Roast Player development

[magpie_marty]

You have raised some great questions that really shine a light on our poor performance.

Whilst not a coaching appointment, I believe the role of Maxwell will go a long way towards fixing problem of players not being invested in a professional program.

Is this guy still there Jamie Cassidy-McNamara - Training and Skill Development Coordinator

 

[Gone Critical]

Not much for me to work with there to advance the topic, but I’ll try!

What is this suspicion based on? I’m going to speculate that you believe our younger players come on well enough v the rest of the competition, but once they reach the point of having “made it” for one reason or another they don’t take that next step. If that’s the case I think we can be better too.

I’ll use two players as examples:

Phillips has “made it”, IMO. Regardless of his “talent” if he doesn’t develop any further with his mix of traits he’ll still have a career that reaches the average length. What would you (or others) be focusing on to aid him in taking that next step in his development? For me it would be decision making because he takes an eternity to dispose of the ball or wheel and go when he’s in space (symptom). That isn’t talent related he’s in control of it and it’s likely that he’ll develop as a footballer if he plays with a bit more urgency ball in hand. It’s not a given of course that he can develop it, but if he doesn’t it only means he may struggle to take that next step, IMO. The second element are his running patterns (symptom). Man these are easy to lift with access to GPS. He’s not blessed with *speed or the smarts of Sidebottom so I think he’ll find it difficult to get in behind the zone and hit the scoreboard consistently. He’ll do it of course because his tank is elite, but I think he’ll be better, and by extension the team, served by him running more defensively (he does that to an ok level now more is always better). Again that’s not related to talent and I’ve identified two opportunities to improve in the course of writing this post.

Fasolo has also “made it”, IMO. He’s a 1-1.5 goal a game forward which in the modern game is solid. The problem is he hasn’t taken the next step in other areas of his game to elevate it to the next level commensurate with his talents. IMO, he’s definitely capable of Breust level output. What he hasn’t been able to do (and probably won’t now given his age and our system) is improve his tackling game to create repeat opportunities (symptom). His tackling dropped significantly in 2017 on his career and I have my doubts it’ll rise again. His positioning I50. How many front and centre opportunities did he create for himself last year? I remember 1 v Brisbane and if we’re comparing against the best he doesn’t get to those positions often enough (symptom). Work rate. I’ll put it on Fas here, he doesn’t work as hard or as smart as the best players, if he did he’d get to those areas ahead of his opponent more often and in so doing go to the next level (symptom).

Let’s treat the exercise as you wish in that it’s an impossibility to identify the trigger (I bet you liked that ), but right there I’ve highlighted 5 symptoms of *poor development in two individual footballers in the space of a post that’s taken 20 minutes to collate. We can all identify symptoms of poor development that aren’t related to “talent” because we all get access to game day footage and game day is almost nothing to do with talent. Now I’m not a motivational speaker, a leadership mentor or a skill acquisition coach, but because I’ve been able to identify what I perceive to be the issue what I can do is feed that data to a process manager who can work with the above *specialist to work on ways to implement those improvements. The aim is to see results sooner than 18 months in and that might be impossible, but the discussion should be around what we think can be done not so much what is (though that does need to be spoken on)... I’m thinking we won’t get Toyota level efficiency, but it can be developed.

Given your focus on it I’ll direct you to my post on talent in the top 8 prediction thread. Talent isn’t quantifiable and can’t be improved on. It’s not like Madden where you walk through the door with a TQ and it can rise or fall. It’s finite so doesn’t belong in discussions on future performance. I personally believe you are trying too hard to make our results fit your hypothesis on talent not the other way around. I understand you are very consumed by the worry about our talent, but that may be affecting the balance of your arguments when it comes to our future prospects

*speed, Phillips is quick v any of us, but by AFL standards he’s not.

*poor, it might be poor to me and others like me, but you might see it as inadequate or below average. Regardless of the term it needs improvement as the organisation does overall.

*specialist, this is used very very loosely because outside of Maxwell I don’t believe we have a single specialist working at the club in development roles. walterblacknwhite added value when mentioning Hawthorn and teachers. I’m not sure it makes them specialists, but it provides them with more skills than say Boyd or Lockyer have. Boyd would no doubt have the expertise for an operational role with his MBA, but in development he’s lacking expertise and experience. Fast learners can overcome those limitations, IMO, but I don’t think we had the luxury of employing people in development that have to learn on the job. BTW there’s another symptom of poor development from further up the food chain and an opportunity to improve.

Edit: this is of course only supposition and speculation. OBVIOUSLY we can’t identify and discuss perceived issues at the club so this is again only for the purpose of pontification.

I like your examples for Phillips and Fas. Good examples because both have got to a level but would clearly benefit from developing the weaknesses you describe. They are good discussion points for a thread like this. As you say it's supposition and speculation but there is some meat on the bones of the points you make. I would assume the development coaches and the rest of the coaching staff would be all over these issues and more. They would have put a lot of work into both players in all the areas you mention. The trick for them and the hard thing for us to know is how well do they put programs in place and get the players on board to improve. That will be what separates the good development teams from the rest.

As to the trigger I wasn't saying a trigger can't be found although I think it's unlikely as we lack the expertise and in house knowledge. What I was getting at was the trigger you thought you had found was based on some incorrect memories of yours and reading too much into what Bucks said so your trigger proved not to be what you hoped.

I liked your little flip of my post at the end there. Still I don't see myself as to wedded to the idea of me being right about our lack of talent on the list. It's how I see it but I can easily be wrong. If you think my convictions on our lack of top end talent are as strong as your concerns about the development of our list I would be surprised. I have no problem with your strong views on our development, you discuss it frequently and with passion. As I said I share your concerns but as not as convinced that it is as big an issue as you see. In the start of this thread I think you just went to far in reading things into the simple comments Bucks made about it taking Sier 18 months for the penny to drop. That didn't mean the development team were poor in the way you speculated.

That's all I got. Still Sco I have enjoyed this thread and I enjoy posting with you even if we don't see eye to eye that often. Bumping up against someone's views can often lead to better posting for the board. I try and not get sidetracked and derail anything.

 

[Gone Critical]

I think this story re: Sier originated from AFL.com, didn't it? From Q&A with Bucks?? AFL.com is pretty much your one-stop shop for vanilla journalism & unfortunately a big part of why sports journalism in this country is so

Which is why I prefer to shop at Big Footy

Yeah it was just a report on what Buckley said to supporters questions. There was no attempt at analysis. It serves it purpose. The real interest is what Bucks said and with seeing the article I wouldn't have got to know what he said.

 

[Gone Critical]

even more surprising that it took 18 months to have a 'chat' given that Sier's lack of exposure to professional systems was obvious to all when he was drafted

My guess is that there were several chats taking place over the 18 months, though the one Buckley is talking about probably involved an ultimatum.

The belief that Siers change in attitude related to a chat Buckley had to him at 18 months wasn't correct. Buckley didn't mention that at all just said the penny dropped for him at that time. Presumably it was related to all the things the coaches and club were using to direct him to a professional attitude combined with he was a young draftee who didn't do the intensive junior pathways so the AFL scene would have been very foreign to him when he arrived.

Some take time for the light bulb to go on. Swanny is the best recent example. Was very close to burning his career. If that had happened , no one , not even himself, would have known what he lost.

 

[jmac70]

I like your examples for Phillips and Fas. Good examples because both have got to a level but would clearly benefit from developing the weaknesses you describe. They are good discussion points for a thread like this. As you say it's supposition and speculation but there is some meat on the bones of the points you make. I would assume the development coaches and the rest of the coaching staff would be all over these issues and more. They would have put a lot of work into both players in all the areas you mention. The trick for them and the hard thing for us to know is how well do they put programs in place and get the players on board to improve. That will be what separates the good development teams from the rest.

As to the trigger I wasn't saying a trigger can't be found although I think it's unlikely as we lack the expertise and in house knowledge. What I was getting at was the trigger you thought you had found was based on some incorrect memories of yours and reading too much into what Bucks said so your trigger proved not to be what you hoped.

I liked your little flip of my post at the end there. Still I don't see myself as to wedded to the idea of me being right about our lack of talent on the list. It's how I see it but I can easily be wrong. If you think my convictions on our lack of top end talent are as strong as your concerns about the development of our list I would be surprised. I have no problem with your strong views on our development, you discuss it frequently and with passion. As I said I share your concerns but as not as convinced that it is as big an issue as you see. In the start of this thread I think you just went to far in reading things into the simple comments Bucks made about it taking Sier 18 months for the penny to drop. That didn't mean the development team were poor in the way you speculated.

That's all I got. Still Sco I have enjoyed this thread and I enjoy posting with you even if we don't see eye to eye that often. Bumping up against someone's views can often lead to better posting for the board. I try and not get sidetracked and derail anything.

It’s nice that you don’t get sidetracked

 

[Gone Critical]

It’s nice that you don’t get sidetracked

Wish that was true but I try

 

[Soups]

Wow what a difference.....

View attachment 458179

Wow that’s a lot of extra pressure on his hamstrings.

 

[PIrOed]

To further flesh out my view I suspect we can get better with development but have no real evidence to back that view.

However my view is there are bigger problems. Our biggest issue for mine is we are a bottom half of the ladder list talent wise. We lack top end class in particular and are unbalanced. Also as much as I love Bucks I don't rate him as a coach. I don't think his footy IQ stands up well compared to the top coaches. He sounds great to us punters but I see no innovation, no fresh thoughts, no great game plan tweaks or match day performances. He is up against the best of the best and I suspect we lack footy IQ right across the coaches box.

So overall we sit about where I would expect on the ladder as end of 2017. I would be very happy to be wrong on this but more than anything I doubt finals occur until we either pick up or develop within the club players become top end players. Part of that lies with the talent v development argument.

I wanted to reply to this yesterday but didn't find the time. First I don't believe there is any issue regarding Buckley's footy IQ. Your right he does sound great to us punters but even though he may be able to bullshit us he wouldn't have been able to pull one over on guys like Walsh, Eade or Balme. For me his weakness is strategy/tactics in general(which is what the points you highlighted suggest) which is seperate to his knowledge of the game. In other words he understands the game extremely well but lacks the skills to turn that knowledge into an effective game plan that his players can then execute on a consistent basis. If I was putting a personal development schedule together for him as a coach chess lessons would be at the top of the list.

As for talent I think the list is alright. It lacks top end talent but has a decent spread. With a suitable game plan the list as it stands could become an example of a champion team is better than a team of champions.

Bringing this all back to player development, young players seem to come on just fine but they don't take that next step often or quick enough. My best guess at why this occurs is that our senior coaching group, not the development coaches, are dropping the ball. We've all seen players like Wellingham who look good in a certain system but when taken out of it flounder. It is the job of the senior coaches to find suitable roles for the players at their disposal. To me the problem at Collingwood seems to be that there are few if any defined roles and if there are they are not adhered to when players move between the AFL and VFL sides.

The first example that comes to mind for me is that of Goodyear. He started his VFL career playing off the flanks and was essentially invisible until he was moved on ball and looked good, racking up big numbers as the in and under player who dished the ball out to others. His debut was against St Kilda with both Adams and Greenwood in the side. He didn't play on ball and predictably went missing(he shouldn't have been selected in the first place). His second and final game came against Port Adelaide this time with Adams out injured. I didn't see this game but my understanding is that Greenwood and Crisp played on the ball and Goodyear was left to play in the forward line where he again did bugger all. Although Adams was still not fit for the following game Goodyear was dropped. We've seen similiar issues with Blair, Aish and Broomhead to name a few.

My argument in a nutshell is that for most players to develop to their full potential they require a role that they can train for on the track and then in the VFL and when they get their opportunity at AFL level it should be in that same role. Hence when they get their senior opportunity they already know where they need to be and what they need to be doing as they have experience of actually doing it, all that remains is to just play.

At Buckley's Collingwood players often play one role at VFL level where they perform well to earn a senior opportunity, but when they get a senior game play a different role usually with the predictable outcome of looking lost. From the outside looking in this is my opinion on what is stunting the growth of the CFC playing list.

 

[Horaceg]

The belief that Siers change in attitude related to a chat Buckley had to him at 18 months wasn't correct. Buckley didn't mention that at all just said the penny dropped for him at that time. Presumably it was related to all the things the coaches and club were using to direct him to a professional attitude combined with he was a young draftee who didn't do the intensive junior pathways so the AFL scene would have been very foreign to him when he arrived.

Some take time for the light bulb to go on. Swanny is the best recent example. Was very close to burning his career. If that had happened , no one , not even himself, would have known what he lost.

A guy who had a go but didn’t really, no Swan, no premiership imho. They see something in Sier, can’t see it just being just his size and shape. I’m not convinced but convinced there are people around him who know more than I.

 

[Schraderbrau]

Gunston was always highly touted, went late 1st-early 2nd round in the draft from memory and was a player the Crows definitely didn't want to lose. He was rated their best young player from memory. Bruest is a better example with he and Suckling both being late/rookie picks.

Gunston was a brilliant piece of recruiting because he fitted in so well with the way Clarkson set the team up. If Gunston landed at Collingwood instead of Hawthorn he may have been delisted after a couple of seasons imo.

 

[Schraderbrau]

Some may argue Howe is a successful development story. Achievements at Collingwood far outweigh those at Melbourne.

Seems more likely Howes turn around came from within imo.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Seems more likely Howes turn around came from within imo.

Whatever floats your boat.

Totally your call if you choose to credit Clarkson for Gunston and give no credit to Buckley for Howe.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

There is an article in the Age this morning titled 'Ready to Buck trends'. It is basically an extension of a longer piece by Chris Pelchen in which he ranks teams' playing lists for 2018. What I found interesting, disturbing even, is that Collingwood now have the third oldest and equal third most experienced list in the AFL, yet the list is ranked number 10 by Pelchen. This doesn't suggest that the club has an effective player development program nor can we claim to be in a rebuilding period when our playing group is hardly a group of budding youngsters.

To read also that someone like Sier, considered by most supporters lucky to have been drafted at pick 32, has been criticised for poor attitude and approach is also of concern. A player of his ilk should have taken up the challenge to prove his worth, particularly given the series of injuries that have sidelined most of his early career. Citing Dane Swan as a player who saw the light and turned around his footy is inappropriate, because it insinuates that Sier could be another Swan, and there is nothing in his game that remotely suggests he will be a high achiever.

Until proven otherwise by an outstanding year in which we make the 8 and win at least one final, development of players at Collingwood can only be considered to be substandard. With the third oldest/most experienced list, we shouldn't be languishing in the bottom half of the ladder.

 

[Schraderbrau]

Totally your call if you choose to credit Clarkson for Gunston and give no credit to Buckley for Howe.

ty

 

[Schraderbrau]

There is an article in the Age this morning titled 'Ready to Buck trends'. It is basically an extension of a longer piece by Chris Pelchen in which he ranks teams' playing lists for 2018. What I found interesting, disturbing even, is that Collingwood now have the third oldest and equal third most experienced list in the AFL, yet the list is ranked number 10 by Pelchen. This doesn't suggest that the club has an effective player development program nor can we claim to be in a rebuilding period when our playing group is hardly a group of budding youngsters.

To read also that someone like Sier, considered by most supporters lucky to have been drafted at pick 32, has been criticised for poor attitude and approach is also of concern. A player of his ilk should have taken up the challenge to prove his worth, particularly given the series of injuries that have sidelined most of his early career. Citing Dane Swan as a player who saw the light and turned around his footy is inappropriate, because it insinuates that Sier could be another Swan, and there is nothing in his game that remotely suggests he will be a high achiever.

Until proven otherwise by an outstanding year in which we make the 8 and win at least one final, development of players at Collingwood can only be considered to be substandard. With the third oldest/most experienced list, we shouldn't be languishing in the bottom half of the ladder.

We have more than our fair share of average clogger players in the older age bracket that makes the team's average age stats a bit misleading imo. Probably bad list management that we have so many ordinary elderly players but not a big deal if the guys in the 20-25 bracket that we expect to come on do so.

 

[Bard]

We have more than our fair share of average clogger players in the older age bracket that makes the team's average age stats a bit misleading imo. Probably bad list management that we have so many ordinary elderly players but not a big deal if the guys in the 20-25 bracket that we expect to come on do so.

Nah we have the right amount of older players for a club in our position. You don’t want to make the same mistake as Melbourne and lose the wisdom of the older journeyman players too early. They’re as key to development of younger players as the development coaches as they provide the real inspiration and camaraderie.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Nah we have the right amount of older players for a club in our position. You don’t want to make the same mistake as Melbourne and lose the wisdom of the older journeyman players too early. They’re as key to development of younger players as the development coaches as they provide the real inspiration and camaraderie.

Chris Pelchen rates Melbourne's list at no 5 and let's not forget they did recruit quality in Jake Lever, whereas the best we could do in the trade period was Murray for pick 2 in next year's super draft. Maybe Melbourne could have benefited from a bit of experience at times last year, but they are in a better position than we are at the present time.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Interesting take on the age of the list.
I’d suggest we don’t seem to be a club that feels older.

I think looking at average ages all clubs look not that much discrepancy.

Of course like all stats the devil may be in the detail.
We have a couple of older types that can boost the age profile, straight away thinking Wells and Dunn boosts the average. Wells particularly so.

Add to the mix Pendlebury, Goldsack.

I think we do have, now, a group all trending in the same age group coming through together.

The real test is the performances to come.

I can’t myself go all bleak, I’m hopeful that we turn those few goal losses of last season to lots more wins.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Yes SV I wouldn't necessarily 'go all bleak' and actually nor does Pelchen who kind of suggest the list has the potential to perform above his rating due to the strength in the midfield (though weakness in defence). He does at least rate our list better than the Hawks or Blues. Time will tell.

 

[Schraderbrau]

Nah we have the right amount of older players for a club in our position. You don’t want to make the same mistake as Melbourne and lose the wisdom of the older journeyman players too early. They’re as key to development of younger players as the development coaches as they provide the real inspiration and camaraderie.

The point I was making is that if enough of the 20-25 age group develop to a satisfactory level then a significant portion of the older playing group will not be best 22. Of the 9 oldest players on the list only Pendlebury and maybe Wells are really important. The rest can be replaced and improved if we get enough out of the 20-25s in 2018.

 

[Bard]

The point I was making is that if enough of the 20-25 age group develop to a satisfactory level then a significant portion of the older playing group will not be best 22. Of the 9 oldest players on the list only Pendlebury and maybe Wells are really important. The rest can be replaced and improved if we get enough out of the 20-25s in 2018.

Yeah agree with that, and hope we see it happen.

 

[jackcass]

Gunston was a brilliant piece of recruiting because he fitted in so well with the way Clarkson set the team up. If Gunston landed at Collingwood instead of Hawthorn he may have been delisted after a couple of seasons imo.

Wasn't he stripped of a Best Young Player award at the Crows when he asked for a transfer? Would seem to suggest that he'd make it either way. Maybe the Crows deserve the development credit.

 

[jackcass]

I wanted to reply to this yesterday but didn't find the time. First I don't believe there is any issue regarding Buckley's footy IQ. Your right he does sound great to us punters but even though he may be able to bullshit us he wouldn't have been able to pull one over on guys like Walsh, Eade or Balme. For me his weakness is strategy/tactics in general(which is what the points you highlighted suggest) which is seperate to his knowledge of the game. In other words he understands the game extremely well but lacks the skills to turn that knowledge into an effective game plan that his players can then execute on a consistent basis. If I was putting a personal development schedule together for him as a coach chess lessons would be at the top of the list.

As for talent I think the list is alright. It lacks top end talent but has a decent spread. With a suitable game plan the list as it stands could become an example of a champion team is better than a team of champions.

Bringing this all back to player development, young players seem to come on just fine but they don't take that next step often or quick enough. My best guess at why this occurs is that our senior coaching group, not the development coaches, are dropping the ball. We've all seen players like Wellingham who look good in a certain system but when taken out of it flounder. It is the job of the senior coaches to find suitable roles for the players at their disposal. To me the problem at Collingwood seems to be that there are few if any defined roles and if there are they are not adhered to when players move between the AFL and VFL sides.

The first example that comes to mind for me is that of Goodyear. He started his VFL career playing off the flanks and was essentially invisible until he was moved on ball and looked good, racking up big numbers as the in and under player who dished the ball out to others. His debut was against St Kilda with both Adams and Greenwood in the side. He didn't play on ball and predictably went missing(he shouldn't have been selected in the first place). His second and final game came against Port Adelaide this time with Adams out injured. I didn't see this game but my understanding is that Greenwood and Crisp played on the ball and Goodyear was left to play in the forward line where he again did bugger all. Although Adams was still not fit for the following game Goodyear was dropped. We've seen similiar issues with Blair, Aish and Broomhead to name a few.

My argument in a nutshell is that for most players to develop to their full potential they require a role that they can train for on the track and then in the VFL and when they get their opportunity at AFL level it should be in that same role. Hence when they get their senior opportunity they already know where they need to be and what they need to be doing as they have experience of actually doing it, all that remains is to just play.

At Buckley's Collingwood players often play one role at VFL level where they perform well to earn a senior opportunity, but when they get a senior game play a different role usually with the predictable outcome of looking lost. From the outside looking in this is my opinion on what is stunting the growth of the CFC playing list.

Not too sure Goodyear is a good example. His opportunities at senior level were because we were so light on for fit alternatives and he was never going to push players like Adams or Crisp out of a midfield role. Later, when he started playing good consistent footy at VFL level opportunities didn't present.

 

[biggiemediums]

I wanted to reply to this yesterday but didn't find the time. First I don't believe there is any issue regarding Buckley's footy IQ. Your right he does sound great to us punters but even though he may be able to bullshit us he wouldn't have been able to pull one over on guys like Walsh, Eade or Balme. For me his weakness is strategy/tactics in general(which is what the points you highlighted suggest) which is seperate to his knowledge of the game. In other words he understands the game extremely well but lacks the skills to turn that knowledge into an effective game plan that his players can then execute on a consistent basis. If I was putting a personal development schedule together for him as a coach chess lessons would be at the top of the list.

As for talent I think the list is alright. It lacks top end talent but has a decent spread. With a suitable game plan the list as it stands could become an example of a champion team is better than a team of champions.

Bringing this all back to player development, young players seem to come on just fine but they don't take that next step often or quick enough. My best guess at why this occurs is that our senior coaching group, not the development coaches, are dropping the ball. We've all seen players like Wellingham who look good in a certain system but when taken out of it flounder. It is the job of the senior coaches to find suitable roles for the players at their disposal. To me the problem at Collingwood seems to be that there are few if any defined roles and if there are they are not adhered to when players move between the AFL and VFL sides.

The first example that comes to mind for me is that of Goodyear. He started his VFL career playing off the flanks and was essentially invisible until he was moved on ball and looked good, racking up big numbers as the in and under player who dished the ball out to others. His debut was against St Kilda with both Adams and Greenwood in the side. He didn't play on ball and predictably went missing(he shouldn't have been selected in the first place). His second and final game came against Port Adelaide this time with Adams out injured. I didn't see this game but my understanding is that Greenwood and Crisp played on the ball and Goodyear was left to play in the forward line where he again did bugger all. Although Adams was still not fit for the following game Goodyear was dropped. We've seen similiar issues with Blair, Aish and Broomhead to name a few.

My argument in a nutshell is that for most players to develop to their full potential they require a role that they can train for on the track and then in the VFL and when they get their opportunity at AFL level it should be in that same role. Hence when they get their senior opportunity they already know where they need to be and what they need to be doing as they have experience of actually doing it, all that remains is to just play.

At Buckley's Collingwood players often play one role at VFL level where they perform well to earn a senior opportunity, but when they get a senior game play a different role usually with the predictable outcome of looking lost. From the outside looking in this is my opinion on what is stunting the growth of the CFC playing list.

Couldn't agree more, especially, the bolded paragraphs. The amount of time I've had a rant about a VFL player being brought in just to play out of position, it makes me so god damn angry. What's the point? How many times have you seen an EPL goalkeeper coming into a senior squad and playing his first game as a Right Back, just to see how he fares? ****ing, never. Because it's absolutely pointless.

When De Goey gets put in the team and spends 90% of the time on a forward pocket, then you see someone like Blair or Greenwood in the midfield. How do the coaching staff not see how ridiculous that is? Too much emphasis on age, rather than work in the AFL. I think it's become something that subconsciously now impacts team selection too much.

 

[jackcass]

There is an article in the Age this morning titled 'Ready to Buck trends'. It is basically an extension of a longer piece by Chris Pelchen in which he ranks teams' playing lists for 2018. What I found interesting, disturbing even, is that Collingwood now have the third oldest and equal third most experienced list in the AFL, yet the list is ranked number 10 by Pelchen. This doesn't suggest that the club has an effective player development program nor can we claim to be in a rebuilding period when our playing group is hardly a group of budding youngsters.

To read also that someone like Sier, considered by most supporters lucky to have been drafted at pick 32, has been criticised for poor attitude and approach is also of concern. A player of his ilk should have taken up the challenge to prove his worth, particularly given the series of injuries that have sidelined most of his early career. Citing Dane Swan as a player who saw the light and turned around his footy is inappropriate, because it insinuates that Sier could be another Swan, and there is nothing in his game that remotely suggests he will be a high achiever.

Until proven otherwise by an outstanding year in which we make the 8 and win at least one final, development of players at Collingwood can only be considered to be substandard. With the third oldest/most experienced list, we shouldn't be languishing in the bottom half of the ladder.

Think the age profile will drop significantly at the end of this year with the departures of a few players like Blair and Mayne, and potential retirements of others like the Sack and Varcoe.