Player Development

[yodellinhank]

I was born at a great time to be a bomber fan. Growing up I only ever knew our team to be a success. I used to scoff at equalisation measures. I believed we drafted better, and we developed better. Hence we could stay successful.. 80s, 90s early 00s.

Once we fell, I bought into the idea of equalisation. The system brings you down, it'll bring you back up.

While cat fans trotted out my old arguments, I could see how their super side was built while we were trying to fill holes (originally justifiably IMO) and hold a side together.

Unlike many, I didn't jump solely on blaming drafting for our problems, I believe errors are commonplace in drafting and comparative picks wouldn't have drastically averted the fact a team with few picks in a super draft would struggle after trying to rebuild in shallow drafts.

I could see our super core being built and believed it was only a matter of time before it was added to create the next dominant Essendon team.

I would think most essendon fans agree we have drafted fairly well in recent times.

I bought in to the idea we could be a contender this season or the next, to find us almost a quarter of the way through the season and hoping finals aren't out of the question. As the next generation of cats march on...

It got me thinking of my old beliefs, and wondering: Is our talent development up to scratch?

I keep going around in circles in my head. I think of players who have come good, players who disappointed. I'm yet to make my mind up how we're going, but I'm starting to believe in the old idea that it's how you develop talent that determines your success (even though my brain is telling me there is a myriad of factors that determine a teams performance).

So after that long winded prelude as a background to my train of thought, I'm asking:

A) Which players of the last decade do you believe are examples of good talent development?

B) Which players of the last decade do you believe are examples of poor talent development?

Are we any good?

 

[Loonerty]

For A, take your pick. Heath Hocking, Mark Baguley, Michael Hibberd, Tom Bellchambers, Kyle Hardingham, Ben Howlett, Stewart Crameri.

 

[yodellinhank]

For A, take your pick. Heath Hocking, Mark Baguley, Michael Hibberd, Tom Bellchambers, Kyle Hardingham, Ben Howlett, Stewart Crameri.

Agree with most of that. Hardingham the only one I'd leave out, hasn't progressed a great deal.
Might go on with it if he can lock down a role rather than be the guy who is good enough to step in and cover.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I think the easiest way to rationalise it is that we were atrocious, we're getting a hell of a lot better, but it takes a long time.

 

[rines]

I feel like we are getting more out of our later picks and rookie picks than our first rounders.. which seems backwards but I guess swings and roundabouts.

Definitely improving but we were starting from a long long long way back.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Was wondering this recently actually. Watching our players compared to other teams we're, for the most part, just not as skilled, not as fit and not as smart. It can't be purely who we draft so it got me wondering about our development and if it's up to scratch.

 

[Doss]

I feel like we are getting more out of our later picks and rookie picks than our first rounders.. which seems backwards but I guess swings and roundabouts.

Definitely improving but we were starting from a long long long way back.

Around a decade ago we had late picks (66) like Austin Lucy. Recently we've had Luke Davis (64) who, partly due to injury, was also a fail.

It's the rookies where we've really improved out of sight.

 

[Big Fresh]

I think the easiest way to rationalise it is that we were atrocious, we're getting a hell of a lot better, but it takes a long time.

Unless you're Port Adelaide.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I think they had the basis of an amazing midfield there all along, plus their big strength (which Hinkley keeps talking about; coaching to your list) was incredibly exploitable - fitness.

 

[lamaros]

Unless you're Port Adelaide.

Not really. Boak has always been good. Kornes has always been good. Hartlett was always promising, just injured. Likewise Trengove, etc.

The only ones where you can say 'hey!' are guys like Wines and Wingard - and in return I'll point at Heppell, etc.

Where we fell down, IMO, was working on players mental development. Though how much you can actually do there I don't know.

 

[Big Fresh]

Not really. Boak has always been good. Kornes has always been good. Hartlett was always promising, just injured. Likewise Trengove, etc.

The only ones where you can say 'hey!' are guys like Wines and Wingard - and in return I'll point at Heppell, etc.

Where we fell down, IMO, was working on players mental development. Though how much you can actually do there I don't know.

The point is they went from atrocious to really good, really quickly. I think last year the Essendon players looked to be pretty strong mentally - plenty of comeback wins and spirited efforts. This year they've been massive chokers: choked badly against Hawthorn (that should have been our win), dominated in the first quarter against St Kilda then stalled, and the same but to an extreme extent against Collingwood. It's definitely concerning how mentally weak they look this year. The ability is there but the results have been shocking.

 

[rines]

We matched and exceeded PA last year.. it is just that we have had a shocking start to the season... and Thompson has done the exact opposite of Hinkley and tried to coach to a 'plan' and not to the 'players'..

I think that both PA and us have very bright futures ahead... both have good lists stocked with young talent, KPP and a strong work ethic (see 2013 for examples).

I still feel the development of players like Heppell, Ashby, Zaka, Hurley, Hooker shows that we can produce outstanding footballers from within.. all in different ways..

 

[Kaiser Powser]

FFS, our list is in good shape. We have had a bad 3 weeks. We are currently in the inverse of the lid coming off prematurely.

All this Henny Penny stuff is getting out of control.

 

[rines]

FFS, our list is in good shape. We have had a bad 3 weeks. We are currently in the inverse of the lid coming off prematurely.

All this Henny Penny stuff is getting out of control.

I agree, I think our list is in good shape. Probably would benefit from the addition/development of one more key forward and replacements for Chappy and Winderlich.. but I think our defence is solid with good depth, our midfield is top line with good depth coming through... maybe need 1 more ruck man to cover injury but both TBell and Ryder are still relatively youngish and are good players..

List is coming together nicely.. just out of form.

 

[Kaiser Powser]

I agree, I think our list is in good shape. Probably would benefit from the addition/development of one more key forward and replacements for Chappy and Winderlich.. but I think our defence is solid with good depth, our midfield is top line with good depth coming through... maybe need 1 more ruck man to cover injury but both TBell and Ryder are still relatively youngish and are good players..

List is coming together nicely.. just out of form.

Exactly. We have comparably small issues to iron out. The problem is, our recent poor form has many putting a microscope on the slightest flaw and blowing it up to suggest we have somehow screwed up and missed our window.

We just need to get back on the winners list, so we can focus on the good things, not the bad again.

 

[lamaros]

The point is they went from atrocious to really good, really quickly. I think last year the Essendon players looked to be pretty strong mentally - plenty of comeback wins and spirited efforts. This year they've been massive chokers: choked badly against Hawthorn (that should have been our win), dominated in the first quarter against St Kilda then stalled, and the same but to an extreme extent against Collingwood. It's definitely concerning how mentally weak they look this year. The ability is there but the results have been shocking.

Not really. They are a decent side at the moment, but I'm not sure they're 'really good'. A win against Geelong is decent, but there is no evidence they are better than a large number of teams, like Essendon, Hawthorn, Collingwood, North, Fremantle, Geelong. At the moment as far as I would go is to say they are a top 8 side.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I would say they're playing the best football in the competition at the moment, even if they haven't beaten a real contender like Freo or Hawthorn yet.

See what I did there?

 

[eth-dog]

Our development is fine. Except for KPF's

 

[Zach Package]

our list turnover in the last 3-4 years has been pretty incredible for a side that's stayed pretty competitive throughout that period.

We've cut a hell of a lot of chaff and drafted very well, we're starting to reap those rewards now with Merrett and Gleeson becoming excellent contributors. Continuing down this path will hold us in very, very good stead for the future

 

[Azarity]

One issue of our player development, and maybe a hangover from the end of the Sheedy era, is that we always seem to hang onto a large number of project players / depth players, often for a couple of years too long. Even now, after we have culled our list in recent years, we still have a fair few players who have been on the list for a number of years and are yet to show anything to say they will be able to make the 22 in a premiership team. Talking about Obrien, Colyer, Steinberg, Dell, Kavanagh. Tall players can take time, but smaller players should be able to show something in their first couple of years. No need to hang onto players on who aren't already capable or have the potential to become best 22 in a premiership tilt. How Steinberg didn't play against Fremantle in his 4th year on our list is beyond me, especially when we needed another tall defender. Needs to be tested to see if he has something that is worth persisting with.

 

[Kaiser Powser]

One issue of our player development, and maybe a hangover from the end of the Sheedy era, is that we always seem to hang onto a large number of project players / depth players, often for a couple of years too long. Even now, after we have culled our list in recent years, we still have a fair few players who have been on the list for a number of years and are yet to show anything to say they will be able to make the 22 in a premiership team. Talking about Obrien, Colyer, Steinberg, Dell, Kavanagh. Tall players can take time, but smaller players should be able to show something in their first couple of years. No need to hang onto players on who aren't already capable or have the potential to become best 22 in a premiership tilt. How Steinberg didn't play against Fremantle in his 4th year on our list is beyond me, especially when we needed another tall defender. Needs to be tested to see if he has something that is worth persisting with.

Project players do take time. You can't just cull every player that doesn't perform after 2 years. You also need some depth in areas in case you have bad injuries to one particular area. But as you say, you also need to turn these players over to find fresh talent. The key is finding the sweet spot.

But in watered down drafts, I would rather give players a chance to reach their talent. There is nothing worse than pushing off a struggling player only for them to turn into a gun elsewhere. Imagine if Jobe was playing elsewhere ala Josh kennedy.

 

[Azarity]

Project players do take time. You can't just cull every player that doesn't perform after 2 years. You also need some depth in areas in case you have bad injuries to one particular area. But as you say, you also need to turn these players over to find fresh talent. The key is finding the sweet spot.

But in watered down drafts, I would rather give players a chance to reach their talent. There is nothing worse than pushing off a struggling player only for them to turn into a gun elsewhere. Imagine if Jobe was playing elsewhere ala Josh kennedy.

For every Jobe (I remember Josh Kennedy did show quite a fair bit early - but coulnd't break into the team given Hawthorn's depth at the time) I can raise you Dane Swan, Michael Barlow, Michael Hibberd, etc, who have been taken late in drafts or rookied and has gone on to be a very good player. Each year development is invested in a project player is another opportunity missed to try someone new. How many of these projects have come off, besides Jobe recently - Ted Richards would be one, but we let him go!

 

[Yoda_]

One issue of our player development, and maybe a hangover from the end of the Sheedy era, is that we always seem to hang onto a large number of project players / depth players, often for a couple of years too long. Even now, after we have culled our list in recent years, we still have a fair few players who have been on the list for a number of years and are yet to show anything to say they will be able to make the 22 in a premiership team. Talking about Obrien, Colyer, Steinberg, Dell, Kavanagh. Tall players can take time, but smaller players should be able to show something in their first couple of years. No need to hang onto players on who aren't already capable or have the potential to become best 22 in a premiership tilt. How Steinberg didn't play against Fremantle in his 4th year on our list is beyond me, especially when we needed another tall defender. Needs to be tested to see if he has something that is worth persisting with.

This was a reaction to our early 2000's drafting and trading where Sheedy thought he could grab another premiership by topping up with a raft of washed up old guys or mid tier fringe players.

For the record though, I agree with what your trying to say here that the young smalls should generally be showing something early. Recruiting 'depth' guys like Dell'Ollio should be cut as soon as not required which some would argue was last year.

One last thing, these draft sanctions some would argue have saved a few guys from the snip.
The age old saying "the devil you know is the better you don't" when it comes to recruiting late/rookie/speculative picks.

 

[carnthedons]

This was a reaction to our early 2000's drafting and trading where Sheedy thought he could grab another premiership by topping up with a raft of washed up old guys or mid tier fringe players.

For the record though, I agree with what your trying to say here that the young smalls should generally be showing something early. Recruiting 'depth' guys like Dell'Ollio should be cut as soon as not required which some would argue was last year.

One last thing, these draft sanctions some would argue have saved a few guys from the snip.
The age old saying "the devil you know is the better you don't" when it comes to recruiting late/rookie/speculative picks.

Is that the song by well known dyslexic Mylie Kinogue?

 

[Azarity]

This was a reaction to our early 2000's drafting and trading where Sheedy thought he could grab another premiership by topping up with a raft of washed up old guys or mid tier fringe players.

For the record though, I agree with what your trying to say here that the young smalls should generally be showing something early. Recruiting 'depth' guys like Dell'Ollio should be cut as soon as not required which some would argue was last year.

One last thing, these draft sanctions some would argue have saved a few guys from the snip.
The age old saying "the devil you know is the better you don't" when it comes to recruiting late/rookie/speculative picks.

Not sure I mentioned or implied 'old washed up' players. Agree with your devil you know concept though. I tend to take the other opinion though. You generally can have a good idea whether the devil you know is ever going to make it; however the devil you don't know - might just need a change of environment, more opportunity or just a change fulls top to flurish.