Preview No Changes vs Saints

[Elite Crow]

So? It was round 5.

So? You said he was established best 22 but was only playing his 2nd game when Tex got injured. Just for the record, by game 5 in 2012 he had played 3 games. So basically the only thing you've got to go on him being entrenched in best 22 is your opinion.

 

[Elite Crow]

But dmac is a gun on the rise. You'll be eating your words on this one soon. You'll enjoy it because you've been starving for about 4 years.

Ah sorry I can't distinguish between form and talent

 

[1970crow]

Not a bad post except, have you ever met a coach that doesn't try to win every game every week? Short of bing a complete basket case and being told to lose there are very few coaches that wouldn't pick the best team each week.

Sando was given an extra 2 years. If that's not an opportunity to rejuvenate/clear out the list then what is.

 

[Elite Crow]

Let's look at Lyons and CEY, since we're seeing history repeating. Both been here for years now. Neither are string bean talls that are long term project players. They are physically ready now.

One of two things should happen:
1) they get picked and play a string games
or 2) they play no games and get delisted at the end of the season

But we seem to prefer a no upside 3rd option.

Drip feed them a handful of games (maybe) but not enough for them to find their feet, settle in and improve. Then keep them on the list next season because they are "better than whoever we'd get at 75." Repeat the process, get nothing out of them, a few years later we replace them with pick 75 anyway.

You forgot to add, do so whilst you get games into average or out of form senior players whilst missing finals.

 

[1970crow]

Certainly Tambling played very well ...Callinan meh!

But we were lacking in those types of players on the list so really had no-one to replace them with like for like ....hence why we chased Betts and Polec

Polec ...i was very mad at the time ....i am worse now ......he should have been an Adelaide Crow !!!

The tambling one is mystifying. He was selected ahead of guys who could have played a similar role, played well and was delisted. He had a good game against the cats as well and was ok when sub, which is often a poisoned chalice if not used till late in the game. The difference between him and a couple of other guys, who he was selected ahead of, was 12 months of contract. Was it a send-off game?

 

[Wood_Duck]

Sando was given an extra 2 years. If that's not an opportunity to rejuvenate/clear out the list then what is.

Yes hes been blessed by the draft picks hes had available for his first 2 years in the job.

 

[Elite Crow]

Would we be playing Impey or Sam Gray?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Would we be playing Impey or Sam Gray?

We'd be playing Logan

 

[Mattrox]

If we didn't have injuries would we have? Besides he started sub and without Thommo going off he would have got a quarter.

But the argument has been in absolutes and in reality it isn't as clear cut.

If Power didn't have injuries S Grey wouldn't have got a game. If Brisbane didn't have injuries/suspension Robertson wouldn't have got a run. St Kilda had Steven out opening up opportunity in the midfield.

Freo has blooded no new players whereas Geelong has. There is no single formula for success.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Would we be playing Impey or Sam Gray?

The simple answer is No

 

[Elite Crow]

But the argument has been in absolutes and in reality it isn't as clear cut.

If Power didn't have injuries S Grey wouldn't have got a game. If Brisbane didn't have injuries/suspension Robertson wouldn't have got a run. St Kilda had Steven out opening up opportunity in the midfield.

Freo has blooded no new players whereas Geelong has. There is no single formula for success.

We've got injuries, would Sam Gray be playing? And Impey has played all year

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

We've got injuries, would Sam Gray be playing? And Impey has played all year

Let's not forget last year when Hinkley played Jonas straight off the bat

 

[The Karma Bus]

We'd be playing Logan

And Surjan, Matt Thomas etc..

 

[Vader]

Lol

I'm not going to turn this into a pissing contest, but ill just say that my own personal exposure is at a far higher level than "parklands footy".

The rest of your diatribe is exactly what I predicted.... a regurgitation of the very policies that have dropped us in the shit in the first place.

It's a philosophical issue - do we make hard choices based on reality, or do we play safe and remain mediocre. One could argue that the only audacious thing we've ever done since 1998 was Tippett. Whilst I don't actually mind what we tried to do there, the stupidity which we exhibited in trying to pull that off would have made every other half decent footy ops department laugh their arses off.

We are a conservative club, catering to a middle class conservative audience. Everything we do follows this theme... from administration to selection. We have been successful when we have been blessed with talent, but we have rarely made something from nothing. Meanwhile, clubs like Sydney, Hawthorn and Geelong have turned rough diamonds into premiership teams.

How have they done this? Honesty. All those clubs, at some stage in the last 10 years, have had a good hard look at themselves and made change. Roos instilled the Bloods culture and turned spuds like Nick Davis into matchwinners. Hawthorn installed genuine football people and a loud mouth but passionate president, and changed their recruiting strategy. Geelong (possibly our nearest relative) decided they wanted to throw away the handbags and start being a real football club.

The consistent theme is honesty leading to change.

You can throw all the examples up of why this guy or that guy should or shouldn't play, how this sanction or that factor inhibits our success, but until we are honest as a football club, and make a meaningful effort to be successful, nothing will change. Well have good years when we're lucky enough to have talent, and mediocre years in between. This club has never had a sustained level of strength - even in our premiership years we "stole" those flags.

Our current selection policies are an example of more of the same. Our governance structure will lead to more of the same. Well be that nice club who can play attractive footy at times, but rarely overcome adversity.

That's why I hate your view and that of those like you. Nothing good will come of maintaining current practices. Not. One. Thing.

I agree that our club is overly conservative and probably needs to have a culture change before they are to be successful again. Carl is very fond of dragging out the old cliche that the club is happy to aim for 4th or 5th best, given that we won our flags from those positions. It's an old cliche, but not without a degree of truth.

But that is at a much higher level. We're talking about the weekly selections and whether we should be playing raw kids like CEY before they are ready. I suggest you have a read of the SANFL reports from those who were at the game yesterday. I obviously didn't see the game, so I'm forced to go by the opinions of those who were. Opinions vary widely, but on some players there is a clear consensus. CEY is one of these - he lacks polish & pace, his disposal is sloppy. He's clearly not ready for AFL selection on those grounds.

I am all for playing the kids when the season is clearly gone. But that means the kids who are ready to play - and right now we have precious few of those. The Crouch brothers should both play every game for which they are available. The likes of Atkins, Siggins & co should continue to develop in the SANFL until they are ready, which they clearly are not right now.

 

[Mattrox]

We've got injuries, would Sam Gray be playing? And Impey has played all year

And Impey is not getting the ball. Is he developing?

 

[Vader]

What? We need to bottom out to be successful? Some posters and the club are on record as saying that losing Tippett for nothing and the draft penalties won't necessarily hurt us at all. What's the point of bottoming out if the club doesn't place a high value on draft picks.

That's part of the culture that needs changing. The reality is that we've been stuck in no-man's land for the better part of a decade now. Too good to qualify for those vital high draft picks, not good enough to be a serious premiership contender (since 2006). Yes, we got lucky when Dangerfield slipped through to #10 in the draft, but we can't rely on luck when it comes to obtaining A-grade talent. History has shown that there are only 2 ways of obtaining this talent - bottoming out, or striking gold with F/S players. Doing enough to keep our heads above water is just wasting everyone's time and prolonging the wait for our next premiership.

As for the Tiprat penalties.. I don't think that they are responsible for the pain we're going through. The pain from those missing draftees is likely to come in the next few years. However, given the cultural issues at the club, I don't think that the Tiprat penalties are going to be the difference between us winning the flag or not winning the flag. They will condemn us to a string of bottom 5 finishes, instead of middle-8 finishes. Probably a good thing in the long run, as it will take remove the mediocrity option from those available to our coach & board.

 

[1970crow]

But you said black & white .......not decisions have to be made

So who determines whether the decision made is good , bad, or fair ?

Vader does.

Seriously, the very simple point being made is that there are 18 selection panels in the comp and their views will vary on each player. Your view that club not playing them as being absolute proof of them not being ready is fairly simplistic. It implies that every one of these coaching groups, if faced with the exact same circumstances and players, would make the exact same decisions. That's a pretty idiotic view to have. Surely you understand that coaching groups, like playing lists, have varying levels of competence and strategic leanings. How we compare against others in the various aspects is definitely up for debate. You think the club has been great in the respect of developing players. Some disagree but we've certainly got the results on the board over the last decade or so to back your stance though.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Vader does.

Seriously, the very simple point being made is that there are 18 selection panels in the comp and their views will vary on each player. Your view that club not playing them as being absolute proof of them not being ready is fairly simplistic. It implies that every one of these coaching groups, if faced with the exact same circumstances and players, would make the exact same decisions. That's a pretty idiotic view to have. Surely you understand that coaching groups, like playing lists, have varying levels of competence and strategic leanings. How we compare against others in the various aspects is definitely up for debate. You think the club has been great in the respect of developing players. Some disagree but we've certainly got the results on the board over the last decade or so to back your stance though.

No that's not what i am saying ....what i said was the decisions are influenced by form, injuries, and where the club sees itself in rebuilding the team.

The Crows have done their rebuild !

The ideal situation is to have players spend a couple of years from U18's to AFL in the intermediate SANFL ......that is ALWAYS overridden by special talent and we've seen the club recognise that talent and get it into the team ASAP (brown, Laird, Crouch, Shaw)

My point is in that talent assessment where has the club been wrong

now the typical BF scenario is the Grigg example ......BF posters bang on about playing Grigg and criticizing the club, and when he was played late in the season bang on about their view being vindicated by how well he played.
WOW ...the issue is becuase he was ready round 17 DOES NOT mean in his development he was ready round one

I could bang on about playing Charlie now .....and when he finally gets a game in round 6 2015 say i was vindicated he should have played a season and a half earlier .....stupid

But we have posters who do that continuously!

 

[1970crow]

All fair points Waynesworld . But it also isn't absolute proof that he wasn't ready at round 1. Or that he may have been ready at round 12, while we gave a mediocre senior player another month on top of a poor 6 weeks in which to find form. We largely agree though, so on to game day.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Who have we played that in hindsight was obviously not ready and set them back?

 

[Vader]

Who have we played that in hindsight was obviously not ready and set them back?

Jarrhan Jacky? But that's going back a fair way.

Adelaide aren't major culprits in this area. Look at what's happened to Melbourne's kids though, if you want to see what can happen.

 

[Sanders]

.

The Crows have done their rebuild !

Never change

 

[Stripple]

Jarrhan Jacky? But that's going back a fair way.

Adelaide aren't major culprits in this area. Look at what's happened to Melbourne's kids though, if you want to see what can happen.

How bout Port? They played their kids when they were getting thumped week in week out. Few of them seem to be doing all right?

 

[amer]

I dunno... just because I spose. Why all the flowery gibberish when you get cornered? Just what we do to get by I guess.

play the ball. i'm asking you seriously - you've raised a good point, and then totally distorted it with this embellishment that just degrades a discussion which would've been interesting otherwise. anyone can see that grigg, shaw, kerridge, brown and jaensch have in no way known played too much sanfl footy. then there are several names tacked on who were delisted, picked up by other clubs or otherwise moved on, who saw similar fates at their new destinations. but you saw fit to tack them all on, make the list look nice and fat, make it seem like a crisis beyond crises.

except there is no hidden crisis - you're just being a dumbass. it's so god damned obvious to anyone and everyone to have followed the crows in recent years that our list development is sluggish. we don't quite move quickly enough, we don't take enough risks. this is not new. it is not observant. but it is interesting. it would be great to look at it with facts and reasoned inferences. can you just put the fat lists and tin foil hat away and stop being dumb. please.

 

[SydCrow]

those 22 changes we made sure paid off