Rating Geelong's Player Development 2011 onwards

[Claude Balls]

As for the development of the players, every time I see discussion of that these days I recall what Luke Beveridge said: that they get their players to work very hard on their strengths. The impression I get these days is that the GFC does not adhere to that philosophy. There are several players who have been played consistently out of position, and generally speaking we know that Wells in particular has a penchant for versatile types (the 6'2" flanker type), as distinct from specialists who are particularly good at one thing.

If I were picking a team from scratch, I'd be picking specialists from the get go and wouldn't consider versatility until I got to about the 20th player. A team full of specialists in their correct positions will outperform a team with a significant quota of versatile players who don't dominate any one position.

 

[Spazz Cat]

Player development will actually get worse as we're going all out for a flag and with the top 11 teams being so even.
With nearly every game being so important it will be harder to take risks.
Young players actually need to play a run of AFL games in the position they're suited to develop properly, and need to have some poor performances overlooked a bit.
Lang was BOG for our team against the Pies as a mid. (His proper position), then was shoved back in a fwd pocket next game then dropped.
Smedts bought in for one game, played well then gone.
GHS ripper VFL form, bought in for one game then gone for the season.
People calling Kersten crap? He's played less than 50 games as a key forward.
I thought Kersten was really improving and adding value to the side then in and out then gone.
Mitch Brown played well for 2 games at the start of 14. Provided a real 2nd option to Hawkins, played 2 bad games the gone for the season. Was called crap and soft as butter. Has proven otherwise.
Our first pick in Hamling never even given one game, list goes on.

I am aware that Murdoch and Caddy got a very good run but just didn't seem to come on, just the way it goes sometimes.
I also think Gregson has been played in the right position. Also I think we've been developing Bews pretty well, sticking him to one position and teaching him to add to it.
They are good points but overall it's been pretty bad and is only going to get worse.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

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.

Yet again more bullshit. Of course the head coach has some say in recruiting it's just that the list manager Wells has the final say.

As for your insistence that some here make it so no one is blamed and it's all perfect, again more bullshit.



9:00 onwards discusses the functions of coaching, as they highlight there's far more delegation of tasks to assistants now than before, it's is made clear that senior coaches make decisions but also that lots of the developing is done by the assistant coaches. I think we have a problem in that area but whom it is that is the problem I do not know. It's been a problem for a while so it might be Knights, Lappin and/or Rahilly.

 

[catswhiskers]

..........................................

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.

This is on the money. I think we play a very mechanical, VERY SCRIPTED, game style. It benefits the key players but newbies find themselves having to stick to a script which may not suit their skillset best.

I was not a big fan of Kersten but he was was one example. We knew he couple kick long distances but time and again he refused to launch whether on the run or a set kick from 50. Why? Surely he should have played to his strength.

Murdoch has pace but we rarely see him take on opponents. Why? Being caught is as the same as being corralled and then giving off the ineffective hand pass.

Bews playing deep in defence plays conservatively (under instruction?) and then every so often drops a clanger under the pressure. He is an impact player. Good overhead, good evasives, good pace, fairly good kick on both feet. Let him play to his strengths.

Even in the VFL final we got spanked in the middle all day. Parsons was left out on the flank (where they think he is best suited?). He had put in some very good efforts when played on ball in lead up games and shown them (even if he had never told them) a preference for playing on ball. Let him use his strengths.

There are probably one or two more.

Beveridge (and McCartney?) like an unscripted game. Each and every player just has to get to the contest and do his best to win the pill and get it forward quickly. Unpredictable. Each player expected to USE his best weapons.

Maybe I am just out of sorts but I would like less scripting and more reactive "natural" footy next year.

 

[PhatBoy]

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.

I can't recall a single game this season, even the Port Adelaide scrap, in which anyone said 'well done coaches on getting them up for the challenge.'
Complete fallacy.

At what point does any onus fall on the players to improve?

Every time an elite player plays a great game or a cluster of games they get asked how they maintain their level, how they reach their level etc, as though it is their responsibility at least to some degree, to reach that statosphere of performance.

Why are the lower tier players exempt from the same questions, why is it purely down to other people to make them great?

When Australia suffers yet another humiliating defeat in the sub continent in the cricket, sure, the coaches cop it, but the resounding question is usually around why our guys are so hopeless against spin, and why they don't find a method to improve.

I don't see why footballers shouldn't be held to the same accountability.

 

[catswhiskers]

I can't recall a single game this season, even the Port Adelaide scrap, in which anyone said 'well done coaches on getting them up for the challenge.'
Complete fallacy.

At what point does any onus fall on the players to improve?

Every time an elite player plays a great game or a cluster of games they get asked how they maintain their level, how they reach their level etc, as though it is their responsibility at least to some degree, to reach that statosphere of performance.

Why are the lower tier players exempt from the same questions, why is it purely down to other people to make them great?

When Australia suffers yet another humiliating defeat in the sub continent in the cricket, sure, the coaches cop it, but the resounding question is usually around why our guys are so hopeless against spin, and why they don't find a method to improve.

I don't see why footballers shouldn't be held to the same accountability.

Yep each player has to take a lot of the responsibility. Agree - lots of responsibility (see Motlop).

But asking players to play out of position (nullifying some of their strengths) or limiting what decision options they have does not aid the player.
Being played out of position must happen at times, I understand that but at some stage promising kids must get a run of games in a position that suits them.

As an aside - they should play in the VFL in a position that suits them, not "practise" playing the position they just plugged in the ones. Bews was an example of this last bit. We would have a much better idea of his ability to play as a high half back if he had been played there in the reserves.

 

[hbk_aus]

I have already given my opinion in this subject a few times. Development is THE major issue at the club currently. Younger players haven't come on anywhere near as well as we would've hoped it expected.

Yes there can be extenuating circumstances for some but when it is a whole group who have stagnated, I believe that points to a bigger issue.

Allow me to be controversial for a second, but is it possible that our successful development program under Thompson, McCartney, Hinkley and co. made Stephen Wells and his team's work look a lot better than it actually was?

 

[Spazz Cat]

Yet again more bullshit. Of course the head coach has some say in recruiting it's just that the list manager Wells has the final say.

As for your insistence that some here make it so no one is blamed and it's all perfect, again more bullshit.



9:00 onwards discusses the functions of coaching, as they highlight there's far more delegation of tasks to assistants now than before, it's is made clear that senior coaches make decisions but also that lots of the developing is done by the assistant coaches. I think we have a problem in that area but whom it is that is the problem I do not know. It's been a problem for a while so it might be Knights, Lappin and/or Rahilly.

I here what you're saying but even though im not certain I would of thought the Snr coach would have the main or last say on who plays, also who plays in what position.
Gotta give players runs of senior games in their most suited position to develop them.

 

[Spazz Cat]

I can't recall a single game this season, even the Port Adelaide scrap, in which anyone said 'well done coaches on getting them up for the challenge.'
Complete fallacy.

At what point does any onus fall on the players to improve?

Every time an elite player plays a great game or a cluster of games they get asked how they maintain their level, how they reach their level etc, as though it is their responsibility at least to some degree, to reach that statosphere of performance.

Why are the lower tier players exempt from the same questions, why is it purely down to other people to make them great?

When Australia suffers yet another humiliating defeat in the sub continent in the cricket, sure, the coaches cop it, but the resounding question is usually around why our guys are so hopeless against spin, and why they don't find a method to improve.

I don't see why footballers shouldn't be held to the same accountability.

A problem is that CS has said many times that all AFL players give 100% every game and whoever thinks otherwise is wrong.
Not sure if he actually believes this but if he does it's a major problem.
Not dropping players after giving sub par efforts and not working defensively while also not rewarding players that are willing to give the effort also decreases motivation/ effort etc.
Off topic but I do kind of blame CA admin for poor sub continent performances.
Not every player has the luxury of going to India and playing for a year like Matty Hayden did.
When our pitches are designed for maximum boundaries/ runs our batsmen don't stand much of a chance over there.

 

[Willo_]

Allow me to be controversial for a second, but is it possible that our successful development program under Thompson, McCartney, Hinckley and co. made Stephen Wells and his team's work look a lot better than it actually was?

I don't think the blame can be pointed at one side or the other... posters here love to blame Scott, posters here are starting to love blaming Wells..

Surely it can't be pinned one way or the other.. people claim Wells is a myth, he isn't responsible for the development once drafted.. and Scott can't always be blamed if a player doesn't developed as expected.

 

[PhatBoy]

A problem is that CS has said many times that all AFL players give 100% every game and whoever thinks otherwise is wrong.
Not sure if he actually believes this but if he does it's a major problem.
Not dropping players after giving sub par efforts and not working defensively while also not rewarding players that are willing to give the effort also decreases motivation/ effort etc.
Off topic but I do kind of blame CA admin for poor sub continent performances.
Not every player has the luxury of going to India and playing for a year like Matty Hayden did.
When our pitches are designed for maximum boundaries/ runs our batsmen don't stand much of a chance over there.

I think CA could do more for them - ie. Stop churning out the most bland, pointless decks summer after summer that make average batsmen look like world beaters - but once upon a time you had to find your own method and base your game around it. Players still need to do it.

I kind of get what Scott means when he says players always try, but there is trying your best, and then there is ticking all the boxes - making yourself run when your body is telling you that it can't, paying attention to the opponent who is sneaking away from you etc

 

[PhatBoy]

Yep each player has to take a lot of the responsibility. Agree - lots of responsibility (see Motlop).

But asking players to play out of position (nullifying some of their strengths) or limiting what decision options they have does not aid the player.
Being played out of position must happen at times, I understand that but at some stage promising kids must get a run of games in a position that suits them.

As an aside - they should play in the VFL in a position that suits them, not "practise" playing the position they just plugged in the ones. Bews was an example of this last bit. We would have a much better idea of his ability to play as a high half back if he had been played there in the reserves.

All fair comments

 

[hbk_aus]

I don't think the blame can be pointed at one side or the other... posters here love to blame Scott, posters here are starting to love blaming Wells..

Surely it can't be pinned one way or the other.. people claim Wells is a myth, he isn't responsible for the development once drafted.. and Scott can't always be blamed if a player doesn't developed as expected.

Of course it is impossible to know either way definitively. But I think it is fair to say that we haven't seen the same success rate in our drafting during the Scott years as we saw during the previous regime.

Now as far as i know, we haven't had a huge uprooting of our recruiting staff/program/budget in that time. However we have had a complete turnover of our coaching staff, whether it be in development, assistants or head coach.

So I think it is a fair question to ask whether it is the lack of development which is now unmasking faults in our recruiting program. Well maybe not so strong as "faults", but certainly not deserving of the god-like status with which Wells and co. have been held in.

I will add that this isn't a blame game - in my eyes we aren't in the situation as a club where anybody needs any blame because we are still a very successful, competitive and respected club, no matter what some people on here might say. It is just raising questions on a potentially serious issue at the club going forward.

 

[Spazz Cat]

I think CA could do more for them - ie. Stop churning out the most bland, pointless decks summer after summer that make average batsmen look like world beaters - but once upon a time you had to find your own method and base your game around it. Players still need to do it.

I kind of get what Scott means when he says players always try, but there is trying your best, and then there is ticking all the boxes - making yourself run when your body is telling you that it can't, paying attention to the opponent who is sneaking away from you etc

Dunno saw an effort that Motlop did against Essendon that wasn't ticking any boxes.
I actually liked it the way it used to be, SCG for spin, Gabba swing, Adelaide flat, Wacca bounce etc.
Made test matches way more entertaining but I guess it's all 20/20 now

 

[Mr Meow]

I have already given my opinion in this subject a few times. Development is THE major issue at the club currently. Younger players haven't come on anywhere near as well as we would've hoped it expected.

Yes there can be extenuating circumstances for some but when it is a whole group who have stagnated, I believe that points to a bigger issue.

Allow me to be controversial for a second, but is it possible that our successful development program under Thompson, McCartney, Hinckley and co. made Stephen Wells and his team's work look a lot better than it actually was?

I'm definitely of this opinion. While not exactly anti-Scott, I am more appreciative of the Bomber-lead coaching staff from that period every day. Whoever comes after a club's great era will struggle by way of comparison, and creating "their" team while transitioning champions. See the Alex Ferguson -> David Moyes transition, and that one involved a code where the odds were supremely stacked in their favour to maintain dominance unlike Aussie rules. Even with superstar recruits, they're still in a bit of a no man's land two coaches later with their identity.

Nothing will start to look even close until we fall down near the bottom of the ladder and work our way up again, probably post-Selwood too. It will be the same for the Hawks after Clarko, although they dealt with similar after Jeans. Some dark days in between.

Essendon after Sheedy, Brisbane after Matthews etc. The difference was Bomber left while the club was still capable of challenging for premierships. The only one I've seen that's been well managed and the club stayed in contention while regenerating the list has been Sydney with Roos -> Longmire. That was a special case and if they had nabbed another flag from their last two GF's would look even better.

Personally, although it hasn't been done the traditional way, I am at least more content with the age profile of the list now. It was stuck in mostly old and young guys for a while. But again, it means we might just end up stuck in no man's land like Adelaide for a number of years for being loosely in contention without making a serious step up or down.

It will be more interesting to observe this next period than seeing how long our champions can hold our team on their back while declining (2012-2015), that much I'm sure of.

 

[rocker_oz33]

I don't think we have the right coaches in this development role.

Linc -should improve next year.
Lang -hopefully he takes astep forward.
Cocky - above.

 

[Willo_]

Of course it is impossible to know either way definitively. But I think it is fair to say that we haven't seen the same success rate in our drafting during the Scott years as we saw during the previous regime.

Now as far as i know, we haven't had a huge uprooting of our recruiting staff/program/budget in that time. However we have had a complete turnover of our coaching staff, whether it be in development, assistants or head coach.

So I think it is a fair question to ask whether it is the lack of development which is now unmasking faults in our recruiting program. Well maybe not so strong as "faults", but certainly not deserving of the god-like status with which Wells and co. have been held in.

I will add that this isn't a blame game - in my eyes we aren't in the situation as a club where anybody needs any blame because we are still a very successful, competitive and respected club, no matter what some people on here might say. It is just raising questions on a potentially serious issue at the club going forward.

I agree with everything you say, I was more making the point that it's hard to blame 1 side of it or the the other.

I do worry more about the development side that the players we have drafted fwiw

 

[hbk_aus]

I agree with everything you say, I was more making the point that it's hard to blame 1 side of it or the the other.

I do worry more about the development side that the players we have drafted fwiw

Sorry mate, s**t weather and the kids are driving me crazy so I had to vent.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

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?

I actually don't agree with these statements such as "they are bullet proof menegola and Menzel". That comment is almost trying to take away any credit to the development put into them.

It's a strange one to say... Where do people actually believe this club should be at given what we have had to work with.

No top end draft picks.
Having won 3 premierships between 07-11.

What was the expectation of the quality of kids people were expecting us to have?

We would be the first club in AFL history to do it if we could bounce back from a mega dynasty like that so quickly and grab another flag.

Also put this into perspective.

We have turned over 16 players since 2011. We came third with a list of 16 new faces in our 22... That can't be bad player development. For god sakes there are clubs who have top picks for years and can't even get into the 8. If Scott and co are bad developers then what are some of these clubs? You would need to find a minus number big enough to fit on this page.

 

[Willo_]

Sorry mate, s**t weather and the kids are driving me crazy so I had to vent.

All good.. I'm that tired I am not even sure if what I posted made sense

 

[you pick one]

Being able to play various positions these days is becoming mandatory, but would it make more sense to recognize a players strengths and weaknesses and play them in their best position for a couple of years until they become proficient, before trying them in other roles,seams to me we put the cart before the horse in grooming some young players and bugger them up.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I here what you're saying but even though im not certain I would of thought the Snr coach would have the main or last say on who plays, also who plays in what position.
Gotta give players runs of senior games in their most suited position to develop them.

No doubt. I also noted watching that the senior coach spends lots of time organising game plans and tactics. Where to be on offense and where to be on defensive transition. Positioning type work etc.

Now is that related to development, probably in some way and I agree with the idea raised above that we appear to be to robotic, I'd like to see players play on instinct more too. Dangerfield does it but not all of those underneath do, might be part of why they're stagnating.

 

[Partridge]

I don't think the blame can be pointed at one side or the other... posters here love to blame Scott, posters here are starting to love blaming Wells..

Surely it can't be pinned one way or the other.. people claim Wells is a myth, he isn't responsible for the development once drafted.. and Scott can't always be blamed if a player doesn't developed as expected.

It could easily be a combination. But people should stop pretending that Wells can perform magic every year with late picks. He can't.

 

[BUSTER29]

I don't think we have the right coaches in this development role.

Linc -should improve next year.
Lang -hopefully he takes astep forward.
Cocky - above.

A big part of that will be if they can remain injury free and are given enough opportunities.

 

[Seeds]

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

What exactly does the senior coach do? On this board he ain't responsible for recruiting, match day strategy and now player development. So what does he do.