Pets Delisted

[beaver fever]

I spoke to my "source" again today and questioned what happened and that i thought pettifer was getting delisted. He said he was on the list to be delisted the week leading up to the list being finalized, but was changed for gourdis as they think they will loose a lot of experience at the end of next year.

God damn. So Pettifer is being kept because he is old. What pathetic list management. Will this club ever learn?

 

[boodsyboy]

Finally I concour with the sausage

 

[_RT_]

Then what you are advocating is basically a finals window stretching policy. This will impact on the list negatively in the long-term and may help us to make the finals, but it won't sustain us there, nor help us to win a premiership. Therefore I absolutely disagree with your philosophy.

Actually what I'm advocating is we play finals ASAP and get finals experience into the kids, so that when we have a list that is ready for a genuine crack at the flag they're not going in with no finals experience at all. How that can be described as stretching a finals window is beyond me when we haven't played finals for the last 7 years.

No it is not. 6 senior list and 3 rookies cut. Bring in 5 ND picks, a PSD pick and 5 new rookies. Players like Pettifer and Polak offer us absolutely nothing next year and not only that, they haven't even solidified a spot in the 22. 7 years Polak, 8 years Pettifer, sheesh how long will we give this perennial mediocre players? Time to move them on and see if some kids can make it. Only through this process will the list eventually have enough talent to push for the premiership.

We're entering the draft with picks 8, 26, 58 & 74 as it stands. If we were to cut both Polak and Pettifer we would gain picks 90 & 106. Don't tell me you expect the players we would pick up with these picks will be good enough to become premiership players. Because odds are they wouldn't even play a game before being delisted. How is that building a list that is going to win a premiership?

 

[_RT_]

Get rid of the non-tackling, selfiswh one trick pony!1

Can't stand is false attempts at chasing and tackling, then the baning of the fist into the ground when he missess the tackle like he cared in the first place!

bye-Bye baby

The way I understand it SR, Petts is on the same 12 month plan that Meyer was this year. Was injured, club does the right thing and keeps the injured player on while they recover and then see ya.

 

[beaver fever]

Actually what I'm advocating is we play finals ASAP and get finals experience into the kids, so that when we have a list that is ready for a genuine crack at the flag they're not going in with no finals experience at all. How that can be described as stretching a finals window is beyond me when we haven't played finals for the last 7 years.

"we should only add players to the list that improve on what is already there". That means not getting rid of fringe players because you want to keep depth, and bringing in more players to enhance that depth. Reading between the lines, and whether you understand the implications of what you said or not, that is window stretching if I have ever seen it. The list is good enough to make the finals, so it can be seen as being in a finals window. You expect to make finals next year, no?

You can turn over 6 players a year and not hurt your finals chances. Case in point, Bulldogs took 6 players in the ND last year. I don't see how getting rid of two fringe players like Pettifer and Polak would hurt our finals chances.

We're entering the draft with picks 8, 26, 58 & 74 as it stands. If we were to cut both Polak and Pettifer we would gain picks 90 & 106. Don't tell me you expect the players we would pick up with these picks will be good enough to become premiership players. Because odds are they wouldn't even play a game before being delisted. How is that building a list that is going to win a premiership?

Like I already pointed out to you, 40% of our list are players 4th round and higher. Polak and Pettifer have shown they are not up to it. Regardless Polak has suffered a career ending injury. Therefore by my reasoning those later picks have 100% more chance compared to those two, considering they really will not make it. Why persist with proven hacks? Give the kids a chance! For ****s sake, what you advocate is what the club has been doing for the last decade. It does not work. How much more failure do you need to see before you and the yes men realise this?

 

[NQTIGER]

Get rid of the non-tackling, selfiswh one trick pony!1

Can't stand is false attempts at chasing and tackling, then the baning of the fist into the ground when he missess the tackle like he cared in the first place!

bye-Bye baby

For once we agree.........and no mention of you know who........

 

[_RT_]

"we should only add players to the list that improve on what is already there". That means not getting rid of fringe players because you want to keep depth, and bringing in more players to enhance that depth. Reading between the lines, and whether you understand the implications of what you said or not, that is window stretching if I have ever seen it. The list is good enough to make the finals, so it can be seen as being in a finals window. You expect to make finals next year, no?

You can turn over 6 players a year and not hurt your finals chances. Case in point, Bulldogs took 6 players in the ND last year. I don't see how getting rid of two fringe players like Pettifer and Polak would hurt our finals chances.

What I meant by that line is for us to improve we need to bring in players who are better than the ones we'll be letting go. Case in point, Meyer was a first round pick with heaps of potential but his body failed him. We've now cut him and will replace him with a better player at pick 8 this year. Casserly was a pick around 40 3 years ago whose body also failed him. Again we've cut him and should get a better player with 26. Thomson was seen as a better choice than the kid we may have got with 42 so we traded that pick away. Regardless of personal opinion Pettifer is a player with 100 games to his name and over 100 goals. If we cut him now we're effectively hoping that pick 90 will be a better player than he is currently. If you were to go through the draft over the last 10-15 years you'd be lucky to find 5 players who were taken in the 6th round of the draft who played more than 50 games.

We've cut 5 players this off season, next year we have to cut a minimum of 3, suffice to say Pettifer would probably be a leading candidate even at this point in time to be on that list next year. Polak too, add another couple of players who fail to cut it and replace them with another couple of talented kids in the first couple of rounds, take a couple of project players with round 3, 4 & 5. Turn over the rookie list and once more you bring in 7-10 fresh faces to the club.

We don't have to cut 6+ from the senior list to turn over the talent, if we're cutting 4-5 and 3+ rookies we'll be bringing in at least 7 youngsters every year.

BTW how can it be window stretching if the window hasn't even been opened yet?

Like I already pointed out to you, 40% of our list are players 4th round and higher. Polak and Pettifer have shown they are not up to it. Regardless Polak has suffered a career ending injury. Therefore by my reasoning those later picks have 100% more chance compared to those two, considering they really will not make it. Why persist with proven hacks? Give the kids a chance! For ****s sake, what you advocate is what the club has been doing for the last decade. It does not work. How much more failure do you need to see before you and the yes men realise this?

As I understand it, Pettifer is being kept on because of a cluase in the EBA that states we have to pay Pettifer while he recovers from the injury. Even if we were to delist him the money would still be counted towards our TPP. Polak was contracted for next year so the same applies to him. Even if we were to delist him his contract would count on our TPP meaning we would most likely wouldn't even be able to utilise the extra picks cutting them would bring.

What I heard is the club will place both on the LTI at the start of the season, allowing us to play 2 rookies. Effectively giving us the use of the picks without having to suffer the cost of paying them. Then, when delistments are made next year, these 2 along with perhaps 1-3 of the 30+ brigade will be 'retired'.

Wallace has shown that if the older players aren't pulling their weight they will be playing at Coburg, happened with Tivendale, Pettifer, Bowden & Hyde who all were dropped last year when they weren't performing well enough. Their spots were given to kids. Year before Gaspar was seen as past it and his spot was given to Thursfield, AK was cut because he was seen as past his used by date.

The fact of the matter is, no matter how much you would like to do it, we can't cut all the hacks in one go. What we can do though is make a call on which ones we think can still give us something and which ones can't. Then you cut those that can't and let those that survive know their on their last legs. From what I've heard we've done exactly that.

 

[beaver fever]

If we cut him now we're effectively hoping that pick 90 will be a better player than he is currently. If you were to go through the draft over the last 10-15 years you'd be lucky to find 5 players who were taken in the 6th round of the draft who played more than 50 games.

Eh, I'm sure you must have a good reason for your brain melt and forgetting the numerous players that had good careers coming onto lists in the rookie draft. Guess what. 6th round is higher than a rookie pick. So to suggest that a 6th rounder has virtually no chance of making it is folly. 6th rounders are obviously drawing the last straw, but it would give us a chance to get the best rookie draft talent, before the rookie draft itself.

>>You can crap on about what we have done all you want, I know what we have done. I don't think it is enough. I have said why, no need to rehash the same stuff over again.

BTW how can it be window stretching if the window hasn't even been opened yet?

St.Kilda have been trying to keep their premiership window open for the last 5 years. Just because they haven't won a premiership, are you suggesting they never had a premiership window?

As I understand it, Pettifer is being kept on because of a cluase in the EBA that states we have to pay Pettifer while he recovers from the injury. Even if we were to delist him the money would still be counted towards our TPP. Polak was contracted for next year so the same applies to him. Even if we were to delist him his contract would count on our TPP meaning we would most likely wouldn't even be able to utilise the extra picks cutting them would bring.

I would like to see more evidence of that if you have it. It does not sound reasonable that a club has to keep a player simply because they are injured. It would be reasonable that they pay for their treatment sure, but why should that money count to the TPP?

Regarding Polak, the club could have done a ramanaskus, but it did not. I guess they think they are being smart and saving money by only having to pay for a rookie, instead of a national draft pick, but overall it will mean a less quality player.

The fact of the matter is, no matter how much you would like to do it, we can't cut all the hacks in one go. What we can do though is make a call on which ones we think can still give us something and which ones can't. Then you cut those that can't and let those that survive know their on their last legs. From what I've heard we've done exactly that.

Who said anything about cutting them in one go? 6 off the list every year. That is not unreasonable. Many other clubs, some even above us have cut more than we have. Polak and Pettifer can not offer us anything in my opinion, it is pathetic list management to think they can. They have had long enough to prove their worth, and they have been found seriously wanting. Time to make the call and bring on more kids.

 

[_RT_]

Eh, I'm sure you must have a good reason for your brain melt and forgetting the numerous players that had good careers coming onto lists in the rookie draft. Guess what. 6th round is higher than a rookie pick. So to suggest that a 6th rounder has virtually no chance of making it is folly. 6th rounders are obviously drawing the last straw, but it would give us a chance to get the best rookie draft talent, before the rookie draft itself.

In 2000 there were 60 players taken in the rookie draft, 12 managed to play more than 50 games at AFL level.
2001 59 rookies were taken, 10 have managed to play 50 or more games.
2002 58 rookies were taken, 12 have managed to play 50 or more games.
2003 57 rookies were taken, 8 have managed to play 50 or more and a couple of them were re rookies from previous years.
2004 51 rookies were taken, 5 have managed to play 50 or more games.

In those 5 years there were a total 285 rookies pick with 47 managing to play 50 or more games. At around a 17% success rate it is not what you would call a great strike rate, now is it. In the same period there were 29 players taken in the 6th round or later. From those 29 10 have played more than 50 games. I don't know about you but I wouldn't be giving 1 out of 3 a pass mark.

St.Kilda have been trying to keep their premiership window open for the last 5 years. Just because they haven't won a premiership, are you suggesting they never had a premiership window?

In 4 of those years the Saints were in the finals, meaning they had already opened their window, we haven't even opened ours so how can we be trying to stretch it.

I would like to see more evidence of that if you have it. It does not sound reasonable that a club has to keep a player simply because they are injured. It would be reasonable that they pay for their treatment sure, but why should that money count to the TPP?

Regarding Polak, the club could have done a ramanaskus, but it did not. I guess they think they are being smart and saving money by only having to pay for a rookie, instead of a national draft pick, but overall it will mean a less quality player.

Who said anything about cutting them in one go? 6 off the list every year. That is not unreasonable. Many other clubs, some even above us have cut more than we have. Polak and Pettifer can not offer us anything in my opinion, it is pathetic list management to think they can. They have had long enough to prove their worth, and they have been found seriously wanting. Time to make the call and bring on more kids.

I don't have any evidence regarding Pettifer, it is just what I have read from various places including here and other footballing sites, that is why I said as I understand it. Could be totally wrong, but from what I read, people seem to think it is like Workcover, your employer can't sack you because of an injury you suffered while doing your job. As such we can't cut Pettifer until such time as his injury is healed. That is why the club had offered him a 12 month contract on close to minimum wage. Apparently he rejected it and they are now at a stalemate.

With regards to Polak, I believe the club asked him to go onto the rookie list but it apparently meant he would lose his contract and would have to go onto a rookie contract. Last I heard the club had re-negotiated his contract where the money owed for this year would be spread over 2 years which would allow us to get the extra rookies. He would remain on the list this year and could be cut the following year. Again this is speculation fropm other sources so don't take it as gospel.

As I said in the last post with these 2 it practically gives us 2 delistings next year already and with the possibility of retirements from the over 30 brigade we could end up cutting the 6 you want. However this year it appears out list has been finalised and unless something happens regarding Pettifers new contract I doubt there will be any more changes.

I'll leave it at that because as you said it appears we're just rehashing the same stuff.

 

[beaver fever]

In 2000 there were 60 players taken in the rookie draft, 12 managed to play more than 50 games at AFL level.
2001 59 rookies were taken, 10 have managed to play 50 or more games.
2002 58 rookies were taken, 12 have managed to play 50 or more games.
2003 57 rookies were taken, 8 have managed to play 50 or more and a couple of them were re rookies from previous years.
2004 51 rookies were taken, 5 have managed to play 50 or more games.

In those 5 years there were a total 285 rookies pick with 47 managing to play 50 or more games. At around a 17% success rate it is not what you would call a great strike rate, now is it. In the same period there were 29 players taken in the 6th round or later. From those 29 10 have played more than 50 games. I don't know about you but I wouldn't be giving 1 out of 3 a pass mark.

17% success rate and a 34% success rate is shitloads better odds than the success rate of Pettifer or Polak. Sheesh. I appreciate the effort, but you did not disprove my point. I understand the success rate isn't high, but even in the national draft, more fail than succeed.

In 4 of those years the Saints were in the finals, meaning they had already opened their window, we haven't even opened ours so how can we be trying to stretch it.

Don't get a premiership window mixed up with a finals window. St.Kilda had a premiership window, they never won one, but they were a genuine premiership chance during those years. Richmond are a genuine finals chance, we haven't reached the finals, but we are a genuine finals chance next year.

 

[mitch richmond]

So Petts stays! We have depth in the forward line for the first time since 1995 when we had Naish, Daff, Richo, Edwards, Jurica, Benny and Rogers. Good to see!

 

[peterbuch74]

My mail still says that he goes... we'll have to wait and see now.

 

[beaver fever]

Come on Peter ol' buddy don't let me down.

 

[deliberate!!]

I've heard that Petts and Cass were both delisted, and then the club realised it had an extra spot on the list and only needed to delist one of them so they offered Cass a spot on the rookie list and he declined, so Petts got to stay

I heard the same Richo for PM..
Petts was gone, Cass to the Rookie,
Cass throws a wobbly and tells the club to stick it and Petts is back in.
Petts saved by the skin on his teeth.

Like who does Casserley think he is?

 

[sante]

Can't stand is false attempts at chasing and tackling, then the baning of the fist into the ground when he missess the tackle like he cared in the first place!

These are the posts I hate the most. What an absolute load of shit.

 

[CoggaRules]

These are the posts I hate the most. What an absolute load of shit.

these are the posts that suggest you dont watch what the **** happens out on the field fool. The sausage has it absol-****ing-lutely spot on.

 

[sante]

these are the posts that suggest you dont watch what the **** happens out on the field fool. The sausage has it absol-****ing-lutely spot on.

So when Pettifer plays for the club, he doesn't care whether we win or lose? Is that why he cried after Matty Knights' retired? Or after that win against Geelong a few years back, he couldn't hold back his excitement during his interview?

To say that a player doesn't care about what he does on the footy field is pathetic and even worse is that after one poster says it, a lot of other posters follow on from their lead and either agree, or start posting the same junk posts about the player, making the original statement seem true.

How would you like it if people came into your work and started accusing you of not caring whether you did a good or bad job?

 

[ize_]

I heard the same Richo for PM..
Petts was gone, Cass to the Rookie,
Cass throws a wobbly and tells the club to stick it and Petts is back in.
Petts saved by the skin on his teeth.

Like who does Casserley think he is?

I dunno who he thinks he is, but the explanations I can think of are -
1. He wanted to try his luck in the pre season draft. He would have no chance.
2. He's lost the passion to play
3. He wants to return to WA and play some form over there, maybe in the WAFL.
4. This rumour is false.
It doesn't quite add up to me, maybe I'm missing something. We were going to axe two players off the primary list, and put one on the rookie list. But he didn't want to, would just rather be axed. So we somehow only have to delist one, and Petts is saved? I don't get it, the rookie list is independent of the primary list. Having one less rookie doesn't entitle us to an extra player on the primary list.

 

[HobarTiger]

So when Pettifer plays for the club, he doesn't care whether we win or lose? Is that why he cried after Matty Knights' retired? Or after that win against Geelong a few years back, he couldn't hold back his excitement during his interview?

To say that a player doesn't care about what he does on the footy field is pathetic and even worse is that after one poster says it, a lot of other posters follow on from their lead and either agree, or start posting the same junk posts about the player, making the original statement seem true.

How would you like it if people came into your work and started accusing you of not caring whether you did a good or bad job?

Agree with you Sante.

Come on people...Don't confuse lack of talent with lack of desire. I'm no Petts fan but the bloke has shown he cares and I think plays with heart and for the jumper. He just doesn't tick all the talent and physical attribute boxes to be in our best 22 anymore, even before the injury.

 

[mitch richmond]

These are the posts I hate the most. What an absolute load of shit.

Agree!
He kicks nearly 100 goals in 3 years and it counts for nothing to some people. It's almost like he would've been better off not contributing at all because some people rave about Meyer or Collins when unfortunately they never even take the field!

 

[astro_toby]

Agree!
He kicks nearly 100 goals in 3 years and it counts for nothing to some people. It's almost like he would've been better off not contributing at all because some people rave about Meyer or Collins when unfortunately they never even take the field!

agree sort of - but lets be fair here - petts had showed absolutely **** ALL when he was collins and meyers current age. Petts took an insanely long time to develop in what is a pretty undemanding position

(and i am a petts fan)

 

[mitch richmond]

After 4 seasons
Pettifer 37 games & 24 goals
Meyer 17 games & 7 goals
You are right he hadn't done much but we know he can cut it. Morton and Brown get injured and Pettifer can come in when he's well. Meyer was never well.

 

[richoatthedisco]

So Pettifer's dodged two bullets. Will he dodge a third? I hope not. I'm with beaver on this. He is uncontracted so I fail to see why we would have to pay him, other than his medical bills. All those lauding his "100 goals in three seasons" effort, remember Mitch Morton took his spot and kicked 35 in 17 games at 21y/o. That's three fewer than Petts' best ever return, which was from a 22 game season. It's more goals in his first season with us than Pettifer kicked in his first four seasons combined.
To retain Pettifer ahead of Gourdis is ridiculous. Pettifer has been overtaken; Gourdis could have possibly filled a gaping hole in our side.
If we do delist Petts our ND picks will be 8, 26, 58, 70 (not 74, because a few clubs won't be picking that deep) and around 80. Let's not forget Tucky and Raines were drafted in the 70s.

 

[mitch richmond]

All those lauding his "100 goals in three seasons" effort, remember Mitch Morton took his spot and kicked 35 in 17 games at 21y/o. That's three fewer than Petts' best ever return, which was from a 22 game season. It's more goals in his first season with us than Pettifer kicked in his first four seasons combined.

Yeah he kicked 37 goals last year but get rid of him. Who needs 37 goals? Who needs depth? A few injuries in our forward line and we'll just turn to Clayton Collard. She'll be right!
Or maybe we can chuck that skinny 17 year old VCE student we get at pick 80 on to the flank to play on Max Rooke.

 

[PHX]

Clayton Collard has been delisted. I suggest to stop looking at Petts all day and look at the entire team news.