual argument, like I am - and even TheDon35 was - then I have no idea why you think people should listen to you.

ant555 · Mar 8, 2012

lamaros said:
Opinion isn't 50/50, it's dependant on the the knowledge and critical ability of the person giving the opinion. As well as luck.

Christiansen, Duncan, Menzel, Brown, Vardy, Hogan, West, Hunt and Guthrie need to be better than 'good'. To maintain the Geelong of last year they need to step up to Ling and Ottens.

To maintain Geelong into the future they need to step up to Enright, Kelly, Corey, Bartel, Johnson, Scarlett & Chapman.

That's more than being good, much much more. Odds are a couple of them will be very good players, and a few decent players. But they need to all do it, otherwise Geelong is looking at a lot of quality leaving their side over the next stretch.

I am comfortable saying that there is a less than 50% chance of that happening.

It is 50/50. Before the event you can either be right or wrong . or are you saying you can be a little bit wrong and mainly right or vice versa

lamaros · Mar 8, 2012

ant555 said:
It is 50/50. Before the event you can either be right or wrong . or are you saying you can be a little bit wrong and mainly right or vice versa

Right and wrong are not probabilities, they are outcomes.

If I put Matthew Lloyd 15m in front of goal he can score or miss the goal.
If I put David Hille 15m in front of goal he can score or miss the goal.

The chance of these outcomes - score or miss - is not 50% either way for both players. There are two outcomes, but the probabilities of those outcomes for the two situations are different and distinct.

Log In or Create New Account

World Cup game 13: Afg. v S Africa - Game 14: Australia v Ireland - Game 15: England v W.I.

Guest - BigFooty Tipping 2026 - Get on! - $500 first prize - Weekly Prizes - Click to Join

Lists by Numbers

Norm Smith Medallist

Club Legend

Club Legend

Norm Smith Medallist

Norm Smith Medallist

The Oracle

Norm Smith Medallist

The Oracle

The Oracle

Norm Smith Medallist

Hall of Famer

Norm Smith Medallist

Norm Smith Medallist

The Oracle

The Oracle

Norm Smith Medallist

Norm Smith Medallist

The Oracle

Norm Smith Medallist

The Oracle

The Oracle

Norm Smith Medallist

Norm Smith Medallist

The Oracle

Norm Smith Medallist

Similar threads