Rating Geelong's Player Development 2011 onwards

[RegHickeyStand]

Some pluses and minuses.

Get the feeling this emphasis on role playing has had a negative impact on a few players coming up. Chris Scott's comments when Smedts came into the seniors ringing in my head. He said that Smedts form had warranted senior selection, but the only position available was in the backline. I was in two minds over that comment. Team comes first. But also, we need to bring players on. Who can forget the disaster that was Hawkins in the ruck? Not only bought on injuries, but smashed his confidence. The way Kersten was played didn't help his cause.

There are some players that given the chance, are bullet proof. Menzel, Menagola - guys like that barely know how to play a bad game. But there are others, like Lang and Kersten (gone), that need to be bought on. Are we doing enough to improve those type of players?

 

[Pure_Ownage]

It is a fair question but it is hard to analyse as so many have had significant injuries and quantifying how much that affects development is hard. Mitch brown the shoulders and broken leg, menzel 4 acls as we know, cowan hamstring and achilles (vardy was injured) smedts was drafted with hip issues and then had shoulders and a broken leg. Thurlow acl, cockatoo still needs more pre seasons because of the broken foot in his draft year. Etc. The progress of someone like mccarthy this year indicates to me if most get a clear run at it they will develop well, it is not as if we are drafting spuds like reece conca the talent is there. Whether we should be picking up before these guys are drafted if they are susceptible to injuries or whether its just bad luck from the outside we dont have the data to know.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Are our assistant coaches good at developing young players?
That's the question I'd like to know.

 

[thegerman]

Are our assistant coaches good at developing young players?
That's the question I'd like to know.

And that's their job. The senior coach should be far removed from such a role

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Are our assistant coaches good at developing young players?
That's the question I'd like to know.

Everywhere Brendan McCartney goes, eh?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

And that's their job. The senior coach should be far removed from such a role

No doubt, the foxsports doco on the coaches last year confirmed as much.
More than one coach (ours included) that they don't take drills or skills sessions.

So if we have a problem of players stagnating or not going to that next level, injured players excluded, then clearly one or some of those assistants aren't doing as well as we need.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

No doubt, the foxsports doco on the coaches last year confirmed as much.
More than one coach (ours included) that they don't take drills or skills sessions.

So if we have a problem of players stagnating or not going to that next level, injured players excluded.

I thought we had a football department manager? So what does the coach do, I wonder.

One of the stories I heard about Bomber Thompson at Essendon was he was put to one side a bit by Hird and Neil Craig. One preseason they sent their stars to Arizona (it was all the go at the time) and Bomber said it was a waste of money. So Bomber has a group of players at home and he trains them up, and when the gun players come back from the US, they organize a scratch match. Bomber's squad gives them a thrashing. Bomber is even more on the outer now. lol

 

[Biggy_Boy]

And that's their job. The senior coach should be far removed from such a role

He's apparently far removed from every role. I don't know why he's even employed because he doesn't seem to be responsible for anything. The assistant coaches should be getting the big bucks if they're the ones who are held accountable for every aspect of the team's performance.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

It's a fair question and someone in the media posed it last week. Under Scott we haven't drafted or developed any top line performers.

One could argue both Motlop and Hawkins came of age under Scott but both haven't been consistent enough to be considered 'top line' players in the game.

All our champions were developed under Bomber.

Now it begs the question, are our development coaches the right people moving forward.

I'll give Scalett a tick for now, Kolodjashnij is coming along nicely but as for the rest...

 

[Partridge]

He's apparently far removed from every role. I don't know why he's even employed because he doesn't seem to be responsible for anything. The assistant coaches should be getting the big bucks if they're the ones who are held accountable for every aspect of the team's performance.

It's classic corporate spin. When the team does well, you don't have to wait long before hearing about how brilliant Scott is, how his coaching is superb. Now, after the combined clusterfecks of the Prelim and the trading period, it's back to "well he's not in charge of recruiting". The main thing is that no one is responsible, so no one can be blamed, and his acolytes on here (and seemingly the club) can continue to think everything is perfect.

 

[Partridge]

Get the feeling this emphasis on role playing has had a negative impact on a few players coming up. Chris Scott's comments when Smedts came into the seniors ringing in my head. He said that Smedts form had warranted senior selection, but the only position available was in the backline. I was in two minds over that comment. Team comes first. But also, we need to bring players on. Who can forget the disaster that was Hawkins in the ruck? Not only bought on injuries, but smashed his confidence. The way Kersten was played didn't help his cause.

There are some players that given the chance, are bullet proof. Menzel, Menagola - guys like that barely know how to play a bad game. But there are others, like Lang and Kersten (gone), that need to be bought on. Are we doing enough to improve those type of players?

Good post. I think the emphasis on role playing has had a major impact. Particularly on players such as Smedts and Murdoch. Interesting you mention Menegola and Menzel, they haven't been moved around. Menzel is purely a half forward and Menegola purely a midfielder.

We seem to have a gift for stripping the confidence from young players. They break into the team full of energy and enthusiasm, and in too many cases, become almost too scared to step outside their role (or take shots at goal). Hope that changes.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

We seem to have a gift for stripping the confidence from young players. They break into the team full of energy and enthusiasm, and in too many cases, become almost too scared to step outside their role (or take shots at goal). Hope that changes.

Cockatoo a perfect example.

His bursting runs simply ceased in his second year... He looked to get rid the ball almost straight away, almost afraid to take the game on this year.

 

[Partridge]

Cockatoo a perfect example.

His bursting runs simply ceased in his second year... He looked to get rid the ball almost straight away, almost afraid to take the game on this year.

He's learns quickly. We haven't even played him at the wrong end of the field.

Yet.

 

[PhatBoy]

It's a fair question and someone in the media posed it last week. Under Scott we haven't drafted or developed any top line performers.

One could argue both Motlop and Hawkins came of age under Scott but both haven't been consistent enough to be considered 'top line' players in the game.

All our champions were developed under Bomber.

Now it begs the question, are our development coaches the right people moving forward.

I'll give Scalett a tick for now, Kolodjashnij is coming along nicely but as for the rest...

Hawkins is on track to finish around the same mark as Riewoldt, Brown and Pavlich for goals kicked if he stays on the park


Saying he's not a top liner is a bit of a stretch

 

[PhatBoy]

It's classic corporate spin. When the team does well, you don't have to wait long before hearing about how brilliant Scott is, how his coaching is superb. Now, after the combined clusterfecks of the Prelim and the trading period, it's back to "well he's not in charge of recruiting". The main thing is that no one is responsible, so no one can be blamed, and his acolytes on here (and seemingly the club) can continue to think everything is perfect.

Hilarious how for people to think.Scott is doing a decent job, it has to be because of some faux brainwashed religious devotion.

As opposed to the idea of simple mathematics and the fact that no coach in the history of the sport with a record like his, has been so maligned.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Hawkins is on track to finish around the same mark as Riewoldt, Brown and Pavlich for goals kicked if he stays on the park


Saying he's not a top liner is a bit of a stretch

No doubting his talent in a system that doesn't give forwards the greatest opportunity but how often has he kicked big bags of goals?

 

[PhatBoy]

No doubting his talent in a system that doesn't give forwards the greatest opportunity but how often has he kicked big bags of goals?

Does he have to? In his storied career Riewoldt has only kicked more than 6 on seven occasions (and yes I know Hawkins has only done it once). His value has been in consistency in kicking 3-4, taking marks and providing a focal point. I don't see how Hawkins is any different, minus the sheer running power.

 

[Catsnlakers]

Fair question to ask..... No doubt blicavs has improved from when we first surprisingly picked him up..... But after that some of our guys improvement seemes to get capped.... Take murdoch for eg sliced hawthorn apart a couple of times a few years back, and has not improved one iota since.... The factors for this lie equally with the development coaches and senior coach..... Scottys legacy will be determined next year whether the guys like lang, gregson, cockatoo, horlin-smith, bews, ruggles etc improve their output..... Because thats the only way we will get where we want to be ( in a GF ) as a team.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

It's probably unfair to reduce all of the club's efforts down to one match - but the difference between the Cats and the Swans in the PF was stark.

Outside of our top few, so many players who should be approaching their prime just didn't even give a yelp. Motlop, Duncan, Guthrie, Caddy, Blicavs, even McCarthy, Stanley, Cowan, all disappointing.

While on the other side, just about every Swan played a contributing role. Papley, Jones, Naismith, Hewett, Rohan, Heeney all tore us up, some of these are 1st and 2nd year players with drastically less experience than the names on our list.

Can write some of this off to a bad game in general, but it's been shown time and again that these type of Cats just haven't taken the next step and time is running out. The stagnation for this span of our list is extremely worrying given the lack of picks will be biting hard in the next couple of years.

 

[catempire]

Judging how well a club develops talent would have to be one of the most difficult exercises a fan could attempt to undertake. So many factors both on the club and player side.

Club:

1. Availability of opportunities to draft best talent (i.e. if you consistently finish high up the ladder, you get few).
2. Recruitment staff ability to spot the right talent that is capable of being developed
3. Coaching staff ability to develop talent
4. Priorities of team - trade off in developing for the future versus winning now

#2 and #3 are virtually impossible to judge from the outside

Player:

1. Footballing ability
2. Drive, commitment, etc.
3. Injuries
4. Senior football opportunities

#2 virtually impossible to judge from the outside

 

[Spazz Cat]

I thought we had a football department manager? So what does the coach do, I wonder.

One of the stories I heard about Bomber Thompson at Essendon was he was put to one side a bit by Hird and Neil Craig. One preseason they sent their stars to Arizona (it was all the go at the time) and Bomber said it was a waste of money. So Bomber has a group of players at hoome and he trains them up, and when the gun players come back from the US, they organize a scratch match. Bomber's squad gives them a thrashing. Bomber is even more on the outer now. lol

Awesome. I can imagine when they were losing, Hird going to pick up the phone to call Bomber then realising he was coaching the other team.

 

[Spazz Cat]

It's classic corporate spin. When the team does well, you don't have to wait long before hearing about how brilliant Scott is, how his coaching is superb. Now, after the combined clusterfecks of the Prelim and the trading period, it's back to "well he's not in charge of recruiting". The main thing is that no one is responsible, so no one can be blamed, and his acolytes on here (and seemingly the club) can continue to think everything is perfect.

Exactly. Actually sounds like people are "shifting goalposts" to me.

 

[Claude Balls]

He's apparently far removed from every role. I don't know why he's even employed because he doesn't seem to be responsible for anything. The assistant coaches should be getting the big bucks if they're the ones who are held accountable for every aspect of the team's performance.

It's classic corporate spin. When the team does well, you don't have to wait long before hearing about how brilliant Scott is, how his coaching is superb. Now, after the combined clusterfecks of the Prelim and the trading period, it's back to "well he's not in charge of recruiting". The main thing is that no one is responsible, so no one can be blamed, and his acolytes on here (and seemingly the club) can continue to think everything is perfect.

The classic incarnation of this phenomenon is the one in which fans defend the coach for a perceived lack of motivation and intensity on the part of the players, claiming it is not up to the coach to inspire the players and that the players should in effect be self motivating. Then, when the players come out breathing fire one week, presumably of their own accord given what we are told about the role (or non-role) of the coach, those who are critical of Scott are lampooned, as if Scott was entirely responsible for the turnaround.

Another example of having it both ways is when we are told that it was a monumental achievement to make a prelim; that no one was expecting it and we should be grateful, not critical. Then, we are told that our list is better than the premiers! If, and I stress if, our list is indeed better than the Dog's, then it is a failure of the coaches that we were so unceremoniously ejected from the finals.

 

[Mr Meow]

No doubt, the foxsports doco on the coaches last year confirmed as much.
More than one coach (ours included) that they don't take drills or skills sessions.

So if we have a problem of players stagnating or not going to that next level, injured players excluded, then clearly one or some of those assistants aren't doing as well as we need.

Foot skills have been a problem for a while too. I'm sure someone could bring up a disposal efficiency stat to contradict me in light of last years safety first approach to ball movement. But it's evident we are unwilling or unable to execute those game breaking kicks on transition or hit up a hard lead.

Same could be said for slick handballing out of congestion, or handball chains that are actually damaging. We used to be the masters at this.

Some of this is game plan based, but I'm convinced we're below par at some of these basics.

 

[Mr Meow]

It's classic corporate spin. When the team does well, you don't have to wait long before hearing about how brilliant Scott is, how his coaching is superb. Now, after the combined clusterfecks of the Prelim and the trading period, it's back to "well he's not in charge of recruiting". The main thing is that no one is responsible, so no one can be blamed, and his acolytes on here (and seemingly the club) can continue to think everything is perfect.

And then the exact opposite is driven hard by a different group of people. Both one sided views can be equally amusing.