Ricky Dyson

Remove this Banner Ad

Nasty Penguin said:
To keep Dyson would have been a bandaid solution along with the others that were delisted. Top 4 was achievable this year, but an unforeseeable run of injuries happened and there was no consistency in the playing group. Reduce the injuries and we are a top 4 side every weekend (might sound biased but the addition of Goddard has a massive flow on effect and will only help out guys like Stanton, Zaharakis and Melksham).

The club is going for sustained success not just a couple of years then a rebuild and so on and so on. They've needed a big clean out for a while and it's obvious that the players that got delisted are viewed as having already reached their potential. No point putting the time effort and resources into someone that just isn't going to improve.
Click to expand...
No.
To keep everyone would've been a band-aid. Monfries, Prismall Lonergan and so on
To make 8 main list changes, but keep Ricky Dyson over pick ~80 says exactly the same as what they have done.
There's no statement in this, at all.
 
Pevers-Legend said:
Hawks routinely turf them if they do not perform and they are also a top 4 team who can pick some of them up as insurance. We are not.

I woudl also argue the Hawks improvement has not come form those players but from the younger ones Suckling, Breust, Smith stepping up. Most have been given generous runs in the firsts to establish themselves. They obviously have to perform, but they were provided those opportunities over those mentioned above.

Pies again are at the top. Buckley has struggled to get games in front of the younger ones (hasn't he been delisted or am I thinking of someone else?). Russell has a top2 BnF so he has talent. Young played in a GF. Both better footballers than Dyson
Click to expand...



I don't think you'll find a person in the country who will argue that Hawthorn recruited any of the players we are talking about for long term benefit of its list. I'm sure as hell that it never even came into consideration of its coaching staff. The Hawks were plugging holes in their list and adding to their depth to ensure that they could immediately replace the impact of first choice injured players when their youngsters could not fill the void. If you consider the need to plug these holes then Skipper holding his own in 2010 (or was it 2011) and Cheney doing the same did actually improved Hawthorn's list (because surely the onfield performance has to be included as a reflection of a list).

As you've said, it hasn't stopped the Hawks exposing their younger players to the big time enough to develop them quickly. You've also agreed that the depth players have generally struggled to get games other then when the relevant depth at the Hawks (and Collingwood) was tested. This a carbon copy of what Dyson did for us this year. There is absolutely no point at which it can sensibly be distinguished unless you want to say that he was more effective than the players on Hawthorn's or Collingwood's lists.

Hawthorn's and Collingwood's positions with respect to their first choice sides and the need to develop youth is not any different to ours. The difference is that their first choice sides are older and have runs on the board. I think this separation of issues needs to be kept in mind. It is not like they are top 4 and that as a result they have extra spots on their lists to waste.

It then seems to come back to a preference for the "devil you don't know" that is in fine form in the recruiting threads. If this isn't the case you're arguing that by having spots 40 - 44 (rookie inc) on their list being a revolving door of failed recycled players Hawthorn is in a better position than we have been in relying on the known solid player to get the job done. I'd say that that argument is just nonsense.
 
Pevers-Legend said:
So would I. But then we can't afford to only look short term which is why he was axed.
Click to expand...

In isolation I agree with you in general terms (we differ in our ratings of Dyson, but I agree that cutting mediocrity for kids is a good way to go), but my only concern is that we've cut too much of our short term depth. Lonergan, Dyson and Prismall, as well as Lee and Reimers is a lot of mid-range depth off the list in one go. If we replace them with Jacobs, Kommer and a DFA for instance, no issues whatsoever. If we replace them with mostly kids, then we're gambling a lot on the short term viability of Kavanagh, Davis, O'Brien etc.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Ben the Gooner said:
In isolation I agree with you in general terms (we differ in our ratings of Dyson, but I agree that cutting mediocrity for kids is a good way to go), but my only concern is that we've cut too much of our short term depth. Lonergan, Dyson and Prismall, as well as Lee and Reimers is a lot of mid-range depth off the list in one go. If we replace them with Jacobs, Kommer and a DFA for instance, no issues whatsoever. If we replace them with mostly kids, then we're gambling a lot on the short term viability of Kavanagh, Davis, O'Brien etc.
Click to expand...

If you believe what Thompson says. then we will be getting those 19-22 yr olds who have done the work and are ready to make an immediate impact. I think come Thursday a lot of this talk will be moot.
 
Don't think Dyson ever generated so much discussion when he was on the list.

It's like S.O.B. all over again.
 
Pevers-Legend said:
If you believe what Thompson says. then we will be getting those 19-22 yr olds who have done the work and are ready to make an immediate impact. I think come Thursday a lot of this talk will be moot.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not really passing judgement until Thursday comes by.
 
BrunoV said:
I don't think you'll find a person in the country who will argue that Hawthorn recruited any of the players we are talking about for long term benefit of its list. I'm sure as hell that it never even came into consideration of its coaching staff. The Hawks were plugging holes in their list and adding to their depth to ensure that they could immediately replace the impact of first choice injured players when their youngsters could not fill the void. If you consider the need to plug these holes then Skipper holding his own in 2010 (or was it 2011) and Cheney doing the same did actually improved Hawthorn's list (because surely the onfield performance has to be included as a reflection of a list).

As you've said, it hasn't stopped the Hawks exposing their younger players to the big time enough to develop them quickly. You've also agreed that the depth players have generally struggled to get games other then when the relevant depth at the Hawks (and Collingwood) was tested. This a carbon copy of what Dyson did for us this year. There is absolutely no point at which it can sensibly be distinguished unless you want to say that he was more effective than the players on Hawthorn's or Collingwood's lists.

Hawthorn's and Collingwood's positions with respect to their first choice sides and the need to develop youth is not any different to ours. The difference is that their first choice sides are older and have runs on the board. I think this separation of issues needs to be kept in mind. It is not like they are top 4 and that as a result they have extra spots on their lists to waste.

It then seems to come back to a preference for the "devil you don't know" that is in fine form in the recruiting threads. If this isn't the case you're arguing that by having spots 40 - 44 (rookie inc) on their list being a revolving door of failed recycled players Hawthorn is in a better position than we have been in relying on the known solid player to get the job done. I'd say that that argument is just nonsense.
Click to expand...

One simple difference. Hawthorn have several super stars at the peak of ther powers and are in their window.

We are not.
 
Slattery_20 said:
No.
To keep everyone would've been a band-aid. Monfries, Prismall Lonergan and so on
To make 8 main list changes, but keep Ricky Dyson over pick ~80 says exactly the same as what they have done.
There's no statement in this, at all.
Click to expand...

Never said they were making a statement. When the new coaching panel took over from the Knights period it was said they needed to assess the list and that no 'cleaning house' was going to happen as speculated. When a new coach is appointed there's that first year where they go whack and give the list a good chop. This didn't happen for the first two years as list assessment was still being done. Now that's happened and the initial list whack has followed.

Had 1 retirement(Spike), 1 trade(Monfries), 2 Rookie List delistings (Long, Lee) 7 Primary List (Ross, Reimers, Dyson, Lonergan, Prismall, Steinberg and Slattery) with Steinberg a possible rookie draft. I really see that as 2 years overdue but Hird and Bomber wanted to really assess the list and it's taken them 2 seasons to do it but it's the right choice as none of those players are in the top 25-28 on the primary list.

Thursday will give more insight into the possible reasons for the delistings but I'm happy with the changes being made.
 
Pevers-Legend said:
One simple difference. Hawthorn have several super stars at the peak of ther powers and are in their window.

We are not.
Click to expand...


Sure, it is a difference, a very significant difference, but it is of no importance to their list management decisions. They are not perfect (which their continued search for band aid solutions confirms that they are aware of) and cannot afford to throw away a spot on their list any more than we can.
 
Nasty Penguin said:
Never said they were making a statement.
Click to expand...
As in, one single list spot vs our 6th/7th draft pick isn't a "bandaid vs rebuild" situation.
(In fact, it's not likely to make any difference at all!)

When the new coaching panel took over from the Knights period it was said they needed to assess the list and that no 'cleaning house' was going to happen as speculated. When a new coach is appointed there's that first year where they go whack and give the list a good chop. This didn't happen for the first two years as list assessment was still being done. Now that's happened and the initial list whack has followed.
Click to expand...
They said they werent' going to make a lot of changes. Then, they actually did.
In 2010 they made 7 main list changes - that is a fair turnover. We had the 6th last pick in the main draft, the 3rd last in the PSD - so we were going as late as anyone was. Given we've already delisted 2 of those last 3 picks, I'll be interested to see how you argue we should've gone further & deeper?

2011 they didn't make many changes, just 4 I think.
 
Slattery_20 said:
As in, one single list spot vs our 6th/7th draft pick isn't a "bandaid vs rebuild" situation.
(In fact, it's not likely to make any difference at all!)


They said they werent' going to make a lot of changes. Then, they actually did.
In 2010 they made 7 6 main list changes - that is a fair turnover.

2011 they didn't make many changes, just 4 I think.
Click to expand...
You can throw numbers around all you like its the names and quality of the players that really matter. Let's see .... 2010 ... Jason Laycock, Michael Still, Bachar Houli, Jay Neagle, Jarod Atkinson and Tyson Slattery were cut from the primary list while Christian Bock and John Williams were both cut from the Rookie List. No real quality there

Slattery_20 said:
We had the 6th last pick in the main draft, the 3rd last in the PSD - so we were going as late as anyone was. Given we've already delisted 2 of those last 3 picks, I'll be interested to see how you argue we should've gone further & deeper?
Click to expand...
Not arguing about going further or deeper into a draft! I'd rather see the club pick a player that shows something that can be developed rather than persist with a player that just isn't going to get any better ie Dyson.

I know one thing and that's if next season s**t hits the fan there aren't going to be regrets about delisting Ricky ******* Dyson.
 
Nasty Penguin said:
You can throw numbers around all you like its the names and quality of the players that really matter. Let's see .... 2010 ... Jason Laycock, Michael Still, Bachar Houli, Jay Neagle, Jarod Atkinson and Tyson Slattery were cut from the primary list while Christian Bock and John Williams were both cut from the Rookie List. No real quality there
Click to expand...
Of course it's about the numbers.
Given we don't exactly have a list of stars to prune (2010 or 2012). Nor do we have a big group of older guys who we could push.
The only real variable is how many guys to cut.

9-10 (main list) is a sizeable rebuild, 3-4 is not many changes.

2012 we are doing a large number of changes, 2011 we didn't do many, 2010 we did a large number.

Not arguing about going further or deeper into a draft! I'd rather see the club pick a player that shows something that can be developed rather than persist with a player that just isn't going to get any better ie Dyson.
Click to expand...
We are - whether you realise it or not.
We're getting these players from somewhere. Having 6 list spots open (rather than 5, or 2) means we're taking 6 picks (rather than 5, or 2).


Just out of interest I reckon we'd be boofing ourselves if Steinberg/Ross/Browne etc were getting a (career high) possessions a game, in the top 6-7 for the club. Just me though.
 
Towno78 said:
I haven't commented on the argument at all. In reality I'm on the fence with this one. I wouldn't have kept him, particularly with all the other delistings, but I'm not losing sleep over it (do feel for the bloke though).

However, that comment he made, the one that I quoted, was extremely poor.
Click to expand...
that is a fair point but alot of what he is saying is pretty close to if not on the money.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Doss said:
It was in response to longdaveyjetta saying he is good, but not elite.

Dyson is hardly alone in that regard, because not many players are good enough to be considered elite.*


*everytime I use that word I hear Luke Darcy *shudder*
Click to expand...

Agree not many are elite..Having said that, anyone who makes an AFL list is generally an elite Junior or Local footballer.So credit to Ricky there, he was on an AFL list at the greatest club in the land, pity it didn't work out for him....In hindsight I should have said that i just can't see him being a part of our next premiership....He's nowhere near tough or tenacious enough for my liking...Guarantee no AFL club will touch him...Reimers is the one I would have kept, and I'm pretty sure he'll get another chance..
 
#### me....HE'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH...HE'S TOO OLD NOW TO HOLD ON TO 'JUST IN CASE' WE GET INJURIES...HE'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH...HE TAKES UP A SPOT OF A YOUNG PLAYER....HE'S TOO OLD TO HANG ON TO....he's just not (and never has been) good enough.....ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Just leave Ricky alone....he's gone.


Thank ####.
 
The Prosecutor said:
And yet, it was Mitch Morton who came in at the last moment and filled the hole made by McGlynn's injury.

It's all well and good to say Sydney rebuilt, but Sydney's strength is having players similar to Dyson who can come in and fill a hole when required.
Click to expand...

How is Mitch Morton and Dyson similar? One's an opportunist goal sneak, the other a midfield plodder who is dime a dozen.

Shocking comparison...let it go!
 
just_let_it_go......
 
wonder if Sheeds will throw Ricky a lifeline..?? Im pretty sure he was a big fan and played some part in his recruitment back in 2003 and then coached him for 4 years from 2004 - 07. Still only 27 and with 114 games to his name he wouldn't be a bad fit at GWS, and at least a few of his games in 2012 indicated he still has something to offer at AFL level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top