M Rucci - Outstanding Article

[Campbell's Chunky]

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22179541-21543,00.html

Truth is hurting wobbly Crows


Article from:

• Font size: Decrease Increase
• Email article: Email
• Print article: Print

MICHELANGELO RUCCI, CHIEF FOOTBALL WRITER
August 03, 2007 02:15am

IF Al Gore had taken to football documentaries, his essay on Adelaide also would be titled An Inconvenient Truth.
As subjective and controversial is the issue of global warming, so is the story of list management at the Adelaide Football Club.
In the next few months - leading up to the 2007 AFL national draft in late November - there will be searching analysis of Adelaide's squad, its recruiting philosophies and its much-questioned development of its young players.
Those who are have laid this path for the Crows will dogmatically - if not stubbornly - defend their decisions and philosophy.
They will push their agenda even harder to prove it is right . . . like a toddler bashes the square peg he want to fit in the round hole.
They will deflect attention on core issues by pointing to Adelaide's injury list. AFL premier West Coast also has had hefty injuries this season . . . and the Eagles also have developed a list to make sure injuries to do not derail the demanding chase for consecutive flags.
They will argue the figures can be twisted to fit any argument, as statistics often do - such as the theory the best way to dismantle Adelaide's well-known zone-based gameplan is to rely on handball.
But in round one this season Essendon beat the Crows with just 119 handpasses; in round two, the Bulldogs had 165 handpasses and lost to Adelaide.
From the outside it appears there are many questions that need to be asked within Adelaide's football department and match committee.
First, a synoposis of the Neil Craig era. By the time Craig took charge of the list from Gary Ayres late in 2004, the team was considered jaded and underperforming. The Adelaide board recognised list development had hit a wall.
The memorable example put before the Crows directors was first-round draft pick Brent Reilly. His potential, the board was told, could not be fulfilled by Ayres. If Reilly - and Adelaide were to progress - a new coach was needed.
Craig's sudden transformation of Adelaide's on-field fortunes - from 12th in 2004 to minor premier in '05 - should not have been a surprise.
The Crows were clearly underperforming under Ayres. But what happened to list development?
Today, Craig has a list with older players than Ayres (18 aged 26 or older compared to 15). It has played in finals - as it did with Ayres. It has reached preliminary finals - as it did with Ayres. It has not made a grand final - as it failed to do with Ayres. And players such as Robert Shirley, Martin Mattner and Michael Doughty have shown no development in their games in the past year.
They have become the prime examples of what Craig has described as a "stagnant" squad.
Two big questions must be asked. Why has Adelaide sent so much time and money on "innovations" - that have led to no significant on-field advantage - rather than critical player development?
Alan Stewart was raided from Alberton for this purpose. That the Republic of Ireland has developed more Rising Star Nominations this century than the Crows is not an impressive statistic. No Adelaide draftee in the Craig era has earned a nomination as rookie of the year.
And that brings to account the biggest thorn in any discussion about the Crows - its drafting.
The departure of recruiting manager James Fantasia - to the SANFL - has passed with far too little questioning of the Crows.
Suddenly, there are e-mails falling into the wrong hands. At a time when Adelaide needs to rejuvenate its list there are questions as to why it used its last two picks in last year's draft for forward Nick Gill, 24, and midfielder Bryce Campbell, 22?
It has become known that Fantasia opposed these choices. But Craig - wanting mature-age recruits - won his way.
But why would Craig take this path? Is it an admission that Adelaide cannot develop teenagers . . . and so ready-made recruits are preferred?
The counter argument is, if this were so, Craig would have traded more than he has.
And that is another inconvenient truth at West Lakes.

Couldn't agree with it more.

I know it's probably a stab at the AFC, but you have to read the article on it's merit.

Fantastic.

 

[OzSparrow]

For once, IMHO, the Rooch has hit the nail fair and squarely on the head!

Will be interesting to see the reaction from both within and outside the club.

I firmly believe that this weekend is a watershed game for the club and could possibly make or break the 2008 season for the AFC.

List management and recruiting have to be the focus for the club before we hit the 2008 season and it will be interesting to see how the club adapts its off-field gameplan to cater for this obvious inadequacy in strategy.

Excellent analysis from someone who I have generally thought spoke shite!

 

[Smoooothy]

this is the best article i've ever read by him

he is completely on the mark!

 

[feenix67]

I think it's an article written with the benefit of hindsight. The club finished one final short of a GF two years running. You cant blame us for thinking we were still a chance and recruiting accordingly. Particularly considering the age of our "guns". However I do think the article highlights the paradox thats been created by Craig's unexpected initial success and the fact that it probably distracted the AFC from ongoing list development and the promotion of new talent. Next year, with the likely retirements and delistings which will occur at the end of this season, will be Craig's biggest challenge and probably the best indication of his ability to be a head coach of a young raw team.

 

[glengowan]

Those who are have laid this path for the Crows will dogmatically - if not stubbornly - defend their decisions and philosophy.
They will push their agenda even harder to prove it is right . . . like a toddler bashes the square peg he want to fit in the round hole.

I got this far into the article and my brain hurt trying to read it. FFS, he's a journalist isn't he? Can he not structure a proper sentence?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. A player like Gill was a necessity because of the Hentschel injury. The Crows picked Campbell as a mature age recruit. Well, Geelong picked Stokes as a mature age recruit and they're going ok.

The aim of the game is to win premierships. That is why teams go through rebuilding stages. You don't go all out to rebuild when you're a bees dick away from a premiership. The Crows were massive under-achievers with Ayres. Under Craig, they've been so close and you could easily use injuries as an excuse for not going that step further.

Craig has proved himself to be an astute coach. Worthy of the AFC getting behind him and developing the squad in the post-Goodwin/Ricciuto/McLeod/Edwards era. Really, that has already started with the likes of Knights, van Berlo etc. I don't know what Rucci's going on about.

 

[Campbell's Chunky]

I got this far into the article and my brain hurt trying to read it. FFS, he's a journalist isn't he? Can he not structure a proper sentence?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. A player like Gill was a necessity because of the Hentschel injury. The Crows picked Campbell as a mature age recruit. Well, Geelong picked Stokes as a mature age recruit and they're going ok.

The aim of the game is to win premierships. That is why teams go through rebuilding stages. You don't go all out to rebuild when you're a bees dick away from a premiership. The Crows were massive under-achievers with Ayres. Under Craig, they've been so close and you could easily use injuries as an excuse for not going that step further.

Craig has proved himself to be an astute coach. Worthy of the AFC getting behind him and developing the squad in the post-Goodwin/Ricciuto/McLeod/Edwards era. Really, that has already started with the likes of Knights, van Berlo etc. I don't know what Rucci's going on about.

I'm happy with the decision to draft Gill and Campbell. No sign of either being duds really.

I think what Michelangelo is missing though is our lack of quality players in the 23-28 age group, which I think is part of the reason we've got Campbell and Gill.

 

[pjcrows]

Neil Craig took us from cellar dwellers to consistent performers. Without injury this year, I have no doubt we would be a contender. We had 2 years where we had a chance to win a Premiership, and failed to do so at the last hurdle. But atleast we had an opportunity.

One thing about South Australian supporters - Adelaide and Port Adelaide - is that we haven't been through extended periods of massive pain, in terms of performance. While Port let go of significant chances in 2002-3, and we had big chances in 2005-6, neither team has had extended lull's. I'm not saying we shouldn't expect success, but it doesn't come as easy as some people might think.

And hindsight is a wonderful thing. Everyone praised Neil Craig for getting the Crows from bottom to top. Now he is struggling a bit, and he "can't face the truth" and is "letting our future slip away".

I mean SERIOUSLY. This is vintage South Australian media and supporters.

Go and ask Geelong, the Bulldogs or the Saints what it's like to be "struggling". If we're struggling and "warped" when we've played consistently in finals for the last 10 years and won 2 premierships then something is wrong.

A premiership is the ultimate measure of success, sure. But only one team can win it every year. Just enjoy watching us play, rather than dissecting the in's and out's and pretending we actually know what the hell goes on at a football club. I'm not saying don't question what is going on - that needs to be done - but don't bag the coaching staff when they have done wonders for our club and have been hamstrung by injuries this season.

Don't be one of those supporters.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I'm happy with the decision to draft Gill and Campbell. No sign of either being duds really.

I think what Michelangelo is missing though is our lack of quality players in the 23-28 age group, which I think is part of the reason we've got Campbell and Gill.

But this is the problem. We lack stars in that age group because we have gone for the quick fix in the past! So instead of addressing that by adding youngsters to the list, we go out and pick a mature age players. In Craig's time here we have picked up Vince (slightly different scenario to other though), Porplyzia, Gill and Campbell. Thats 4 mature age recruits in 3 drafts. Going over the top a bit IMHO. Especially last year when there were still good youngsters available and we went for Gill and Campbell. Thats an area of concern IMHO. We should be going young and looking a bit longer term. None of the players selected are really going to tear the comp apart. Vince and Porplyzia look to be the most likely to be long term players but of those 2, are any of them going to be B&F winner or AA type players?!

What I am saying is that in order to fix the problem in that age group, you need to add younger players and ride the bump so to speak so that in say 5 years time you have a nicely distributed, strong list. This way what we are doing is adding more average AFL talent to the liked of Massie, Doughty, Shirley, McGregor, Perrie, et al. If we want to address that areas of age group, the way to do it is to go out and trade for quality to add to the list, not select good SANFL but average AFL players. That doesn't solve the problem, it just adds more to it!

As for the little dig about players 26 and over in Ayres and Craig eras, Of course there would be more since most of our great players are now approaching their twilight. How about looking at how many 21 year olds or younger do we have on our list now compared to how many we had under Ayres.

None of this was a problem this time last year and sure it could be done better but FFS we are not hopeless at it. Craig has brought in and developed some good players in his time. The transition phase might have been slower than we might have hoped but they are coming along. Reilly has developed under Craig while he was stagnating und Ayres. Bock has gone on to become a very handy player. Rutten was developed into one of the best FBs in the comp after we cried out for one for years. Knights, van Berlo, Maric/Griffin et al have all come on. Then there is Scott Thompson who has risen his game to another level. Graham Johncock (other than this year) has played his best football under Craig because Craig recognised he is best suited in defence as a rebounding defender, rather than a hot and cold forward.

Its easy to point the finger at someone when the team is struggling for a number of reasons but Rucci should go back and read some of his pieces after 2004 and going into 2005. There was that infamous "You can't handle the truth" article after round 1, 2005 writing us off as a side that will struggle. Then there was his "Who is your daddy" dribble in the same year going into the showdown. And for him to come out now and say that it was expected that Craig will take us to 2 PFs is laughable at best. Lets go back to 2005 and read some of the dribble that Rucci wrote that had us all be certainties in the bottom 4 and now he comes up with a different view. Give me a break!

 

[Campbell's Chunky]

But this is the problem. We lack stars in that age group because we have gone for the quick fix in the past! So instead of addressing that by adding youngsters to the list, we go out and pick a mature age players. In Craig's time here we have picked up Vince (slightly different scenario to other though), Porplyzia, Gill and Campbell. Thats 4 mature age recruits in 3 drafts. Going over the top a bit IMHO. Especially last year when there were still good youngsters available and we went for Gill and Campbell. Thats an area of concern IMHO. We should be going young and looking a bit longer term. None of the players selected are really going to tear the comp apart. Vince and Porplyzia look to be the most likely to be long term players but of those 2, are any of them going to be B&F winner or AA type players?!

What I am saying is that in order to fix the problem in that age group, you need to add younger players and ride the bump so to speak so that in say 5 years time you have a nicely distributed, strong list. This way what we are doing is adding more average AFL talent to the liked of Massie, Doughty, Shirley, McGregor, Perrie, et al. If we want to address that areas of age group, the way to do it is to go out and trade for quality to add to the list, not select good SANFL but average AFL players. That doesn't solve the problem, it just adds more to it!

As for the little dig about players 26 and over in Ayres and Craig eras, Of course there would be more since most of our great players are now approaching their twilight. How about looking at how many 21 year olds or younger do we have on our list now compared to how many we had under Ayres.

None of this was a problem this time last year and sure it could be done better but FFS we are not hopeless at it. Craig has brought in and developed some good players in his time. The transition phase might have been slower than we might have hoped but they are coming along. Reilly has developed under Craig while he was stagnating und Ayres. Bock has gone on to become a very handy player. Rutten was developed into one of the best FBs in the comp after we cried out for one for years. Knights, van Berlo, Maric/Griffin et al have all come on. Then there is Scott Thompson who has risen his game to another level. Graham Johncock (other than this year) has played his best football under Craig because Craig recognised he is best suited in defence as a rebounding defender, rather than a hot and cold forward.

Its easy to point the finger at someone when the team is struggling for a number of reasons but Rucci should go back and read some of his pieces after 2004 and going into 2005. There was that infamous "You can't handle the truth" article after round 1, 2005 writing us off as a side that will struggle. Then there was his "Who is your daddy" dribble in the same year going into the showdown. And for him to come out now and say that it was expected that Craig will take us to 2 PFs is laughable at best. Lets go back to 2005 and read some of the dribble that Rucci wrote that had us all be certainties in the bottom 4 and now he comes up with a different view. Give me a break!

1) Not disputing Rucci's past, just looking purely at this article and this article only.

2) I agree to an extent, but unless we somehow create the most fantastic team of under 25 year olds in 5 years time, we will struggle for a while with very little at the top end.

3) If what Rucci says is true about Craig wanting mature players, I think the player that James Fantasia wanted to take was Mitch Farmer (who I think got in the U18 AA team), who is available this year so we could get him.

 

[pjcrows]

People keep saying "why didn't we do this, why didn't we do that" regarding drafting and playing young players.

The unit we had in 2005 and 2006 was sensational. It is essentially the same unit, with some key injuries. Now all of a sudden we're sitting 12th in a very even season and our list management is abysmal?

 

[Crow Envy]

You can add Archard into the mix as well.

To be fair, this year when we had injuries and we may have given Pfeiffer, Campbell, Gill, McKay, mcIntyre and Meesen a go they were all injured. As we are approaching finals and we are still a chance it is a big risk to play too many juniors. But if we lose then there is no excuse for all these guys not playing. Having said all of that he should have played Gill against St Kilda, that was just stupid and arrogant. And our season has gone downhill since.

 

[Campbell's Chunky]

People keep saying "why didn't we do this, why didn't we do that" regarding drafting and playing young players.

The unit we had in 2005 and 2006 was sensational. It is essentially the same unit, with some key injuries. Now all of a sudden we're sitting 12th in a very even season and our list management is abysmal?

The year is 2007. The reason why we were premiership contenders in these years was because we had an abundance of seasoned campaigners. Goodwin, Ricciuto, Mcleod, Edwards etc...heard it a thousand times.

The fact is, in a couple of years time, these players won't be around.

This year we could have gone for the premiership, but unfortunately the cards just haven't fallen our way.

The nucleus of our current squad will be retiring in the next 3 or so years, and we, really, are only going downhill slowly towards that at the moment.

The way to avoid bottoming right out is to not be stubborn about it (Carlton, Richmond) and identify it early, resolve it, and go through a much shorter 'down' period (Port Adelaide/Brisbane).

Times change.

 

[Crowked]

He has some points, no doubt. However he fails to mention the development of VB, Knights, Griffen, and Maric all of whom were teenagers that have been developed succesfully by the AFC under Craig. He also, fails to mention the selections of Porps and Vince as a mature ages selection, both I believe have shown enough merit to suggest they were worth while selections IMO. The jury is still out on how Gill and Campbell will go and if they will be retained, I dont think you could say either is a flop just yet. Also, no metion of the development of players from the rookie list, which has been a pretty succesful program for the club in recent times. So his assesment IMO is pretty incomplete and with the ussual sentiment all his articles on the AFC weve come to expect from him.

The fact is, the club has been competing for GF spots under Craig. He has as most coaches would in his position, given the senior players their chance to win us a flag. If he had gone the development path over the past couple of seasons, we wouldnt have been anywhere near contending a PF, never mind a GF. I dont really think the number of nominations the rookie of the year award is a valid measurement tool either. You will get more if you are rebuilding a team because you have to play them and this gives them greater opportunity to win nomination. Ours have been developed more in the SANFL and come into the team at a more mature stage of their development, often playing well enough to get nominated but not getting awarded one (VB, Knights Griff). Its no big deal IMO.

IMO just another article typical of Rucci, some facts, some good points, but also missing all the possitive facts and with the ussual cheap shots at NC and the club. Its just a pity he cant write anything remotely critical of his own team. I'm still waiting for the 'Is Tredders finished' article about his constant battle with knee injuries of the past 2-3 years. Or maybe the who is going to replace Wakelin, Wilson, Lade and Tredrea article that surely must be on the agenda since they are the back bone of the PAFC and all due for retirement in the next few years. Not holding my breath on those being published though.

 

[pjcrows]

The year is 2007. The reason why we were premiership contenders in these years was because we had an abundance of seasoned campaigners. Goodwin, Ricciuto, Mcleod, Edwards etc...heard it a thousand times.

The fact is, in a couple of years time, these players won't be around.

This year we could have gone for the premiership, but unfortunately the cards just haven't fallen our way.

The nucleus of our current squad will be retiring in the next 3 or so years, and we, really, are only going downhill slowly towards that at the moment.

The way to avoid bottoming right out is to not be stubborn about it (Carlton, Richmond) and identify it early, resolve it, and go through a much shorter 'down' period (Port Adelaide/Brisbane).

Times change.

I absolutely 100% agree. But do we bag our club and coaching staff for trying to win a premiership?! I mean seriously. If we started to tank and play for picks and "blood the youngsters" after we lost to St Kilda - like some people are seemingly suggesting we should have done - then the same people would be on here bagging them for not going for a finals berth.

You can't have it both ways. And yes, we're going to see us struggle for a few years. But the price of being in the Top 4 for two years in a row in modern football is, ultimately, a few years at the bottom either side of that success. We just failed to take our chance. But let's not bag the heart out of the club because of it. At the start of 2005, the Crows were - according to most people - atleast 4 years away from having a chance at the Top 4, let alone a premiership chance. And look what we did.

Just enjoy the ride, people. It's not all roses and flowers and everyone getting a game because they play for my SANFL club and happy times. It's a hard slog. And that's what makes a premiership - which will happen - all the more rewarding.

 

[AAMI]

FFS, Rucci and Outstanding don't belong in the same sentence.

 

[Drummond]

I absolutely 100% agree. But do we bag our club and coaching staff for trying to win a premiership?! I mean seriously. If we started to tank and play for picks and "blood the youngsters" after we lost to St Kilda - like some people are seemingly suggesting we should have done - then the same people would be on here bagging them for not going for a finals berth.

You can't have it both ways.

This is your problem; you think winning a premiership cannot happen if we were to blood a few youngsters. You are set in your ways in thinking that if we happened to play a few young guys, who had the form to warrant selection, then we would be tanking and playing for picks. That is a complete load of tripe.

After we lost to St.Kilda it was clear to most of us that we were in massive strife and wouldn’t do any damage even if we were to make the finals. At that stage we had lost 4 of our last 6 games, bad enough, but as things stand right now we’ve lost 6 of 8 and yet Neil Craig is still desperately trying to field a team that could perhaps scrape into the finals. That's fine but does making the finals make this season a success? Yes we’ve had a horrendous run with injuries and we’ve been extremely unlucky this year, but the fact is we’re 12th and this year is not ours. But he doesn’t seem to want to accept this, and so he won’t roll the dice and play a few youngsters.

As Chris McDermott said last week, “to use 30 players (32 now) in a year suggests the team is stable and you’ve had a good season”. Is this an accurate reflection of the year the Crows have had? Not even close! Fact is we’re still fielding a team with a handful of mediocre players that have gone backwards this year and have little or no improvement left. We’ve had a dreaded run with injuries and players below their best form, and yet he still doesn’t have the courage to back the youngsters in. We could've got a head start on 2008 if he was prepared to gamble a little. I’m not suggesting we should be tanking for picks as that’s an unacceptable approach, but when it became clear this team wasn’t going to be a major threat in September we should have started to play a few youngsters. The hard call was made on Mattner and he was dropped. This wouldn’t have happened if he were playing in his correct position but regardless he was dropped but brought back the very next week. Shirley was dropped last week, and is rushed straight back in. Doughty has been dropped this week, and what are the chances he’ll come straight back in too? Neil Craig has made a few tough calls in recent weeks by dropping some experienced players, but instead of bringing up some youngsters he’s recalled the same trusted guys and when he has actually gone with the youth (Campbell) he shows no patience.

Neil Craig has done a very good job in his time coaching the AFC and that cannot be questioned, however this season he’s been below par.

 

[Damp Squarie]

I think it's an article written with the benefit of hindsight. The club finished one final short of a GF two years running. You cant blame us for thinking we were still a chance and recruiting accordingly. Particularly considering the age of our "guns". However I do think the article highlights the paradox thats been created by Craig's unexpected initial success and the fact that it probably distracted the AFC from ongoing list development and the promotion of new talent. Next year, with the likely retirements and delistings which will occur at the end of this season, will be Craig's biggest challenge and probably the best indication of his ability to be a head coach of a young raw team.

Excellent post! I couldnt have put it better.

 

[Stiffy_18]

and when he has actually gone with the youth (Campbell) he shows no patience.

This is absolute rubbish!

Since when does one example prove your claim. He has gone a number of times this year into games with youngsters and he shows patience. He showed a hell of a lot patience with van Berlo, and still does while he is in form slump. He has shown a lot of patience with Chris Knights who has at times looked like a rabbit in the flashlights, especially early in his career. He has shown a lot of patience with Douglas, Maric, Griffin, Vince etc.

Just because he drops a Norwood boy after his first game it doesn't mean that he doesn't show patience with youngsters. People have been calling for Crows to drop van Berlo a number of times this year, even on talk back radio but Craig has shown patience with him and has continued to back him in because he knows thats the only way the kid will get better. Same can be said for Douglas. Only last night you and a lot of others were bitching about him getting a game but Craig is being very patient here because his form at AFL level has been patchy at best.

Craig has shown a lot of patience with younger players over his time as the coach of the AFC and for you to call him out as inpatient with youngster is piss weak!

 

[Drummond]

This is absolute rubbish!

Since when does one example prove your claim. He has gone a number of times this year into games with youngsters and he shows patience. He showed a hell of a lot patience with van Berlo, and still does while he is in form slump. He has shown a lot of patience with Chris Knights who has at times looked like a rabbit in the flashlights, especially early in his career. He has shown a lot of patience with Douglas, Maric, Griffin, Vince etc.

Just because he drops a Norwood boy after his first game it doesn't mean that he doesn't show patience with youngsters. People have been calling for Crows to drop van Berlo a number of times this year, even on talk back radio but Craig has shown patience with him and has continued to back him in because he knows thats the only way the kid will get better. Same can be said for Douglas. Only last night you and a lot of others were bitching about him getting a game but Craig is being very patient here because his form at AFL level has been patchy at best.

Craig has shown a lot of patience with younger players over his time as the coach of the AFC and for you to call him out as inpatient with youngster is piss weak!

Oh so because some random caller on FiveAA wants van Berlo to be dropped Neil Craig should be given an award for not listening to his demand? Give me a break Stiffy, that’s some of your poorest work I’m afraid.

van Berlo has been a great contributor this year, just as he was last year, so why shouldn’t he be rewarded like he has been? If he wasn’t then there would be something drastically wrong.

Overall his development of the young players while he’s been in charge has been alright. He’s drafted some quality kids and some are regulars in our team, but the process of blooding the youngsters is happening far too slowly and if he showed as much faith in guys like Pfeiffer, Hinge, Meesen ect as some of the regulars in our 22 then we would be much better off than we currently are.

 

[vlbl]

This is a great article, but what i find most interesting and some what contradictory is that i can recall in 2004 when Craig took over as coach, and after his first win, the boundary rider went over to roo and asked him about what was craig's greatest assets and how he was different to ayres. What roo said was that craig was a "great teacher" and that he had the ability to teach the game much better to the younger crop then ayres. So re-calling that interview i'm somewhat baffled about this whole craig is not able to develop young players mainly because he was meant to be a "good teacher". Although rucci has a really good point i think last years last to picks were more to do with the long-term injuries to trent and biglands and not really due to the fact we don't think we can develop young players. Also if Knights hadn't played 10 games exactly before the start of the season i guarantee he would have won the NAB rising star award for 2007. I thinks theres more to it then just our inability to develop young players, it's more to do with our aging list which is making us stagnate.

Prime example is the Hawks and the Bombers, and i can remember Crawford saying the major improvement in he's form his year was due to all these young enthusiastic kids motivating him to play with he's heart again. And Lucas was quoted is saying the improvement in the Bombers season was due to player like jetta and davey giving them an extra boost of enthusiasm. I think the main problem with us is that the boys look to serious to me, this is in the sense that they have too much pressure to do this and that they when they come on to the park they don't seem that relaxed. I don't know if u guys have seen this but i get that feeling. I mean i saw collingwood play and they seem to play with more calmness and so do the cats and the eagles. Honestly when we're making some mistakes we look like carlton and not like a top side.

About our list management, if u look at our last 3 years draftees (Kinghts,Meesen, VB, Maric, Peffifer, Douglas, Vince, Seller, Tipper, Mackay, Campbell and Gill). Looking at those names we've got a fair few good talent going about. The only problem is that some of them when played are played out of position and thus jepordises their chances in looking good and making impressions i.e. Campbell and Douglas.

I mean there is a lot of room for though, but within the next 2-3years this list management can really be assessed accurately as we will have lost a lot of the older players.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Oh so because some random caller on FiveAA wants van Berlo to be dropped Neil Craig should be given an award for not listening to his demand? Give me a break Stiffy, that’s some of your poorest work I’m afraid.

van Berlo has been a great contributor this year, just as he was last year, so why shouldn’t he be rewarded like he has been? If he wasn’t then there would be something drastically wrong.

Overall his development of the young players while he’s been in charge has been alright. He’s drafted some quality kids and some are regulars in our team, but the process of blooding the youngsters is happening far too slowly and if he showed as much faith in guys like Pfeiffer, Hinge, Meesen ect as some of the regulars in our 22 then we would be much better off than we currently are.

Sorry Drummond, this is where you become a broken record, especially in respect to your last sentence. We don't and can't know if we would be better with those players in the side from the start of this year or even part of the year. It can only be purely guesswork on your behalf to make a statement like that.

 

[pjcrows]

Oh so because some random caller on FiveAA wants van Berlo to be dropped Neil Craig should be given an award for not listening to his demand? Give me a break Stiffy, that’s some of your poorest work I’m afraid.

van Berlo has been a great contributor this year, just as he was last year, so why shouldn’t he be rewarded like he has been? If he wasn’t then there would be something drastically wrong.

Overall his development of the young players while he’s been in charge has been alright. He’s drafted some quality kids and some are regulars in our team, but the process of blooding the youngsters is happening far too slowly and if he showed as much faith in guys like Pfeiffer, Hinge, Meesen ect as some of the regulars in our 22 then we would be much better off than we currently are.

I am actually at the point where I would've loved to see Meesen, Hinge, Pfieffer, Campbell and Gill all debut in the same week like you suggest to prove you so, so wrong.

 

[marvin]

Nuggets of truth linked together in piles of rubbish.

They will deflect attention on core issues by pointing to Adelaide's injury list. AFL premier West Coast also has had hefty injuries this season . . . and the Eagles also have developed a list to make sure injuries to do not derail the demanding chase for consecutive flags.

I'm pleased the Eagles have already won the 2007 flag. And that they haven't had a flat spot this season corresponding to injuries.

Craig's sudden transformation of Adelaide's on-field fortunes - from 12th in 2004 to minor premier in '05 - should not have been a surprise.

In hindsight. At the time, every man and his dog has us tabbed for a long stint in the wilderness.

Today, Craig has a list with older players than Ayres (18 aged 26 or older compared to 15). It has played in finals - as it did with Ayres. It has reached preliminary finals - as it did with Ayres. It has not made a grand final - as it failed to do with Ayres. And players such as Robert Shirley, Martin Mattner and Michael Doughty have shown no development in their games in the past year.

Yet Shirley, Mattner and Doughty are clearly, demonstrably better players in 2007 (even struggling for form as some of the may be) than they were in 2004. As are Stevens, Bock, Rutten, Reilly, Hentschel, McGregor, Hudson, Bassett, Thompson, and others beside.

Besides which, the fact is wrong. There are 16 players 26 or older on our list.

It's called Google, Mr. Rucci. Anyone can use it.

Two big questions must be asked. Why has Adelaide sent so much time and money on "innovations" - that have led to no significant on-field advantage - rather than critical player development?

A fair question.

Alan Stewart was raided from Alberton for this purpose. That the Republic of Ireland has developed more Rising Star Nominations this century than the Crows is not an impressive statistic. No Adelaide draftee in the Craig era has earned a nomination as rookie of the year.

Oh, goody. The old "Rising Star Nominee" as a measure of success.

Every contributor on this board can quote in their sleep that fact that Johncock, Van Berlo, Knights et al were not nominees but David Gallagher was. This year, Jonathon Griffin and Ivan Maric has clearly outperformed Cameron Wood, but only one of them has been nominated.

Suddenly, there are e-mails falling into the wrong hands. At a time when Adelaide needs to rejuvenate its list there are questions as to why it used its last two picks in last year's draft for forward Nick Gill, 24, and midfielder Bryce Campbell, 22?

Because no-one else went for mature age recruits later in the draft. Aaron Edwards, Alwyn Davey, Matthew Ferguson, for example, and David Rodan were all passed over.

Apart from Westhoff, (and Clarke at Collingwood) there's not a player in the rest of the draft post Gill, the pre-season draft or the rookie list who would be a better fit for the club. Ergo, the picks of Gill and Campbell are quite defensible.

But why would Craig take this path? Is it an admission that Adelaide cannot develop teenagers . . . and so ready-made recruits are preferred?

Ummm....maybe because he knew we were going into 2007 2 big men short, and he wanted some cover rather than having Mal Michael snap James Sellar into little pieces?

 

[Smoooothy]

Sorry Drummond, this is where you become a broken record, especially in respect to your last sentence. We don't and can't know if we would be better with those players in the side from the start of this year or even part of the year. It can only be purely guesswork on your behalf to make a statement like that.

you gotta wonder that if campbell, pfiefer and meeson hadn't been minidrafted to norwood, wether or not drummond would be cracker boners about them every second??

 

[pjcrows]

you gotta wonder that if campbell, pfiefer and meeson hadn't been minidrafted to norwood, wether or not drummond would be cracker boners about them every second??